(This post may contain disputed claims. We make no assertions as to the validity of the information presented by our Opinion Columnist. We are an opinion blog, not a traditional news outlet, and this post should be treated as such. Enjoy.)Adam Schiff made a huge mistake during his two-hour diatribe at the Senate impeachment trial. It has taken 24 hours for any reporters to go over the thousands of words the House Manager said, but boy, was it worth it. Reports are now saying Schiff really screwed up when he allegedly outed himself as the “leaker” working closely with the “whistleblower.” You’ll love this.
Those of us who watched every minute of the impeachment trial on Wednesday could not believe the number of times Adam Schiff blatantly lied to the American people. Rep. Mark Meadows said that he and Rep. Jim Jordan stopped counting the actual number of lies after they had counted 15 falsehoods by the House Manager.
So, when Schiff cited a Washington Post opinion piece as “evidence” against the president, Trump’s allies knew Schiff had made a huge mistake.
“Schiff may have outed himself during his opening arguments in the Senate trial of the president on Wednesday, as he cited an opinion article written by the Post editorial board — an odd reference in a presentation of factual evidence,” Breitbart reports.
Making matters worse for poor “Pencil Neck” Schiff is the fact he is using an opinion piece in the Washington Post as “evidence” in a trial meant to remove the duly elected President of the United States.
The September 5 WaPo editorial Schiff pointed to on Wednesday dealt with claims only the whistleblower would know, or those working closely with him, as it had not been made public, yet.
Schiff said: “On September 25th [sic], the Washington Post editorial board reported concerns that President Trump was withholding military assistance for Ukraine, and a White House meeting, in order to force President Zelensky to announce investigations of Vice President Biden and purported Ukrainian interference in the U.S. election.”
“At the time, Schiff maintained the falsehood that he was not familiar with the content of the complaint, which was finally published Sep. 26. However, the New York Times exposed Schiff’s deception on Oct. 2, when it reported that the ‘whistleblower’ had early contact with Schiff’s committee staff,” Breitbart adds.
Even the New York Times had to report Schiff was lying when he claimed he has no contact with the whistleblower. And given Schiff’s urgency to see the complaint reported and released, it is plausible that he — or someone close to him — was the source who “reliably told” the editorial board about the “whistleblower” allegations against the president.
The editorial board was likely a safer outlet than the news section, which would have been expected to investigate more fully the origins and credibility of the claim against the president before publishing it as reliable information.
The Post editorial helped create an atmosphere of suspicion and anticipation that led to the complaint’s release and the impeachment itself. And on Wednesday, the Post editorial conveniently provided a “fact” — a “reliably told” story — that Schiff could cite in his case for Trump’s removal.
But Schiff did not explain why he would treat an opinion article as “fact.” Editorials are not typically reliable sources of original reporting.
“The most logical explanation is that Schiff considered the article ‘factual’ because he himself was the source,” said Joel Pollock, Breitbart’s Editor at Large. “He seems to have cited the Post in the same way the FBI in the Crossfire Hurricane case cited Yahoo! News to the FISA court without revealing Yahoo! was using the same source as the FBI.”
So, Schiff creates the so-called “fact” himself by first reporting it to the WaPo, and now he is using it as “evidence” in the impeachment trial.
See how that works? Schiff is fabricating so-called evidence by first leaking it to the WaPo and then pointing to the same WaPo piece as “evidence” against President Trump. This is called “circular-reporting.”
In this case, it was allegedly Schiff who leaked the false narrative that Trump was “withholding military assistance for Ukraine,” until Ukraine’s president announced investigations into Biden. The Washington Post then reports Schiff’s lies in an article. Now, Schiff is using that same article he created as evidence against Trump. It’s a real Schiff show.
Mr. Pollock, who is also a graduate of Havard Law School, surmises that it also raises a number of questions that Republican Senators must address when opening arguments for both sides are over, and the Senate allows 16 hours for questions:
- Was Schiff the anonymous source for the Post?
- If so, why didn’t he disclose his role as a fact witness to the Senate?
- And if so, why is he leading the case against the president?
The more that comes out about this impeachment farce, the more things are pointing squarely back at Adam Schiff. Before Americans witnessed the Russian hoax, the thought that a United States Congressman could be involved in fabricating evidence in order to impeach a sitting president would be hard to believe.
It’s not hard to believe anymore.
Adam Schiff is one of the most corrupt politicians most of us have ever seen. In fact, President Trump said last night he’d love to sit in on the impeachment trial so he could “look at their corrupt faces dead on.” Adam Schiff is at the heart of this Ukraine phone call scandal, and none of us would be surprised to learn he conjured the entire scheme out of thin air — all by himself.
