February 26, 2020

A reader comment on my report of the violent death of Philip Haney listed numerous eyebrow-raising connections among Clinton/Obama cronies, media people, and powerful leftists. Many of these are known and have been documented, but there were a few curious ones we’d never heard before and decided to check out. Case in point: the one at the top of the list, a claim that Adam Schiff’s sister had married George Soros.

Actually, since George Soros is extremely old –- you’d have to saw him in half and count the rings to know for sure just how ancient –- the more plausible version of this claim is that Adam Schiff’s sister had married Soros’ SON. And, as it turns out, this version has made the rounds online as well. Is either of these stories true?

It’s tempting to believe this, because if Schiff had a Soros connection, it would explain a lot. While looking to see what might have been written about it, we encountered the question on a website called, which describes itself as “a non-partisan website where Internet users can quickly and easily get information about eRumors, fake news, disinformation, warnings, offers, requests for help, myths, hoaxes, virus warnings, and humorous or inspirational stories that are circulated by email.” Its mission is “to debunk propaganda, disinformation and misinformation, offer context and nuance to help you better understand where to look next, and trace the effects of so-called ‘fake news’ around the world so you can better understand how to tell the real from the false.”

A worthy goal, wouldn’t you say? As for the Schiff story, they note that George Soros’ son is indeed married to someone whose maiden name is Schiff, but, based on the 1992 wedding announcement, her parents have different given names from Adam Schiff’s parents. (Hard to imagine Adam Schiff having parents, isn't it?) Conclusion: different Schiff. It did occur to me that they don’t address the possibility that there is some more distant familial connection, such as a cousin. It would have been interesting to find that out, but since it wasn’t the exact rumor being addressed and would surely require a LOT of research that we honestly don’t have time for, we left it at that.

As you know, I’m all for sorting out and exposing fake news. But in its effort to do so, at least in this case, the self-described “non-partisan” Truth Or Fiction has actually helped perpetuate it. First, they offered their explanation as to why the false rumors about Schiff had started circulating: it was to discredit him “as congressional investigation into potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians heated up in February 2018.” Schiff, they said, had “authored a ‘rebuttal’ to a memo authored by U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes, a California Republican and chairman of the committee...Schiff’s oppositional role made him a natural target for conspiracy theories and fake news designed by some to erode his credibility.”

But what this “fact-checking” organization fails to mention is that Schiff’s “rebuttal,” not Nunes’ memo, is the one that has been debunked, as Schiff eroded his own credibility with his outrageous lying. In his memo, Schiff himself was offering conspiracy theories and fake news, and Truth Or Fiction, if their mission truly is debunking fake news, has missed a great opportunity to point that out. It’s Nunes’ memo that is correct. If Truth Or Fiction is there to provide “context and nuance,” they could have done that here.

They mentioned that Trump tweeted about the Nunes memo at the time that it “totally vindicates” him in the Russia investigation. What they didn’t say is that Trump was right about that.

To be scrupulously fair, we might give them a small benefit of the doubt, as follows: Since the date on this Q&A is February 6, 2018, it’s likely they misread what was going on in the Trump/Russia investigation at the time (perhaps because of...partisanship?) and didn’t realize SCHIFF was lying out the rear end to create fake news and that Nunes and Trump were presenting real news. Now that we know Schiff lied, and since the internet is forever, it would be nice to see Truth Or Fiction go back to this page and provide an update on their answer, rather than perpetuate the implication that Republicans needed to make up false rumors to discredit him. Just a footnote, perhaps, to provide “nuance.” Something. In the interest of real news, of course.

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!

Leave A Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!

Comments 1-5 of 5

  • Lenny Horton

    07/05/2020 08:31 PM

    You're being a little bit too kind and generous with the obviously slanted heavily leftist biased so-called fact-checkers! That is all the more reason to look into their reply more thoroughly because in fact Lying by omission and some instances-highly likely it means they're mostly lying about everything!

  • Steve Turman

    06/06/2020 03:01 PM

    Fake news is something the U.S. has to contend with, I don’t like it and appreciate anyone who makes an effort to tell it like it is or correct someone who posted something on your blog that was not correct. ??

  • Dean Phillips

    04/18/2020 06:19 AM

    The webs that are woven through Washington would baffle a spider. Your work is laudable keep it up.

  • Virginia Schaffer

    04/14/2020 08:02 PM

    I definitely see an extreme resemblance! lol

  • John

    02/26/2020 04:43 PM

    Good source