Yesterday, we reported new developments about Nancy Pelosi’s ‘Special Committee’ to make the case that Liz Cheney is “the new Adam Schiff.
I regret to inform you, however, that the old Adam Schiff is still practicing his usual dark magic in Congress to make lies seem true. Consider what he did Monday night during a meeting of the committee.
Remember when Schiff claimed to have proof of “collusion” between Trump and Russia to help Trump win in 2016? Remember when it turned out he had nothing? And how that's just one of his claims that have turned out to be lies? Well, he’s at it again. Monday night, he said he had proof that a member of Congress (whose name he didn't specify, but it was Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan) texted then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to tell him to instruct Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
As Sean Davis at The Federalist reported Wednesday, not only did Schiff twist “the substance of the message and its source,” but he also doctored original text messages. The Federalist provided for comparison the original, complete text messages and included the video of Schiff doing this.
In the video, Schiff puts up a text and reads it out loud: “On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all.”
“You can see why this is so critical to ask Mr. Meadows about,” Schiff says. But according to Davis, Schiff “erased significant portions of the text and added punctuation where there was none to give the impression that Jordan himself was tersely directing Meadows to give orders to Pence on how to handle the electoral vote certification.”
The original text, though, was not from Jordan, but from Washington attorney and former Department of Defense Inspector General Joseph Schmitz, who had also attached a four-page “discussion draft” of a document detailing Schmitz’s legal reasoning for suggesting Pence had the authority to object to certification in “a handful of states.” Not the same thing as what Schiff was claiming at all.
Schiff had sliced-and-diced a three-paragraph summary of the document that Schmitz had sent to Jordan and then wrongly attributed it to Jordan.
Specifically, the graphic quoted above was achieved by deleting the last part of the original first sentence, which would have read, “ --- in accordance with guidance from founding father Alexander Hamilton and judicial precedence.” One can see how Schiff might not have wanted that part of the sentence in there, so “poof!” the inconvenient phrase was gone.
There was more that Schiff had left out: Schmitz quoted Hamilton citing case law (Hubbard v. Lowe) and used that to support the argument that “an unconstitutionally appointed elector, like an unconstitutionally elected statute, is no elector at all.”
Schiff had erased the final two paragraphs and the final clause of the first paragraph before substituting his own punctuation to make it look as if that was all there was to the quote. Russell Dye, spokesman for Rep. Jordan, asked, “Is anyone surprised that Adam Schiff is again rifling through private text messages and cherry-picking information to fit his partisan narrative and sow misinformation?”
According to Davis’ sources, Schiff never approached Jordan to discuss the text message before taking it upon himself to change it. If he had, Jordan could have made it clear to him that he had just been passing along an attorney’s summarized legal argument. In fact, Jordan is known for NOT texting much more than “yes” or “no,” certainly not detailed legal arguments, so a text like this from him wouldn’t have been believable to people who knew him. Schiff didn’t care.
Significantly, one source said this: “...You have to remember what was going on at the time. People were sending around these law review articles and debates left and right because we had an interest in learning the facts and getting them right. And if it’s somehow seditious in this country to debate or share a law review article on Alexander Hamilton’s view on things, that’s not really a country I want to be a part of anymore.”
Davis’ report goes into Schiff’s long history of doctoring “evidence” and misrepresenting facts, and I highly recommend it. Laura Ingraham’s Wednesday show does this as well, with guest Mollie Hemingway, who also reviews what we’ve said about why the committee is not legitimate. Recall that Schiff has been caught in lies multiple times; one major example: denying he knew the identity of the mysterious impeachment “whistleblower,” who turned out to be a scammer named Eric Ciaramella who had contacted Schiff’s office before even submitting his bogus complaint.
If you have a premium subscription to The Epoch Times, check out this story by Jack Phillips, who reports that the committee has had to admit the doctoring, with a spokesperson claiming a period was placed at the end “inadvertently.” Right. “The Select Committee is responsible for and regrets the error,” they said dryly, after they got caught.
Of course, they still voted to hold Meadows in contempt of Congress, as planned all along.
Mark Levin, on Wednesday with Sean Hannity, suggested doing something about “this whining, unethical hack.” “Lawyers are not free to doctor evidence,” he said, noting that Schiff is trying with this to railroad (my word) Meadows into prison. It’s time to file a serious ethics complaint against Schiff, with the ethics arm of the Supreme Court of California, Levin said. A private citizen can do this, but he’s suggesting that Republicans in Congress do it. Agreed –- it’s time for Schiff to lose his law license.
Levin added, “If you want to see what the old Soviet Union was like,” look at this committee. Of course, we’ve been making that case, pointing out that they’ve violated virtually the entire Bill Of Rights, as well as the separation of powers. Also, Congress does not have the authority to conduct criminal investigations. No one should take seriously anything that comes out of this fake committee.
Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs tweeted, “Expect a lot more of this. Schiff and the contemptible Jan6 committee will twist and smear the narrative every chance they get.” And Rep. Dan Bishop sounded a lot like me when he tweeted, “Adam Schiff is the Jussie Smollett of Congress.”
By the way, about “the NEW Adam Schiff” (Liz Cheney; see yesterday’s commentary), she’s facing at least one impressive primary challenge in '22, by actual Republican Harriet Hageman. Calling all Republicans in Wyoming: One Adam Schiff is more than enough; we sure don’t need another one infesting Congress, especially on our side of the aisle. Here’s Harriet on the issues.