Congress, Criminal law, Justice, Politics

Schiff: House Select Committee Has Evidence That Trump “Engaged in Likely Multiple Criminal Acts”

Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) went on CNN’s “Don Lemon Tonight” to tout the work of the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6th riot. In that interview, Schiff declared that the Committee has enough evidence showing former President Donald Trump “engaged in likely multiple criminal acts.” While vague on the specific crimes, Schiff emphasized that the Justice Department did not have to wait any further to launch a criminal investigation based on what has already been disclosed. While the Committee has disclosed new evidence in the form of videotapes and testimony, it has not presented new material evidence of criminal acts in my view. That could still come but the first two hearings largely focused on a “conspiracy” to challenge the election certification and allegations that Trump knew that there was no compelling evidence of widespread election fraud.

If there is evidence of criminal conduct by former president Trump or others, most of us would support the calls for prosecution. It is also possible that the Justice Department is investigating such crimes or has undisclosed evidence. The hearings, however, have not established such a foundation. That can still come but these crimes have elements that have not been addressed in hearings that have lacked any opposing views or adversarial elements.

The decision of Speaker Nancy Pelosi to abandon the long tradition of bipartisan members on such selection committee has robbed the investigation of credibility and legitimacy for many Americans.

Indeed, Schiff’s reference to evidence held by the Committee is likely to bring up memories of his highly controversial public statements that the House Intelligence Committee, which he chairs, had direct evidence of Russian collusion despite the countervailing findings of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. He never produced the evidence and later it was revealed that Justice officials and FBI agents had told his Committee that they did not find such evidence.

Now, Schiff is maintaining that:

“I certainly believe there’s enough evidence for them to open an investigation of several people, and so did Judge David Carter of California believes the former president and others were engaged in likely multiple criminal acts. So if the Justice Department concurs with Judge Carter, let alone my own view or others, they should be pursuing that. So, yes, I think there is sufficient evidence to open an investigation. It would be of you up to the Justice Department ultimately to decide does that evidence rise to proof beyond a reasonable doubt such that they’re comfortable indicting someone. But there’s certainly, in my view, enough evidence to open up investigations.”

The reference to the Carter opinion has become a mainstay on cable news. I was critical of Judge Carter’s opinion when it was released. Much of the Jan. 6th hearings seem to be structured along the same lines as the Carter decision which was, in my view, strikingly conclusory and unsupported in critical parts of the analysis.

Judge Carter simply declares that Trump knew that the election was not stolen and thus “the illegality of the plan was obvious.” Putting aside the court’s assumption of what Trump secretly concluded on the election, a sizable number of Americans still do not view Biden as legitimately elected. The court is not simply saying that they are wrong in that view but, because they are wrong, legislative challenges amounted to criminal obstruction of Congress.

In 2005, it was Democrats who alleged that a presidential election was stolen and challenged the certification in Congress of the votes in Ohio. The claim was equally frivolous but Democratic leadership praised the effort, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi who praised Sen. Barbara Boxer’s challenge and insisted that “this debate is fundamental to our democracy.”

The Democrats did not, however, demand that Vice President Dick Cheney refuse to certify, an important distinction to be sure. Jan. 6th was a desecration of our constitutional process and one of the most disgraceful days in our history.

However, the lack of factual foundation for the challenge (cited repeatedly by Judge Carter in the Trump challenge) did not make this a criminal or fraudulent effort.

Some attorneys believed (and still believe) that it was possible for Pence to refuse to certify. Holding such a legal view is not a crime and sharing that view with the White House is not a conspiracy. Indeed, Eastman and others were publicly stating essentially the same thing. That is what triggered the debate with many of us challenging their interpretation.

Yet, Carter is conclusory and dismissive on this critical point in declaring “President Trump and Dr. Eastman justified the plan with allegations of election fraud — but President Trump likely knew the justification was baseless, and therefore that the entire plan was unlawful.” Trump is still insisting that he believes the opposite. The question is why arguing that point with Pence and others amounted to a criminal act. In the end, wiser minds prevailed and the theory was not used by Pence.

There were crimes that day, of course. Some of those at the rally rioted and were charged largely with trespass and unlawful entry. A handful have been charged with seditious conspiracy. The court does not cite any evidence that Trump directly advocated violence while noting that Trump told the crowd to peacefully go to the Hill.

Consider the implications of Carter’s opinion. There was rioting when President Trump was elected while various Democratic leaders continued to claim that he was not the legitimately elected president, a view echoed by Hillary Clinton. While they did not riot in Congress, they committed other crimes.

Under Carter’s theory, the baseless claims that Trump was not legitimately elected could have been used by the Trump Administration to seize confidential legal material given to the 2005 leaders. After all, there was not a solid factual basis for these claims and they knew it. They further fueled the mob by making these claims in public.

The January 6th Committee spent much of the first two days hammering away at how many people, including Attorney General Bill Barr, told Trump that the fraud allegations were unfounded. That is important evidence to made part of the public record. However, we knew that such statements were made to President Trump, who continues to refuse to accept the overwhelming judgment of lawyers inside and outside of the White House.

That evidence amplifies the view that there was not a basis for these allegations. However, most of us reached that conclusion two years ago. The question is whether there is new evidence of criminal acts.  After the riot, District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine announced that he was considering arresting Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani and U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks and charging them with incitement. So what happened to that prosecution?

The failure of Racine to charge Trump was not due to any affection or loyalty to the former president. It was due to the paucity of direct evidence of a crime that would hold up in court.

The reason is that the speech itself was not a crime. Indeed, it was protected free speech. They knew that a court would throw out such an indictment and, even if they could find a willing judge, any conviction would be thrown out on appeal.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Schiff is suggesting that, if the Committee can prove that Trump really, really, really knew the election was lost, his reckless push against election certification would somehow become a crime. That is not, in my view, correct. We need to see direct evidence that Trump coordinated, facilitated, or materially supported the violence of Jan. 6th. Yet, on the opening day, the Democrats were again playing the same clip of Trump telling the Proud Boys to stand down in the presidential debate. That type of implied encouragement would fail as evidence in a criminal case.

Schiff also told Lemon:

“Our mission is to expose the facts to the public light about a plot to overturn a presidential election, the first non-peaceful transfer of power we’ve had in our history, and prescribe remedies, legislative remedies to protect our country going forward. The principal mission of the Justice Department is to bring people to justice who break the law. We can make a referral, but of course, the Justice Department doesn’t sit around waiting for referrals from us, at least, they haven’t in the past. I hope they’re not simply waiting for us now. It’s their duty to follow the evidence and, if there are credible allegations of crime, to pursue them against anyone, including former presidents.”

The question (not asked) is what new material evidence has been raised. Much of the new evidence reinforced the same (and widely accepted) claim that Trump was ignoring the advice of his own counsel and refusing to accept the weight of the evidence on the election fraud claims.

The Democrats have also suggested that there may have been fraud in collecting millions in contributions to challenge the election. Yet, in making the fraud allegation, the Democrats did not quote the specific language used by various groups in raising money. These pitches often come with reservations or conditional language from legal counsel that allow a broad use of such funds. Indeed, Democratic members have been accused of using such funds for personal benefits. This is a common issue with members of both parties, but their counsel often cited the general language used with donors in seeking contributions. None of those provisions were quoted by the House Committee despite the fact that the Democrats were aggregating multiple charities with different pitches to donors.

If there was fraud, it should be prosecuted. However, again, the Committee needs to do more than throw out the allegation of fraud without addressing the specific elements needed for the crime, including what language was specifically used by these different groups in collecting funds.

Schiff’s pitch on CNN for prosecution is reminiscent of the nightly claims made by legal experts of clear evidence of criminal collusion or other crimes that would soon be used to frog march Trump and his family to prison. There were breathless accounts of crimes ranging from treason to bribery to obstruction to espionage. It is easy to make such claims on a cable show. However, if Schiff believes that the Committee has evidence of “likely multiple” federal crimes, he should be able to lay out the evidence in these hearings. The hearings will resume on Thursday and that case is still be made.

342 thoughts on “Schiff: House Select Committee Has Evidence That Trump “Engaged in Likely Multiple Criminal Acts””

    1. If one saw the Tucker segment, one would note the portrayal to be grossly inaccurate. That is the problem with anonymous postings from the lef. They rely on mischaracterization.

  3. Dear readers please stop responding to Norman Bates & Co? You give them air by responding to their repetitious unrelated claptrap. It’s the same MO (Trump, Trumpist, Foxnews….) in securing hits and being disruptive.
    If the coming election is non manipulated this “select commission” won’t be a footnote. The Democrats destruction on the economy, constitution and nation is far more concerning. More importantly all working Americans and their families are on the edge of hard times financially.

    1. Margot Ballhere,
      I generally just skip over Bates and Co.
      As you point out, same MO.
      As I posted elsewhere, I look for commenters like yourself, James, ThinkItThrough, Karen S, Young, HullBobby, and probably a dozen more.
      Thank you all!

    2. The next election has already been manipulated by gerrymandering, purging Democrats from voter rolls, purging Democrats from local election boards that tally and report the results of elections, making it harder to vote by compressing precincts, cutting back hours and early and absentee voting and appointing election denyers to election boards. Republicans have to cheat to get power because they’s been consistently losing support for years.

  4. This guy never stops to think about the truth let alone peak it. Remember when he went on and rambled about how President Trump was a communist and several times he mentioned His sex life?? Liar in chief is backat it.

  5. When it becomes a crime to believe a biological male naturally has all the physical body parts of a biological female, then I will entertain the idea it is a crime to desire an election should not be certified because you believe the results are fraudulent. If Trump is indicted, for what I don’t know, then it will be his defense teams opportunity to present evidence. The data supporting “2000 Mules” will no doubt be a part of that. A trial will no doubt not happen this year. With the Republicans poised to take control of the House, you can bet there will be hearings on the 2020 election.

  6. “Schiff declared that . . .’”

    Anyone who believes a *serial* liar, deserves what he gets.

  7. Past or presently, it really does not matter to the Trump cult what evidence or facts come out. They have no interest in elected democracy or the rule of law. They reject and refuse anything that might disturb their preconceived ideas. James Randi said ” No amount of belief makes something a fact” also, “Those who believe without reason cannot be convinced by reason”

    2. When a single piece of relevant evidence show up, shoot of a flair. I’ll keep an eye out.

      1. Jeff: Plus 100 what? Prof says; “He never produced the evidence and later it was revealed that Justice officials and FBI agents had told his Committee that they did not find such evidence.” Schiff said he had the evidence, and the Dems proceeded to impeach on that. Come 1-15-2023 the Repubs should move to impeach Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, et als for an attempted coup. Karma of proof will be coming beginning in August 2022. Your guys (Dem Socialists) are still debating (lying) on that same pile of manure that RR referenced way back.

        1. Lighteredknot hopes:

          “Come 1-15-2023 the Repubs should move to impeach Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, et als for an attempted coup.”

          How much you wanna bet?

  8. After the serial impeachments and the Durham revelations it is now a well-established fact for anyone paying attention that Adam Schiff is a virtuoso liar. Democrats forgive his lies because they are meant to ensure that Donald Trump never runs again. As desirable as this may be, it will only make Trump stronger if he is charged, tried and acquitted due to lack of proof. Pelosi should tell Schiff to stick a sock in it.

    Media like CNN and the NYTimes need to stop pretending they weren’t misled by Schiff repeatedly during the impeachment debacles and admit that he is not credible. Those that choose to hide this truth are digging graves for their own credibility.

    1. Mike says:

      “Media like CNN and the NYTimes need to stop pretending they weren’t misled by Schiff repeatedly during the impeachment debacles and admit that he is not credible.”

      Just as soon as Fox, Newsmax, OAN and Infowars admit they reckless broadcasted Trump’s demonstrably false voter election claims and admit their guilt in defaming Dominion and Smartmatic.

      Deal?

      1. Jeff: You still don’t get it with that tunnel visioned channel locked Dem mind do you. The fat lady hasn’t sang yet on the 2020 election malfeasances, elected and unelected. Get you bibs on for a huge Big Crow earting buffett. Just saying. Selah

        1. You shouldn’t use the term “Selah”, since you really don’t know what it refers to.

          1. You keep wanting to bet with many different people and for some reason the bets always fall through. Do I have to meet you at the park, US bank or do you prefer the Fit Club for women?

      2. Don’t know about Newsmax and OAN, but Fox didn’t parrot Trump though commentators like Hannity and a few others did. That’s called opinionating. The news wing reported every court challenge that failed as well as all the hot air from the Trump camp. They were the first to call Arizona for Biden and were scorched by Trumpers for it. The news wing makes attempts to be fair, which is more than can be said for CNN under Jeff Zucker and MSNBC any day of the week.

        Your silence about Adam Schiff shows you agree he’s a virtuoso liar with zero credibility.

        1. Mike,

          I gather that you disagree with the billion dollar defamation lawsuits filed against Fox by Dominion and Smartmatic which a judge has refused to throw out of court. But for Fox spreading Trump’s Big Lie, 1/6 could not have happened. Opinions are not exempt from defamation when they contain recklessly false statements.

      3. Since the lawsuits were filed Fox, NewsMax, OAN and InfoWars don’t mention Dominion or Smartmatic anymore. But that doesn’t stop the disciples from believing.

        1. Natacha,

          Fox does not allow its hosts anymore to claim that the election was stolen. It has been warned by its lawyers. Turley has never acknowledged that fact. He buried his solitary mention of these defamation lawsuits against Fox in the middle of an article headlined about a defamation lawsuit brought by Project Veritas! Turley has not mentioned these 2 lawsuits once since.

          It’s embarrassing to his academic fellows and his legal colleagues that he works for a company being sued for recklessly or maliciously spreading lies which caused a “desecration” to our Capitol.

  9. Could you clarify your statement that Pelosi refused to permit Republicans on the committee. My recollection is that she disqualified Jordan et al. because they were potential subjects of the committee investigations, and the Republicans refused to appoint others in their place. If that is correct, the Republicans were not excluded from the committee and the committee does not lose its credibility merely because Jordan was not given a platform.

    1. No. Pelsoi kicked Banks and Jordan off because she believed that they would “compromise the integrity of the committee”. Pelosi’s actions were politically motivated which is unacceptable.

      We need a comprehensive investigation as to who organized this attack, who paid for it, how they nearly succeeded in overthrowing a presidential election, why they did it and how we must organize ourselves to prevent anything like it from ever happening again. Monday evening, the Minority Leader recommended 5 Members to serve on the Select Committee. I have spoken with him this morning about the objections raised about Representatives Jim Banks and Jim Jordan and the impact their appointments may have on the integrity of the investigation…With respect for the integrity of the investigation, with an insistence on the truth and with concern about statements made and actions taken by these Members, I must reject the recommendations of Representatives Banks and Jordan to the Select Committee.

      1. So in other words, you wanted only the bank robbers to be on the jury, to decide if they were guilty of bank robbery.

        1. In your analogy.The people refused by Pelosi, are the Bank Robbers. To fill out your analogy, Pelosi says they are bank robbers, but has no evidence a bank has been robbed.
          Pelosi NEEDS, democracy demands, a hearing to examine the events surrounding Jan 6 must be conducted to get the facts. (But I, Speaker Pelosi already know these two Republicans are guilty and unfit to serve)(don’t need evidence for all of the facts)

        2. Fish: What jury? More like a monkey gallery, and will prove that out in final analysis. That crowd that voted twice for impeachment on evidental lies, will be hung out on the closeline to dry soon.

  11. Belief sometimes is all we have. The simple fact that most of your advisers are saying you are wrong is not always the right way that you wish to proceed and one can find innumerable instances when that alone propels a person on to greatness. The question is when does belief become illegality and is there proof. I believed Joe Biden was a fraud and a fool but 81 million other Americans disagreed with me. I accepted the results of the election with no change in my beliefs. It seems that more Americans are coming around to my view now. And there is much talk of dropping him for 2024. To me his ineptitude was as plain as day long before 2020.
    As far a Trump is concerned I voted for him in 2016 and 2020 but was appalled at his behavior after the election. I still have reservations about the voting process but I accepted the results. I will not vote vote for him in any primary but if he becomes the nominee for the Republicans then I’ll vote for him because no democrat presently on the scene is any less appalling. Of course they would also have to ditch their openly destructive platform and base a course of action on rational economics.
    The democrats tried to pass the John Lewis Voting rights act to outlaw voter ID. That to me is nothing more than intent to defraud the electorate and legitimacy. Every democracy in Europe (UK was last to vote in voter ID this year) has voter ID as well as India (1.4 billion people and more diverse than the US). Is trying to eliminate Voter ID not a crime of intent to defraud or an open invitation to others to commit fraud.
    Frankly that is more important than the riot on 1/6/2021.
    One last thing-The worst assault on the federal government since 1900 was in the early 1950’s when some Puerto Rican nationalist shot up the Blair House in 11/1950 in an attempt to assassinate President Truman and then on 3/1/1954 fired shots into the US House of Representatives during a full floor debate and wounded 5 congressman. That was real sedition and insurrection.

    1. GEB,
      Could not agree with you more.
      I did not vote for Trump, but if he is the candidate come 2024, I will vote for him.
      I hope he does not, as I do not think it will be good for the country. I think Desantis or Gabbard would be better picks at this point in time.
      I agree that voter ID is or should be one of the top issues going forward to ensure the security of our elections. I plan on wearing my drivers license in a transparent slip that says, “VOTER ID.”

      1. Farmer says:

        “I did not vote for Trump, but if he is the candidate come 2024, I will vote for him.”

        Thankfully, Turley will cancel out your vote.

    2. Whoever told you that the John Lews Voting Rights Act would “outlaw voter ID” is LYING. The John Lewis Act would require the DOJ to scrutinize and approve state laws that are more stringent than the current Help America Vote Act, (HAVA) which provides the following:

      Voter identification
      HAVA requires that first-time voters who registered by mail, and have not previously voted in a federal election in the State, to present a form of identification to the appropriate State or local election official before or on election day. The ID may be either a current and valid photo identification or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter. Voters who submitted any of these forms of identification during registration are exempt, as are voters entitled to vote by absentee ballot under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act. The ID requirement applies to in person and vote by mail voters. In the case of a vote by mail voter, a copy of the ID must be submitted with the ballot. A State may enact further ID requirements which aren’t specified under HAVA.

      Stop believing the lies.

      1. “The John Lewis Act would require the DOJ to scrutinize and approve state laws that are more stringent than the current Help America Vote Act”

        In otherwords the John Lewis Act is unconstitutional.

        Preclearance of state voting laws is unconstitutional.
        It was when the VRA was passed, it just took almost 50 years to get SCOTUS to enforce that – even though thehy knew it was unconstitutional at the time.

        The constitution provides that voting laws are the responsibility of congress and the state legislatures. NOT DOJ.

        Congress can make voter ID manditory, Or it can make it illegal.
        But DOJ may only address the legality and constitutionality of existing laws. They have no legitimate constitutional role at all in making state election laws.

        Challenge the laws after they are passed if you do not like them.

  12. Trump played his supporters as fools. He knew the election was clean and continuously lied about it. You all believe him and are wrecking our democracy over it.

    1. From the party that claimed trump and the russians stole 2016 and stacey abrams is really the governor

  13. America needs to choose between the Rule of Law or Democrat Fascism!

    1. And yet it was Trump who tried hard to remain in power as an unelected president? That is not “Rule of Law”?

      1. Tell us Sammy what did not follow the rule of law? Do you understand what the rule of law is? I don’t think so.

        All politicians try to remain in power. Haven’t you ever noticed that? If you haven’t how can we trust anything you say.

        Did Trump leave the White House when he was supposed to? Yes. Did he take the silverware? No. That is something done by Democrats.

    2. Guyventner says:

      “America needs to choose between the Rule of Law or Democrat Fascism!”

      I would love for you to raise your hand and be called upon to stand to make that pronouncement in Turley’s classroom!

      Turley would make you sit in the back of the room facing the wall.

  14. if Democrats accuse you…it means they are DOING IT!
    Is there anyone left that doesn’t KNOW the Democrats have become fascists…committing crimes across government, business, media, etc
    The DOJ and FBI are 100% Corrupt!

    2024 DeSantis President….Trump AG… plenty of Work to be done to Clean up the Democrat Corruption!

  15. Turley says:

    “Much of the new evidence reinforced the same (and widely accepted) claim that Trump was ignoring the advice of his own counsel and refusing to accept the weight of the evidence on the election fraud claims.”

    Let’s see what happens when a Trump lawyer refuses “to accept the weight of the evidence on the election fraud claims.”

    “Rudy Giuliani charged with ethical misconduct over Trump’s big lie”

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/10/trump-rudy-giuliani-ethical-misconduct-lawsuit

    “The charges say his conduct violated two professional conduct rules in Pennsylvania that bar attorneys from bringing frivolous proceedings without a basis in law or fact and prohibit conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”

    “Charges can lead to the suspension of a license to practice law or disbarment.”

    “The charges mark the second time that a bar office has taken action against Giuliani.
    His New York law license was suspended in June 2021 after a state appeals court found that he made “demonstrably false and misleading” statements that widespread voter fraud undermined the election.”
    —————

    Turley would have his readers believe that Trump’s lawyers acted in good faith when they challenged the election; however, impartial judges do not agree with Turley that hid lawyers acted in good faith. Turley does not report the fact that Trump’s lawyers are being held accountable for their perpetuating a fraud in court.

    It is imperative that Turley deny that Trump’s lawyers who appeared on Fox were pushing “demonstrably false and misleading statements that widespread voter fraud undermined the election.” If that is true, then Fox’s defense against the Dominion and Smartmatic defamation lawsuits will be undermined. How can Fox claim that it had no reason to suspect that these election claims were false when courts have found that they were DEMONSTRABLY false?

    For this reason, Turley maintains the pretense that there was no Big Lie. Instead, he insists Trump and Giuliani as well as John Eastman were all acting in good faith notwithstanding their spreading demonstrably false and misleading statements that widespread voter fraud undermined the election.

    Turley admits that he did not agree with Trump and his lawyers, but he has never acknowledged- what we now know to be true- that they were acting in BAD FAITH, that is, lying!

    1. And yet public confidence in the integrity of the 2020 election is declining.

      Of those who have viewed 2000 mules – 77% have concluded there was WIDESPREAD FRAUD.

      Oops!

      You are free to disagree.
      Just as you did about the Collusion Delusion
      The Clinton Steele Dossier and Alpha Bank Hoaxes,
      The Russian disinformation nonsense.

      I think that those who were wrong about all those – have little credibility on the election.
      While those who were right about all of those are trustworthy.

      Or is it your view that no matter how frequently you have been wrong in the past you are still likely to be right – if you are on the left ?

  16. Schiff lied for 4 years. He distorted evidence and made patently false accusations for 4 years straight. Schiff is truly a degenerate. Any one who would vote for him or support his lies in any ways is as unethical and morally corrupt as Schiff. Unfortunately that means the Press. He is the piggiest of Orwell’s pigs – a true Squealer.

    1. Well put, highlyeducatedsuburbanwoman !! SQUEALER he is.

  17. Amazing that Adam Schiff still gets the attention and apparent respect from the media that he does, given his record. In the real world, if your words and allegations are found to be false, you lose credibility and authority. But in Congress and in most of the media, no apparent accountability is imposed. He should be stripped of his committee leadership positions, and not offered so willingly the positions in front of the camera, as if he is a credible source of opinion and judgement

    1. Schiff…like Comey, Obama, Lynch, Clinton, Biden, Pelosi, DOJ and FBI leaders…should be in JAIL

  18. The Dems will become ever more hysterical looking for anything at all they can do to keep Trump from running in 2023.

  19. Turley says:

    “Trump is still insisting that he believes the opposite.”

    Bill Barr testified that Trump is either out of touch with reality or a liar. I get the feeling Turley is setting up Trump’s “George Costanza defense”:

    https://youtu.be/vn_PSJsl0LQ

    1. Bill Barr….who allowed the Russian Hoax to go unpunished…that Bill Barr?

      1. The Bill Barr whose integrity Turley claims is unimpeachable. That Bill Barr.

        1. Where did Turley ever say that Bill Barr’s opinions are unimpeachable? You seem to have a lot of damage in one portion of your brain.

      2. Remember how long Turley was holding up Michael Avenatti as an example of a fine lawyer? He’s got a real blind spot when it comes to people he likes or has admired, quite often.

    2. Jeff, are you unable to get things right? Barr testified and couldn’t even correctly repeat what 2000 Mules said.

  20. Schiff, like Biden and Pelosi, is a pathological liar. He knows the committee doesn’t have a case, so he’s going to the “court of CNN” to do as much damage as possible before the election. The Democrats are tone-deaf in pushing this issue while Americans are suffering from inflation, ridiculous gas prices and shrinking pensions. The Dems pay for it in November, and then walk around in a daze claiming not to understand why the electorate sent them packing.

Comments are closed.