So, then, who is Adam Schiff?
He was born in Framingham, Massachusetts, the son of Edward and Sherill, a Jewish family. Edward was a staunch Democrat, his wife a Republican. Adam Schiff’s material grandfather was a Republican committee chairman back when there were such things as Republicans in Massachusetts. After living two years in Arizona, the Schiff family moved to California.
Adam received a BA in political science from Stanford University in 1982, and a JD from Harvard in 1985. Following college, he worked as a law clerk in the US District Court for Central California. From 1987-93, he worked as an assistant US attorney for the Central District.
As a federal prosecutor, his one chance to shine came with the federal prosecution of Richard Miller, an FBI agent caught in a sex-for-secrets affair with a Soviet honey trap. The liberal press claimed that “he made a name for himself” in this case, and that’s undeniably true.
The Miller case went to trial on three occasions, two of which were spearheaded by Adam Schiff. The first trial ended in a hung jury. The second trial found Miller guilty, but the prosecution’s case was so wrought with irregularities that a high court threw it out. Miller’s third trial was headed by someone other than Schiff, so Miller was finally found guilty.
Confronted with such overwhelming incompetence, Schiff decided that his only hope for success, given who he really is, would be in politics. Schiff’s congressional district sits comfortably along the green foothills of the San Gabriel mountains, an affluent splotch of solidly Democratic waste northeast of Los Angeles.
His constituents are wealthy film and television personalities (Harvey Weinstein most likely included), Burbank studio producers, and people who work at the Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena. Schiff claims to be the Congressman for the Stars and Mars. He’s probably right about that. His introduction of US House Resolution 106 recognizes the Armenian Genocide (2007), which gave Schiff the support of a large number of Armenian-Americans living in his congressional district.
So far, however—after twenty years in Congress, Schiff’s signature legislation involves a federally mandated reduction of unwanted helicopter noise, which forced the Federal Aviation Administration to “study and regulate helicopter noise in Los Angeles.” It was known as the Helicopter Noise Relief Act.
He’s not the only dirty trickster, either. Former CIA Director John Brennan lied under oath in testimony before Congress about the “Russian dossier.” There was no Russian dossier … it was a dossier manufactured by the DNC with full knowledge and complicity of Hillary Rodham Clinton, illegally used to obtain court sanctioned warrants to surveil members and former members of the Trump presidential campaign.
Adam Schiff sits at the top of the roster of dirty Democrats. He places partisanship ahead of patriotism, but he’s merely one of dozens of Democrats who have not earned the trust of the American people, and whose political behavior endangers us all.
Over the past ten years, the point person for the new communist (Democratic) party and chairperson of the low-down dirty tricks committee has been House Representative Adam Schiff. No other Democrat is better suited for this role because he exceeds all the necessary criteria: he’s corrupted, deceitful, deceptive, fraudulent, shady, sneaky, underhanded, misleading, unprincipled, unscrupulous, bluffing, cunning, disreputable, mendacious, perfidious, treacherous, two-faced, and traitorous.
Oh, and also contemptible, disgraceful, loathsome, base, ignominious, and slimy. In effect, Adam Schiff is the kind of person who would make Joseph Stalin jealous.
Nowhere, and at no time has this been better revealed to us than the lies and distortions, the long list of dirty tricks Schiff’s pulled on Donald J. Trump. He stated publicly, on several occasions, that he had direct evidence of Mr. Trump’s collusion with foreign agents to seize the White House in 2016.
There was never any evidence of Trump’s collusion because there was no collusion, so when Schiff proclaimed that Trump was guilty of treason, he was lying. He later denied ever accusing Trump of treason, and that was another lie.
When accused by a colleague of criminal behavior, which is to say Adam Schiff’s participation in the campaign to spy on the President and White House/campaign staffers, Schiff filed an ethics complaint against Representative Devin Nunes.
In March 2017, during an interview on MSNBC, Schiff claimed that there was more than “circumstantial evidence” of Trump’s collusion. He lied. In July, when asked about whether Nunes was trying to cover for Trump by claiming that the Obama White House spied on the Trump campaign, Schiff said, “It certainly is an attempt to distract …”
Schiff became the chair of the House Intelligence Committee in 2019 and undertook a personal mission to investigate President Trump. Responding to whether he would accept the Special Counsel’s investigation results, the utterly inept former federal prosecutor answered, “… there may be, for example, evidence of collusion or conspiracy that is clear and convincing, but not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as is needed for a criminal conviction.”
Fellow California congress person Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U. S. House of Representatives, named Adam Schiff as lead impeachment manager. If Pelosi was serious about impeaching the president, why would she appoint Schiff to this duty?
Dirty tricks aren’t new in American politics. In fact, they’ve been with us from the very beginning when incumbent President George Washington was reluctantly running for re-election. With the aim of keeping him from winning a second term, hostile news agents attacked Washington’s policies.
When that didn’t work, and after Mr. Washington was unanimously reelected to the presidency, newspapers began attacking him personally, apparently upset by the fact that New York governor George Clinton lost his bid for the vice presidency to John Adams. Their goal was clear: besmirch Washington and at the same time, cast doubt upon the qualifications of John Adams with every intention to keep Adams out of the White House in future elections.
Clinton. Clinton. Where have I heard that name before?
After the election of 1792, the news media began a series of personal attacks against Mr. Washington. Nor should we today be too surprised to learn that the man behind these attacks was Thomas Jefferson, who hated Alexander Hamilton with a passion and felt anger toward Washington for favoring Hamilton’s opinions over his own. Jefferson thus relied upon Philip Freneau of the National Gazette and Benjamin F. Bache at the Aurora to unleash venomous attacks against Washington.
By 1795, the harsh language reflected a profound mutual distrust between Federalists (Washington’s party) and the Democratic-Republicans (Jefferson’s party), each seeing in the other a fundamental danger to the future of the country.
Jefferson’s efforts backfired, however —as many smear campaigns do— but his efforts did establish the precedent that remains with us today. As an aside, George Washington, who has been dead now for going on 221 years, remains the subject of media smear campaigns.
Several years ago, CBS News (Sunday Morning) and the New York Times ran with a story about several black women who claimed that they were descendants of Washington through a man named West Ford, the illegitimate son of George Washington, who regularly visited a slave woman named Venus, owned by George Washington’s half-brother John.
It was an intentional smear because (1) there is no evidence to bolster such spurious claims, and (2) there never will be any evidence because George Washington, having suffered the effects of Scarlet and Rheumatic Fever, was rendered sterile. George Washington had no descendants.
It is interesting, though, how the political left leaves no stone unturned in their attempts to destroy our nation’s history. They know, as do we all, that attacking our history at the same time destroys our culture, the things we value (as Americans). It is an insidious campaign. The same sort of sleaze that existed in the 1790s remains with us today —which does not speak well of our modern politicians or the society that supports them.
Of course, both parties have been guilty of past dirty tricks and smear campaigns.
The Republican Party (the youngest of the two) has a pamphlet governing dirty tricks and smear tactics kept under lock and key in the lower drawer of the GOP committee chairman’s desk.
Democrats, on the other hand, have a ten-volume set of strategies widely distributed to every Democratic politician/communist wannabe and every liberal newsroom in the English-speaking world —and they are never tired of using them.
Other than that all is well in the swamp.
For the best in conservative news