FBI Director Kash Patel has released a bombshell report that a Democratic whistleblower accused now California Sen. Adam Schiff of approving the leaking of classified information to target President Donald Trump. While this is only the unverified allegation of a single former staffer, the alleged conduct would involve criminal and unethical conduct of the highest order, if proven.
The whistleblower is described as working for the House Intelligence Committee for over ten years and reported Schiff’s alleged conduct in 2017, according to documents obtained by Just The News.
The staffer described Schiff’s conduct as “treasonous” and “illegal.”
Schiff has previously been accused of politicalization of intelligence, including his claims (after the Special Counsel rejected the Russian collusion claims as unsupported) that he had secret evidence in the Committee proving such collusion. He never produced that evidence, and it is widely believed that it did not exist.
This is different. This would be a premeditated criminal act. It is hard to believe that a “player” like Schiff would be stupid enough to openly discuss such a criminal act in a staff meeting. However, the fact that the whistleblower made this allegation in a report to the FBI is equally probative. It is a crime to lie to federal investigators.
It is also notable that this allegation never leaked. At that time, the congressional committee and the FBI were leaking sieves of classified and embarrassing information targeting Trump and his associates. Yet, this allegation (as well exculpatory information on the Russian investigation for Trump) were not leaked or published in the media.
The whistleblower was reportedly very specific in details on the meeting:
“When working in this capacity, [redacted staffer’s name] was called to an all-staff meeting by SCHIFF. In this meeting, SCHIFF stated the group would leak classified information which was derogatory to President of the United States DONALD J. TRUMP. SCHIFF stated the information would be used to indict President TRUMP.”
[The whistleblower] stated this would be illegal and, upon hearing his concerns, unnamed members of the meeting reassured that they would not be caught leaking classified information.”
That is the type of statement that could presumably be confirmed by any of the staffers in the room, who are themselves subject to criminal charge if they lie to investigators. The question is what these staffers said to the FBI or whether it pursued this investigation fully in light of the alarming allegations.
What is clear is that someone is lying and someone is a felon. Either Schiff ordered the commission of a serious felony or this whistleblower made repeated false statements to the FBI. The public — and Congress — has every right to know the answer.
*. Yes, we know Shifty is a player in the conspiracy to overthrow the United States Constitution and its government. Finding the trail with evidence is in process.
What’s the probability on who’s the felon?
Comey’s media mole told FBI he shaped Russia narrative, needed ‘discount’ to deny leaking intel
“The FBI confirmed illegal intel leaks but rounded up no offenders. Declassified memos have unmasked Comey’s secret media conduit, a law professor whom Comey put on the government payroll.”
https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/comey-media-mole-admitted-fbi-he-shaped-russia-narrative-needed
In the past, I would say Just The News should be up for a Pulitzer Prize in journalism. But since we have seen and now know what the value of a Pulitzer Prize is worth, IF by some chance Just The News did win one for their exposure of Russiagate Hoax, I think they should turn it down.
“In the past, I would say Just The News should be up for a Pulitzer Prize in journalism. But since we have seen and now know what the value of a Pulitzer Prize is worth, IF by some chance Just The News did win one for their exposure of Russiagate Hoax, I think they should turn it down.”
They should accept the prize only on the condition that the New York Times and whoever else be forced to return their fake Pulitzers for their fake reporting on the non-existent Russiagate hoax. That might be the only way that the Pulitzer committee could regain any credibility at this point.
John Wilkes Booth was of course shot and killed evading capture after killing Abraham Lincoln. But four other co-conspirators were hanged. Does anyone know what they were charged with?
Conspiracy for rebellion against the 🇺🇸
This would be a premeditated criminal act. It is hard to believe that a “player” like Schiff would be stupid enough to openly discuss such a criminal act in a staff meeting
Speaking of criminals, players and brazen terrorists, it appears a “journalist” at Al Jazeera was actually a Hamas terrorist plant who praised Allah for Hamas killing Jews on Oct 7. Said “journalist” was killed by the IDF. The MSM should take note
The IDF killed yet another Hamas terrorist posing as a journalist in Gaza
And in what will come as no surprise at all, the outlet Anas Al-Sharif worked for was Al Jazeera.
What do we know about Al-Sharif? Overnight, the IDF said, “Al-Sharif was the head of a Hamas terrorist cell and advanced rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and IDF troops, adding that “intelligence and documents from Gaza, including rosters, terrorist training lists and salary records, prove he was a Hamas operative integrated into Al Jazeera.”
But don’t take Israel’s word for it. This morning, IDF Arabic Spokesperson Avichay Adraee published a selfie Al-Sharif took with Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar and Khalil al-Hayya.
And there’s more. Mere hours after the October 7 massacre had begun, Al-Sharif took to Telegram, declaring: “9 hours and the heroes are still roaming the country killing and capturing… God, God, how great you are.”
https://mailchi.mp/fcb528e0dff8/its-noon-in-israel-netanyahu-weighs-up-a-partial-hostage-release-deal
yeaa, not gonna just take the jews word on that one. they’re sorta busy flattening the entirety of gaza, striking the populace with impunity.
This is the case that I previously alluded to. -NOT directly on point, but nonetheless informative regarding the scope and parameters of the Speech and Debate Clause and extra-chamber divulgences to the the public at large.
(part of my earlier comment: “Somewhere I read that Schiff cleverly posed that he could not be held liable for such leaks under the Speech and Debate Clause…However, I seem to recall some SCOTUS cases distinguishing between extra-chamber divulgences that were political (not protected) rather than legislative (protected) in nature and intent.”)
The case I was trying to recall was Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111. This is taken from SCOTUS Summary:
“2. The Speech or Debate Clause does not protect transmittal of information by individual Members of Congress by press releases and newsletters. Pp. 123-133.
(b) Neither the newsletters nor the press release here was “essential to the deliberation of the Senate” and neither was part of the deliberative process. Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 92 S.Ct. 2614, 33 L.Ed.2d 583; Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306, 93 S.Ct. 2018, 36 L.Ed.2d 912. P. 2685.
(c) The newsletters and press release were not privileged as part of the ‘informing function’ of Members of Congress to tell the public about their activities. Individual Members’ transmittal of information about their activities by press releases and newsletters is not part of the legislative function or the deliberations that make up the legislative process; in contrast to voting and preparing committee reports, which are part of Congress’ function to inform itself, newsletters and press releases are primarily means of informing those outside the legislative forum and represent the views and will of a single Member. Doe v. McMillan, supra, distinguished. Pp. 132-133.”
Lin
Wholeheartedly agree the Speech or debate clause des not include Mishandling and Releasing classified information to the media. If it were covered our National Security would be under continuous and constant threat. Me thinks Shifty has shifted in his mess kit one too many lies and will soon be going to jail. Further, this is direct evidence of his continued collusion and participation as a co-conspirator in the HRC/Barrack Obama Russia gate conspiracy. I have to believe accountability is going to happen, it has to happen if we want to save our Nation.
Maybe buraq edited the tapes. Missing 15 minutes. 😏
Thank you, Lin.
@Lin,
No disagreement… however the odds are in Schiff’s favor.
He gets charged.
He moves to dismiss due to the “Speech & Debate Clause”.
Depending on who is the judge hearing the case… it could be dismissed.
And that’s it.
Now look at the judges who would be in line to hear this case? Tell me what are the odds it falls into a biased Democrat?
Want to disbar him? Same problem.
The fix is in.
-G
Maybe Schiff did not know the chain of command? OTOH, Schiff doesn’t have a tight perm with a touch of highlights for a hairdo like Pamela Smith
Reporter: “Can you tell us what the chain of command is now?”
Washington DC Police Chief Pamela A. Smith: “What does that mean?”
that was such a treasure to see her ask, what does that mean??
She’s changed her tune. Someone’s in an arm twist? Guess it’s not J6, mam.
DJT could get used to this revenge?
Looks like we’ve got a new “George” as yellow anonymous, desperately holding on to his Russian collusion teddy bear. Wrong about everything, but willing to pound out a lot of words in a vain attempt to not appear to be wrong.
Gigi/George/Svelaz/Dennis/Wally/Elvis Bug et al have undergone so many genetic mutations likely due to inbreeding that it’s only a matter of time before he/she/dem is kicked out of the gene pool (or runs through the entire list of possible email addresses). It’s called
GenoTroll-ocideYou think I’m wrong only because I don’t believe your interpretation of events. You are entitled to your opinion. I believe there was some evidence, circumstantial evidence to justify an investigation and partially support some of the claims made against President Trump. I am just in disagreement with your opinion that does not make me wrong on the issue.
“You think I’m wrong only because I don’t believe your interpretation of events”
I know that you’re wrong because you’re wrong. It’s that simple. There is no opinion regarding the proven fact that the Russia collusion hoax was a made up lie.
Interestingly, A-Damn Schiff’s Congressional colleague from the 24th district allegedly is an undocumented alien, according to The Immigration Story of 24th district Congressman.
by Brian Campbell
Santa Barbara Current
Feb 24, 2025
https://www.sbcurrent.com/p/the-immigration-story-of-congressman
As Turley points out apply Occam’s Razor.
The whistleblower could have been charged had it been a false complaint.
Thus it is more plausible that they (FBI) didn’t pursue Schiff because they were either against Trump, or believed that Schiff would claim qualified immunity. (Which actually wouldn’t work in this instance.)
If you can show that this was part of a conspiracy… Schiff is still at risk on this.
Along w Agent Swallows.
-G
I don’t think so. Because the whistleblower was not under oath when he reported his claims to the FBI. A 302 form is not a sworn statement or an affidavit of some kind. It’s just an official set of notes from an informal interview done by an agent. It’s not evidence that what was said has been corroborated or true.
If we are going to use Occam’s Razor it would make more sense that the FBI couldn’t corroborate the claims or the agent figured out pretty early the staffer was misunderstanding what he/she heard. This can be partly supported by the reporting in the Just the News article by the staffer’s admission that he/she believed the instructions given in the alleged meeting meant to seek out and use classified information. What the staffer said was the instruction were to use their resources and contacts in the intelligence community to gather facts. It said nothing of using or gathering classified information. Still on Occam’s razor, the staffer assumed that classified information was part of the instruction because they mentioned the use of intelligence community resources. That does not mean explicitly to use classified information. It can also mean using unclassified information which is perfectly legal for the purpose the instructions.
“Because the whistleblower was not under oath when he reported his claims to the FBI”
Irrelevant. Lying to the FBI is still a crime, even if you’re not under oath. You’re really bad at this trolling stuff.
Wrong. You cannot be charged with lying to the FBI when you volunteer the information. The staffer was not part of an official investigation or being interviewed under oath by an agent. The staffer came in with information to the FBI. He could have lied or just misunderstood what he claims to have witnessed in that meeting.
You are correct that you do not necessarily need to be under oath to be charged with lying to the FBI. But it is usually when the FBI is conducting an investigation. Volunteering information as a whitleblower and jotting it down on a 302 form does is not necessarily a guarantee lying in the interview will lead to a charge. The information will have to be corroborated and verified first.
It’s obvious that the agent thought the staffer misunderstood the instructions in that meeting when the staffer said he/she believed they meant to use classified information. I’m sure a smart agent with years of experience would understand the misunderstanding and/or intent of the staffer. He was more likely to be a disgruntled employee who is known to have a firendship with a known Republican representative who is well known for pursuing frivolous defamation suits. Credibility is suspect when you have that kind of information about the staffer.
“You cannot be charged with lying to the FBI when you volunteer the information.”
You’re just plain wrong. Why do you keep doubling down on being wrong? More words don’t change the fact that you’re wrong.
Not when it’s not material to an investigation. You can be charged with lying if the FBI finds out the information provided was intentionally deceptive or a known falsehood. A statement based on a belief or assumption is harder to prove and use as evidence for a charge.
It’s not a black and white issue. It’s more nuanced than you would like to believe.
Basically you’re admitting that you were wrong. Lying to the FBI is a crime, even if you’re not under oath. You could have saved yourself a lot of typing if you just said that directly, instead of trying to hide your admission of being wrong in a cloud of misdirection.
“Wrong. You cannot be charged with lying to the FBI when you volunteer the information.”
I don’t see any exemption for “volunteering” knowingly-false information, do you? 18 U.S.C. 1001
Nor does it require being under oath.
“ don’t see any exemption for “volunteering” knowingly-false information”
Exactly. How would that dichotomy even make sense? This is shades of George and his refusal to understand basic perjury.
Seriously? Why don’t you ask General Mike Flynn?
Exactly!
That was the kill shot, Madman, well done!
Why does being friends with someone from a different political party equates to your credibility being suspect? Also, you make many assertions as to what the FBI agent(s) think/conclude without any evidence, yet believe the credibility of the whistle-blower is suspect, despite his/her making at least two complaints to the FBI.
Poor Anon,
Yes you can.
Filing a false police report?
Now there’s more to this like intent / mens rea . But Turley’s point is that either the Whistleblower or Schiff committed a criminal act. Now which is it?
Applying Occam’s Razor… its Schiff.
exactly. what a stupid suggestion to make that one can lie to the FBI only after one is sworn in as in a courtroom setting or via affidavit!
Just like you apparently can lie on a government form that clearly says that you are answering the questions under penalty of perjury, yet that’s not “real” perjury per George the troll.
Professor Turley… how many days of each year do you need to see the corruption and outright criminality of your fellow Democrats before you’re sufficiently embarrassed and ashamed and renounce all allegiances and support to these Soviet Democrats?
Schiff, Swallwell, Comey, etc – these are your fellow card carrying Democrats.
You are known by the company that you voluntarily keep.
Somewhere I read that Schiff cleverly posed that he could not be held liable for such leaks under the Speech and Debate Clause (which does cover information exchanged OUTSIDE of the holy chambers if they reflect ongoing work IN the chambers.)
However, I seem to recall some SCOTUS cases distinguishing between extra-chamber divulgences that were political (not protected) rather than legislative (protected) in nature and intent. Can’t remember the cases?
Is what Schiff did any different than what Comer and Jordan did all the time? They did leak certain parts of closed door testimony and evidence they reviewed. How would that be different than what Schiff is alleged to have done?
Committee members from both parties have done leaks in the past.
Plus how do we know the claims are even true since because the source of fhe allegation is an FBI 302 memo which is an interview not done under oath?
“Is what Schiff did any different than what Comer and Jordan did all the time? They did leak certain parts of closed door testimony and evidence they reviewed. How would that be different than what Schiff is alleged to have done?
Committee members from both parties have done leaks in the past.
Plus how do we know the claims are even true since because the source of fhe allegation is an FBI 302 memo which is an interview not done under oath?”
Nice try, but Schiff is accused of leaking classified information. And a 302 is much more than just an interview, read up and try not to be so uninformed:
https://kmlawfirm.com/2017/05/18/what-is-an-fbi-302-the-problematic-nature-of-fbi-agents-interview-memos/
“You may think that a 302 is simply an interview memo.
It’s not. It’s much more.
302s are a powerful tool for a prosecutor. Since the witness doesn’t generally take notes during an interview, it’s the only contemporaneous document capturing what was said. Plus, it’s the “official” record of the interview. It’s on a nice, official-looking form. The agent signs it, verifying its accuracy. Very credible stuff to a jury.”
He’s not accused of leaking classified information. Turley’s reporting seems to be taking some liberties with the facts. This is what Just the News says about that claim,
“The Democratic whistleblower provided details to the FBI in August 2017 about a February 13, 2017 HPSCI staff meeting where the HPSCI staff director and general counsel “advised the minority staff that he wanted to drive the ‘Russian involvement’ issue into a Joint Inquiry ‘similar to the 9/11 Commission.’ He instructed the staff to use any resources they had developed within the Intelligence Community to gather facts. … He wanted to make the information public and use the media to compel public opinion to bring about the Joint Inquiry.”
The Democratic staffer told the FBI in December 2017 that he believed that “this was an explicit request to gather classified information for public disclosure.”
It’s obvious the staffer misunderstood the assignment and thought it was an explicit request to gather classified information.
Instructing other staffers to “use any resources they had developed within the intelligence community to gather facts”. That’s not an explicit request to gather classified information. It seems the staffer is an idiot and thought he was being told to use classified information. Nothing about that instruction said to use classified information. All it said was to use their contacts and resources within the intelligence community to gather facts. Turley or the staffer conflated “intelligence community” to mean classified info.
You can tell this staffer is not very smart and it looks like he is more of a disgruntled staffer than a credible witness to what he claims to have heard.
You’re splitting hairs. It’s still an accusation of a felony. And I’m always amazed at the mind reading abilities of leftists.
It’s a very weak accusation. The staffer clearly said he “believed” the instructions meant to gather or use classified information. Wnen it was clealry not the case. You can tell just by his/her description that he/she was not cognizant of what was being said. He/She made an assumption. That is not proof that Schiff said in the meeting meant he said to use classified information. The staffer clearly inferred it because the instruction was to use their resources or contacts in the intelligence community to gather facts. That’s not saying to uses classified information. Gathering facts from the intel community can include using unclassified information too.
Its’ a accusation based on an assumption. There is no evidence that anything classified was used or suggested. It’s right there in the article. The staffer “believed” they were told to use classified information. The staffer did not say they did use classified information or what exactly was used and when? The accusation seems pretty weak after reading about the facts in the article.
Sure, it sounds sketchy, but based on established standards it’s good enough to open an FBI investigation and harass innocent people for years. I mean, lack of evidence was just peachy for the Russia collusion hoax, right?
I don’t think it was enough to star an investigation. Since it this was an interview from 2017 and multiple interviews were done after that it can safely be assumed that an investigation was done. It may be that there was not basis for the staffer’s believe that classified information was sought. You can see in the article the staffer assumed that was the intent. He/she did not allege that it actually occurred. The only thing that is clear is the staffer heard at the meeting that staffers were instructed to use their resources and contacts in the intelligence community to gather facts. That in no way infers that they also seek classified information.
There was some evidence for the Russian collusion claims and as it is protocol they initiated an investigation. Now I personally believe there was some circumstantial evidence to support some of the allegations against Trump but not enough to press full charges or seek an impeachment. The Democrats clearly overreached and in the process did find some, some circumstantial evidence to support some or part of their claims.
“Now I personally believe there was some circumstantial evidence to support some of the allegations against Trump”
No there wasn’t. It was all made up, and they knew that at the time.
You are entitled to your opinion. I cannot completely dismiss the cicumstantial evidence they presented. I can admit I was not entirely convinced, but I cannot dismiss it entirely either.
Your feelings are not facts. There was no legal justification to even open the original investigation. Durham proved that. There was absolutely zero evidence of any “collusion” between anyone in the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Which makes sense, because there was zero “collusion” between any member of the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Just grow up already and admit the truth, and free yourself from your delusions.
My feelings were not involved. My opinon based on the facts were. I believe there was enough evidence to conduct an investigation and that is what happened. There was some circumstantial evidence and events that left a lot of suspicion in the air and actions that made things look suspect. There was no “zero” evidence. There was indeed some evidence to raise enough suspicion to consider it a possibility. That’s my opinion. You are entitled to yours certainly. If that’s what you believe then have at it.
“My feelings were not involved. My opinon based on the facts were. I believe there was enough evidence to conduct an investigation and that is what happened. There was some circumstantial evidence and events that left a lot of suspicion in the air and actions that made things look suspect. There was no “zero” evidence. There was indeed some evidence to raise enough suspicion to consider it a possibility. That’s my opinion. You are entitled to yours certainly. If that’s what you believe then have at it.”
So, as I said, your conclusion was entirely based on your feelings and not on any actual facts. You just wanted the story to be true, even though it wasn’t. There was zero evidence, including circumstantial. You had a “feeling” based on your misreading of peoples’s actions. Get over yourself, you’re not that smart.
You don’t get to claim what I think or feel just because you say so. I determined my opinion on the facts. You don’t seem to be able to accept the fact that others are entitled to their opinions unless they align with yours.
I will still have to disagree. There was evidence to maintain suspicion and conduct an investigation.
“I will still have to disagree. There was evidence to maintain suspicion and conduct an investigation.”
You can disagree because of your feelings all you want. You’re still wrong. There was no evidence, and there never should have been an investigation. Get over yourself.
Your own admission on standards of evidence that require an investigation contradict your assertion. There was enough circumstancial evidence to initiate an investigation and that included President Trump’s public statements and actions. The DOJ conducted an investigation and they found possible connections about the allegations. There never was “zero” evidence. That’s just pure denial because of your personal belief. It’s just your opinion. I can have mine and that will never change. As I said before, I’m not entirely convinced based on the facts. There’s enougn to still have a healthy level of suspicion.
Yes a 302 form is a powerful tool when it has relevant information that can be corroborated and is done under oath. Otherwise it can be dismissed as hearsay.
You can’t verify it’s accuracy just because an agent signs it. It still would need to be corroborated and a sworn affidavit would be preferable if anyone would try to make an accusation based on a 302. It’s not a reliable source and that is why it’s rarely used to substantiate an accusation.
It’s a summary of what was said and the interviewer’s notes cannot be taken as accurate or credible in court. Think of it as a very informal interview where the agent just jots down some notes or observations that are not sworn testimony.
I know what a 302 is. You didn’t.
So explain to us what a 302 is. I know what it is and why it’s not a reliable source for making an accusation or alleging criminality.
This 302 mentioned in the article was not done under oath. Just on that alone leaves it open to claims of hearsay. That is a weak source at best, but it is a good source to use when it is used to smear or label someone and convince those less knowledgable about what a 302 is that it is ironclad proof of an accusation’s veracity.
You keep thinking that it somehow matters that the interviewee is under oath. It doesn’t. Lying to the FBI is a crime even if you’re not under oath. Why can’t you understand that basic statement of fact?
That’s not what I’m thinking. You are assuming things. You assume that the staffer’s claims are true because they are recorded on a 302 form. But that is not the case because even if it were not done under oath it can still be deemed hearsay and that weakens the claim substantially. The staffer’s admission that he/she believed the instructions they were given meant they were to use or seek classified information to be explicit is not supported by the facts given by the staffer. As I have pointed out from the article the instructions never mention using classified information or gathering it from the intelligence community. It’s clear the staffer assumed that’s what the instructions meant because they said to use their resources or contacts from the intelligence community. That is not an instruction to use or seek classified information. They were told to gather facts and that can mean unclassified informtation.
The accusation that Schiff sought to leak classified information is false based on the staffers claims as recorded in the FD-302 form.
I don’t care about your feelings. Your reading of the law is just plain wrong.
Ummm? I think you give Schiff way too much credit! As with most on the left, they really aren’t all that bright. It’s just that they’ve gotten away with so much garbage over the decades, and the media ignores their criminality, that Turley thinks more highly of this POS, than he should.
I’d always assumed it was Obama’s Plumbers, Brennon, Rice, Clapper, etc would was leaking all these fake intel lies to the NYT/WaPost, etc., but perhaps it was Schiff or his team?
NYT: Feb 14, 2017. Trump has been POTUS for less than 1 mo. This is Peter Strzok’s marked up copy, “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contact With Russian Intelligence”: https://judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Annotated%20New%20York%20Times%20Article.pdf
FBI/Comey sat on this for 2 1/2 yrs. When released, The question is: Who Leaked the lies to the NYT’s? Names are coming out. Solomon wrote it up here: https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/just-released-trump-russia-documents-show-anti-trump
More fun here: Verbatim”play. ObamaGate – The Movie. FBI investigator & lovers Strzok & Page texts/emails. @ 1:02:09 mark:
youtube.com/watch?v=Qqi5Cv4OFJg&t=5s Dean Cain plays Peter Strzok. Play by Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer.
garyh845,
You might not be aware but this website only permits two hyperlinks per comment. I edited yours above to make it visible. In the future if you would like the readership to review more than two links, this may be done by having multiple comments of two or fewer links each.
Since then Rep-Schiff kept promising us “smoking gun” evidence to PROVE collusion, I suspect that he is the liar in this scenario.
If he really had any such evidence, surely he would have released it.
Schiff has lied so many times to the American people that he’s become the modern day equivalent to “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”. I don’t trust a word that comes out of his mouth as being the truth, not a single word.
JLM wrote, “Since then Rep-Schiff kept promising us “smoking gun” evidence to PROVE collusion, I suspect that he is the liar in this scenario.”
By the way; reread this essay, Schiff is not actually being accused of being a liar in this essay and I haven’t seen or heard him deny this whistleblower accusation, yet. Give Schiff a little time, he’ll lie soon enough, all he has to do is open his mouth.
As Professor Turley says, Schiff, like any criminal suspect or accused, is entitled to the presumption of innocence and a defense. That said, agree with you the proverbil 110%.
Schiff’s essential hatred of basically anyone and anything Russian is long standing and deep rooted. Accordingly, evidence is (to him) irrelevant:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/04/18/the-us-russia-and-ukraine-75-years-of-hate-propaganda/
midwesternmarx.com/articles/ukraine-the-cias-75-year-old-proxy-by-gerald-sussman (It’s a Marxist publication, but please consider reading it anyway, at least for the “husband and wife” photo)
https://themillenniumreport.com/2019/03/the-secret-back-story-behind-the-outright-treason-of-adam-schiff/
RussAMGirl,
You might not be aware but this website only permits two hyperlinks per comment. I edited yours above to make it visible. In the future if you would like the readership to review more than two links, this may be done by having multiple comments of two or fewer links each.
We should not forget that Rep Comer and Jordan also promised lots of smoking gun evidence during the Biden inquiries. Based on that they too lied to us.
“We should not forget that Rep Comer and Jordan also promised lots of smoking gun evidence during the Biden inquiries. Based on that they too lied to us.”
Then why did Biden pardon Hunter and the rest of the Biden crime family, hmmmmmmmm?
Shifty Schiff’s smoking gun story keeps shifting like Bill Clinton’s story about smoking marijuana.
First Schiff said there was a smoking gun, but the evidence he had was top secret. Then he claimed the evidence he had was in plain sight.
When asked about smoking marijuana, Clinton said he never broke the laws of his country. Then when evidence of Clinton smoking a doobie in England surfaced, he claimed he didn’t inhale. In the end, Clinton wished he had. Schiff wished he had, too.
What happened to “Cheaters never prosper”?
The belief that “Orange man bad” produced the confirmation bias that Dems live by, that precluded any questioning of Schiff’s blather.
The “matter of urgent concern” distortion of the ICIG statute, and Schiff’s expectation of receiving dirt apparently from rhe Vindmans shows the existence of a plot to take down the President. Isn’t that just a little bit insurrection-y?
Schiff’s woes keep mounting. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving lowlife. What the whistleblower has allegedly offered is enough to launch an investigation. Schiff and his staff members had best lawyer up while there is still enough lawyers left for hire.
“Schiff and his staff members had best lawyer up while there is still enough lawyers left for hire.”
Then, go after their lawyers too. It was an absolute disgrace what lowlife leftists did (and are still doing!!) to conservative lawyers who had the temerity to represent their clients.
They are not going to do squat. One possible reason why the FBI did not pursue the staffer’s claims is because they may have known it was a BS attempt at vengeance. He was fired or let go because allegedly he was not loyal enough to the party. That is odd because Trump fires people because they are not loyal enough to him or the republican party. Sounds more like a big sour-puss who wants revenge.
“They are not going to do squat. One possible reason why the FBI did not pursue the staffer’s claims is because they may have known it was a BS attempt at vengeance. He was fired or let go because allegedly he was not loyal enough to the party. That is odd because Trump fires people because they are not loyal enough to him or the republican party. Sounds more like a big sour-puss who wants revenge.”
Of course, there’s no way that he/she was fired as retaliation. The rest of your Trump garbage we can dismiss as the usual Trump derangement syndrome, unrelated to the topic at hand.
“……the FBI did not pursue the staffer’s claims is because they may have known it was a BS attempt at vengeance.”
Another likely reason the FBI did not pursue the staffer’s claims is because the FBI then was the Biden/Harris’ FBI. Let’s not forget it was 2017 when the whistleblower came forward with his allegations. The Biden/Harris FBI never mentioned it nor did an investigation ensue. Perhaps now one will be.
“Another likely reason the FBI did not pursue the staffer’s claims is because the FBI then was the Biden/Harris’ FBI”
Just like with Hillary and her illegal email server. Turns out they didn’t even bother investigating.
Start indicting and trying these people outside the protection of DC. The crimes they’re accused of are not only against an individual but against all Americans. Small towns throughout the United States should be the locations their brought before.
This honestly wouldn’t surprise me one bit regarding the confirmed liar Adam Schiff; however, I’m not going to jump on a “guilty until proven innocent” bandwagon.
As much as I dislike Schiff, he still has Constitutional rights, and one of those is the presumption of innocence, whether your and I like it or not.
So, regardless of how absurd it might be to say that Schiff is considered innocent until proven guilty regarding his Trump Derangement Syndrome actions, that is what we MUST do.
Witherspoon, I agree. He’s innocent until proven guilty. Sadly many use these kinds of smears and labeling to insinuate guilt and criminality before any of the facts are aired out.
Steve,
Well said.
Now, let us see if there is a FBI and DOJ investigation, who says what, who knew what and when and if there are other whistleblowers who come forth.
Perhaps Schiff could plead his Trump Derangement Syndrome as an insanity or other mental-capacity defense?
RussAmGirl wrote, “Perhaps Schiff could plead his Trump Derangement Syndrome as an insanity or other mental-capacity defense?”
Since Alan Dershowitz agrees that Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) exists, maybe Schiff could get Alan Dershowitz to defend him using that exact defense.
Can you imagine the social ramifications if TDS was actually used as a defense in a case and the defense won the case by proving that TDS is a treatable mental condition? Consider the consequences of a court agreeing that TDS is a treatable mental condition that can be defined either as a subset of clinical paranoia or an additional underlying life event stimulus for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)!
Paranoia: a mental state characterized by intense suspicion and distrust of others, including distrust of Donald Trump, often accompanied by delusions of persecution. It can be a symptom of various mental health conditions or a standalone issue, and it significantly impacts daily life and relationships.
Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) a mental health condition that can develop after a person experiences or witnesses a traumatic event, such as a life-threatening situation, severe injury, violence, or Donald Trump being elected to the Presidency. PTSD can cause a range of emotional and physical symptoms, including re-experiencing the trauma through flashbacks or nightmares, avoidance of reminders of the event, negative changes in thinking and mood, and increased arousal or reactivity.
Think of all the mass psychological group therapy sessions that would have to be held in football stadiums or other arenas. Think of all the gnashing of teeth and snowflake crying from TDS sufferers when they hit rock bottom and learning that they’ve were gullible morons that had been duped all along. How could they show their faces in public anymore, the suicide rate would skyrocket!
Think of how insurance companies would react to having to pay for all the new patients needing clinical psychological therapy; insurance companies would fight this kind of diagnosis and say that they don’t have to pay for stupid people being stupid by being suckered into believing propaganda. Stupid has never been a treatable medical condition.
I could go on.
“It is hard to believe that a “player” like Schiff would be stupid enough to openly discuss such a criminal act in a staff meeting.”
Not really. Those people really do think they are “above the law”. Any means to an end is OK, or, at the very least, will never be the subject of a conviction before a DC jury.
We don’t even know if what is alleged is even true. All we know is a “staffer” who is also friends with Nunes a known spreader of rumor and innuendo has questionable credibility. Even professor Turley is not fully convinced the claims are true.
“We don’t even know if what is alleged is even true.”
Good enough for the Russia Russia Russia collusion hoax.
One side says the statement on the other side is false. But when you turn the page, it says the statement on the other side is true. That might seem paradoxical, but Prof. Turley proves with geometric logic that both statements can’t be true or even lawful. Book ’em Danno, one or the other.
“One side says the statement on the other side is false. But when you turn the page, it says the statement on the other side is true. That might seem paradoxical, but Prof. Turley proves with geometric logic that both statements can’t be true or even lawful. ”
I can see that you haven’t done anything about your awful reading comprehension problem. The professor said quite clearly that either Schiff leaked classified documents and therefore committed one class of felony, or the whistleblower lied to investigators and therefore committed a different class of felony. This is not difficult except for morons like yourself.
Agree. They really do think they are “above the law”, or at least they did back at the time the whistleblower describes. Many of these people seem to be running a little scared now. But at least back at that time they thought they could get away with everything. The only things that leaked were things they wanted leaked and were things that benefited the narratives they preferred. A lid was tightly fastened over everything else. And they, including Schiffless, thought it would go on indefinitely and that no one would ever be in a position to uncover what they chose to keep hidden. So it does not surprise me in the least that such things could be discussed in closed staff meetings. I would only be surprised if those parts of the discussions had been documented in official written notes of those meetings.
Schiff’s escape hatch will be that he never released any classified material. His staffers will take the fall.
“Schiff’s escape hatch will be that he never released any classified material. His staffers will take the fall.”
Not sure that will actually work regarding classified documents, given effective prosecution. For example, Biden’s ghost writer should be sitting in prison right now, if only the prosecutor had, you know, prosecuted as he should have.
He will lie under oath again, only this time Garland won’t be there to cover for him. Alot of this is going to be used as evidence of the on-going conspiracy of Russia gate. Oh what a tangled web we weave…