Yesterday, I remarked that Adam Schiff, for repeatedly and shamelessly lying and falsifying evidence to try to get political adversaries imprisoned, should be disbarred. (Others, notably Mark Levin, have agreed.) Of course, for that to happen, lawyers themselves would have to hold their profession to at least some level of ethical standards. Unsurprisingly, that's not happening.

Consider the case of Kevin Clinesmith, who, as you’ll recall, was convicted of doctoring evidence used in a FISA application for a surveillance warrant to spy on Trump campaign associate Carter Page. (By extension, the whole Trump campaign, even going back in time to before the warrant was issued, could have been surveilled.) With the click of a few keys, Clinesmith turned a document that said Page had previously worked with the CIA into one that said he had not. Clinesmith pleaded guilty in August of 2020 and was sentenced to 12 months’ probation in January.

You’d think the DC bar would have sought to pull his law license for something that egregious –- according to Paul Sperry at RealClear Investigations, this is customary –- but they did not. “Normally, the bar automatically suspends the license of members who plead guilty of a felony,” he reported. But they waited five long months to put Clinesmith, a registered Democrat who sent anti-Trump rants to his FBI colleagues, on even an interim suspension, taking action only after RCI exposed their delay. At that point, they temporarily suspended him “pending a review and a hearing.”

They even allowed him to negotiate his fate, which according to Sperry is quite unusual in a case involving a serious crime. Clinesmith had even broken the bar’s own rule by taking five months to report his guilty plea to them, when he was required to do this within 10 days.

In September, the court that oversees the bar and imposes sanctions decided to let Clinesmith off suspension with time served. The Democrat-controlled Board on Professional Responsibility –- I’ll pause while you fall to the floor laughing –- had rubber-stamped the very light sentence he had negotiated with Disciplinary Counsel Hamilton “Phil” Fox, a major Democrat donor. The board did this without even checking with Clinesmith’s probation officer to see if he had violated the terms of his sentence or if he’d completed his required 400 hours of community service.

In order to let Clinesmith off so lightly, Fox concluded that he'd had “no personal motive” in deceiving the court. (Never mind those vicious anti-Trump rants of his.) Fox also had to disregard key findings by Durham about Clinesmith’s intent to deceive the FISA court. Fox apparently just took Clinesmith’s word that he'd thought the change he’d made was accurate. Why, it was merely a “shortcut” to save time (!) and he’d had no intent to deceive FBI agents or the FISA court. Obviously, that is not what was found by Durham, who as evidence cited a revealing internal email between Clinesmith and the FBI agent preparing the application. Durham also cited as plausible motivating factors Clinesmith’s partisan political views and personal dislike of Trump.

Nevertheless, Clinesmith has been restored as an active member in good standing of the DC bar, presumably by others who were motivated by their own partisan political views and personal dislike of Trump.

Sperry did determine that Clinesmith had done some community service, volunteering at the nonprofit group Street Sense Media, but that he stopped last summer. It’s not known how many hours he completed. To give you an idea of what sort of organization Street Sense Media is, Clinesmith’s job was to help edit and research articles for their weekly newspaper, which has articles for the homeless about how to “sleep on the streets” and calls for prison reform and “a universal living wage.”

Sounds as though he was really in his element. Who says punishment can’t be fun? On the other hand, isn’t editing how Clinesmith got in trouble in the first place?

Another condition of his plea deal was that he cooperate with the FBI’s Inspection Division to determine if he was involved in any other surveillance abuses related to the FISA court. This would have involved turning over any relevant materials he had. If he failed to do this, he could be charged with perjury and/or obstruction. Bar officials did not bother to check on this before reinstating him.

U.S. District Judge Jeb Boasberg, a Democrat appointed by President Obama, is the judge who spared Clinesmith jail time in his plea agreement. Clinesmith served out his probation from home. Boasberg also decided that losing his FBI job and its $150,000 salary was enough, so he did not impose the $10,000 fine. Clinesmith’s passport was returned to him. He got to skip the periodic drug testing, too. “Best of luck to you,” the judge told him as they parted.

So, are we looking at a double standard of justice? For comparison, let’s look at Boasberg’s treatment of former Trump attorney and Republican Rudy Giuliani. Boasberg recently opened an official ethics investigation of Giuliani, whom he also put under “temporary disciplinary suspension” pending the outcome. (I wonder if the judge will wish Rudy the best of luck.) In July, Rudy was also placed on interim suspension from the New York Bar. He has not been charged with any crime, let alone convicted of one.

But even though Clinesmith has been lovingly re-embraced by the slightly sticky arms of his fellow DC lawyers, he might still be in deeper trouble with Special Counsel John Durham. According to Sperry, Durham’s mandate “is broader than commonly understood.” Yes, he’s examining the legal justification (or lack thereof) of the FBI’s “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation into supposed Trump-Russia “collusion.” But he’s also looking into their inquiry, such as it was, into Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal, non-secure email server to handle her official and classified State Department business, and also her destruction of over 30,000 subpoenaed emails from her tenure as Secretary of State. Clinesmith was deeply involved in that, too.

Durham is also said to be looking into the actions of Robert Mueller’s special counsel. As it happens, Clinesmith was also the liaison between Mueller’s office and the FBI. In fact, he was the only attorney from FBI headquarters assigned to Mueller. He was in the center of it all.

Durham had argued before Judge Boasberg that Clinesmith’s offense, creating a fake document as a false pretense to spy on an American citizen, was “a very serious crime with significant repercussions" and said it made him unfit to practice law. Apparently this made no dfference to the DC Bar. One of Sperry’s sources with direct knowledge of the case, a longstanding member of the DC Bar, said what we’re all thinking: “The District of Columbia is a very liberal bar. Basically, they went light on him because he’s also a Democrat who hated Trump.”

So that’s why Clinesmith hasn’t been disbarred. Adam Schiff would have to be disbarred in California, so don’t hold your breath on that one, either. I'm all for it, though, even though it would merely be symbolic since all he does is "play" lawyer in congressional kangaroo courts and his membership has been inactive since 2001.

Wednesday, the House passed on a party-line vote a bill sponsored by Rep. Ilhan Omar that would require the Secretary of State to create an “Office to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia” worldwide led by a presidentially-appointed “special envoy for monitoring and combating Islamophobia.”

I can see a few problems with this. First of all, I doubt it will pass the Senate. Second, there’s no clear definition of what “Islamophobia” is. Omar herself uses it as a convenient word to throw at anyone who aims deserved criticism at her. She cited as an example President Trump’s “Muslim ban,” which didn’t actually exist. That was a propaganda term designed to assign vile motives to a reasonable security measure.

For those not up on their history, Trump temporarily blocked travel from a handful of nations that were known hotbeds of anti-American terrorism and that couldn’t properly vet people coming here. Some were majority Muslim but others were not, while many majority Muslim nations weren’t on the banned list. If he was banning Muslims, it sure was a weird way to go about it.

Another problem is that if you’re going to call all violence against Muslims Islamophobia, how do you account for the fact that the worst violence and oppression against Muslims is committed by other Muslims (case in point: the Taliban in Afghanistan.)

Finally, if we’re going to make policing Islamophobia a federal concern, then we should also police Anti-Semitism. And if we create an office to crack down on that, its first action should be to remove Ilhan Omar from Congress.

Moving stories

December 17, 2021

Here are a couple of moving stories, and I don’t mean emotionally, unless you get choked up at how badly leftists are destroying once-great states and cities and forcing people to move out.

First, we knew a lot of people had been fleeing California, but researchers from California Police Lab were surprised to discover just how many. From the end of March 2020 to the end of September 2021, they found a 12% increase in residents moving out of California and a 38% decrease in people moving in. While this was a statewide phenomenon, the worst gap was in the most liberal city in California, San Francisco, where there was a 12% increase in residents leaving for other states and a 45% drop in people moving there.

I’m sure all the leftists running California will find something other than themselves to blame, like earthquakes or wildfires. In fact, between earthquakes, wildfires and leftist governance, earthquakes are the state’s only natural disaster that isn’t directly related to Californians voting for leftists.

Maybe in San Francisco, they can claim that so many people are moving out because now that they all have a full set of stolen Louis Vuitton luggage, they want to use it.

Our other moving story gives new meaning to the phrase, “Let the buyer beware,” especially if you’re thinking of buying a house.

The major real estate websites Redfin and announced that they will stop including neighborhood crime data in their listings because for some inexplicable reason, that’s apparently racist now.’s CEO issued a statement “explaining” this change. After some PC boilerplate about how some people may be blocked from buying homes in their preferred neighborhoods due to their race, gender, sexual orientation or religion (which is illegal, by the way, so anyone actually experiencing that would have grounds for a lawsuit), it goes on to claim that “Reported crimes may not accurately reflect actual crimes,” and that “crime statistics risk including racial bias…There’s real variety in how people define and evaluate safety, and…it doesn’t line up very well with purely crime-based data…People are interested in safety, not crime.”

So to help potential buyers, including law-abiding minority members, evaluate whether a neighborhood is safe or not, they’re not to tell them what the crime rate is? I’m used to liberals making no logical sense, but this sounds like someone has actually stolen their brains.

An Old Saying

December 17, 2021

There’s an old saying: “Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.” Last year, a number of corporations, terrified of being called "racist" by Twitter mobs, jumped on board the “woke” bandwagon, wrote big checks to BLM and the ACLU, and voiced solidarity with the reform (actually defund) the police movement. Well, they got what they asked for. Result?

This week, the CEOs of a number of those retail chains asked Congress to take action to save them from a wave of mass smash-and-grab robberies that have cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost merchandise.

They want Congress to pass the INFORM Consumers Act, to help safeguard consumers from buying stolen goods. Which sounds to me like putting a Band-Aid on a severed leg, and a stolen Band-Aid at that. Instead of hoping that people won’t buy stolen goods, how about stopping people from stealing? But proving that they’ve either learned nothing or are just cowards, some of these executives continue to praise, fund and support the same organizations such as BLM that have pushed the insane policies that have resulted in letting criminals take over entire cities.

Still, it’s good to see some tiny awareness of the connection between not prosecuting criminals and rising crime rates finally starting to dawn in the foggy brains of liberals. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose home district in San Francisco is Ground Zero for leftist-enabled criminality, actually acknowledged that the retail theft mobs stripping high-end stores are “absolutely outrageous.” She said, “Obviously, it cannot continue…None of it is acceptable. It has to be stopped.”

But what’s causing it? She’s as clueless as the little girl in “Family Circus” who blames every problem on an invisible fairy named “Ida Know.” Pelosi went on:

“But the fact is that there is an attitude of lawlessness in our country that springs from I don’t know where, maybe you do, but we cannot have that lawlessness.”

Ooh, ooh! I know! Do I get a free set of Louis Vuitton luggage if I give her the answer?

Well, it’s said that a conservative is a liberal who was mugged, and maybe some liberal politicians are finally getting mugged by reality and are waking up instead of getting “woke.” After years of treating criminals like fish at a “catch-and-release” pond, San Francisco’s uber-liberal Mayor London Breed suddenly turned on a dime and started channeling famous former Frisco cop, Dirty Harry Callahan.

Breed declared, “It’s time the reign of criminals who are destroying our city, it is time for it to come to an end. And it comes to an end when we take the steps to be more aggressive with law enforcement. More aggressive with the changes in our policies and less tolerant of all the bull(BLEEP) that has destroyed our city.”

She added that this might “make a lot of people uncomfortable, and I don’t care. At the end of the day, the safety of the people of San Francisco is the most important thing to me.”

The police union fears that her rhetoric was a lot tougher than the plan she announced, but any acknowledgement of reality at all from police-defunding leftists has to be taken as a major leap forward. Still, I can’t help thinking that they are less concerned about all the criminals smashing and grabbing other people’s property than they are the thought of all those furious voters smashing into polling places and grabbing ballots next November.

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.

Last night, I appeared with Joe Concha on Sean Hannity’s TV show to talk about disgusting attempts by the administration and the media (same thing) to distort what FOX News personalities texted in real time about the Capitol Hill breach. This happened after Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney took to the floor of Congress and, like a monster, read aloud private text messages to try to imply something nefarious.

The funniest part of that wall-to-wall media coverage, I thought, was watching someone from CNN talk about all the “lying” on FOX News. As I told Sean, the people on CNN make Jussie Smollett look like Abraham Lincoln when it comes to honesty. There was nothing untoward going on at all. This was just people saying, “Look, this is getting out of hand; it’s gonna hurt the President’s legacy and his reputation.” An honest concern. These were people who cared deeply about the President and the country and about what was happening.

As Byron York said, “The bottom line is there is much less to the texts story than the critics would have you believe. Of course, don’t look for those critics to admit that.”

I’ve been very clear from Day 1 that I strongly condemn what happened that day, and every last conservative I know feels the same way about what those chuckleheads (who were, in fact, unarmed) did. As Joe Concha said on the show, our feelings about this are well-documented.

What we’ve never heard from the other side is any real concern about the fate of the only person who lost her life to violence that day: Ashli Babbitt. This whole thing is just a political game that the Democrats are playing.

Indiana Rep. Jim Banks, current chairman of the Republican Study Committee, and Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan are the two Republican members of Congress nominated by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s “Special Committee” who were actually denied a seat. Instead of seating these two as she was supposed to, Pelosi took it upon HERSELF to choose the only two Republicans she allowed on the committee, the aforementioned Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois. She could have searched the world over and not have found two more vicious political enemies of President Trump than these. And in seating them instead of Banks and Jordan, she violated the terms of the legislation that had been passed to set up the committee in the first place. Also, as we’ve reported, she didn’t even appoint enough total committee members to comply with the law. Her committee is, by all appearances, bogus, a kangaroo court.

Obviously, the fix was in from the beginning, courtesy of Madame Speaker. This “investigation” is a sham, every bit as much as her two sham impeachments were.

Rep. Banks, in another segment of Hannity’s Tuesday show, said, “Today, we had over an hour of debate on the floor, and there was absolutely not a word spoken by Liz Cheney or the Democrats about anything related to protecting the Capitol, the breakdown of security of the Capitol...or what we’re gonna do to make sure another [similar event] doesn’t happen…...they don’t care about that. The only thing they care about is tearing down their political opponents, in this case putting their political opponents in jail. They know that [former Trump chief of staff] Mark Meadows is a good man, because they served with him for seven years.”

Meadows reached across the aisle, Banks said, even working with Liz Cheney to write over 40 bills. “They know he did nothing wrong,” Banks said, “but because he worked with Donald Trump, they want to put him behind bars.” If they could do that to Meadows, he said, imagine what they could do to any Trump supporter.

As Hannity reported Tuesday evening, the ex-Capitol Police chief said his requests for National Guard troops was denied six times by Pelosi, who had the duty of oversight. Finally, days later, his request was granted, but the damage had been done, no doubt to her delight. Significantly, President Trump had made the National Guard available to her, and so had Mark Meadows. If Trump had really wanted to have an “insurrection” on Capitol Hill, why would he have offered the services of the National Guard to thwart it?

And why did YOU, Nancy, refuse the additional security when you were in charge? THIS IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED, but she’s preventing that. Even such liberal news outlets as the Daily Beast and Politico have raised questions about the lack of security that day. But Banks told Hannity that the real reason she kept him and Jordan off the committee is that they were daring to ask about that.

“We had the leadership of the United States Capitol Police Union tell us that they weren’t prepared for what happened...they weren’t equipped for it, they weren’t trained for it. Even though there was intelligence weeks before...that something like this could happen, we were asking those questions, and that’s why Pelosi immediately fired us from the committee, because she didn’t want to go there.”

Banks said the Republicans were continuing to conduct interviews and investigate to determine what happened and how to keep the Capitol secure, and also were “telling the American people the truth about this fake, politicized commission that Pelosi and Liz Cheney and others are leading.”

“Liz Cheney is the new Adam Schiff,” he said. “She’s got her hands on emails and texts, she’s leaking them, she’s using them for political purposes and abusing her power...We’re actually digging into the facts...[to] change the bureaucratic mess that allowed that travesty to happen and make sure that something like that never happens again.”

Personally, I like what Dan Bongino said about the committee and Cheney: “This committee’s an embarrassment. It’s an immoral, unethical, unconstitutional disgrace to humanity. What Liz Cheney did last night was disgusting. Liz Cheney should never be welcomed in polite company in the Republican Party again….She decided yesterday to go and read people’s private text messages, pursuant to subpoena power they don’t have in Congress...This is an attempt to silence conservatives like you and I from communicating before the ‘22 election.” It sends the message that it’s open season on Trump supporters.

(Side note: I’d link to the HANNITY segment with Bongino but would rather spare you the nasty argument between him and Geraldo Rivera that always ensues. FOX News might think putting them on together is good for ratings, but it’s not good for television, so please think again. I digress.)

Recall that after his speech on the day of the rally, President Trump said to his supporters, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol Building, to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard...” That should be the most important take-away from the story of that day, but it’s being deliberately upstaged by all the shameless political theatre in this hideous third act.