Select Page

HORIST: Adam Schiff: The king of bad information

HORIST: Adam Schiff: The king of bad information

The role of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff in these impeachment proceedings can be characterized not only by the amount of inaccurate information he disseminates, but how many times he gets caught.

During the investigation being conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Schiff used his participation in secret closed-door meetings to leak, hint-at and outright reveal what he claimed to have learned.  In his most spectacular example, he made the rounds of the friendly news studios to claim that he had seen conclusive evidence that Trump had criminally conspired with Russian operatives during the 2016 campaign.

Schiff did this apparently assuming that Mueller would deliver that opinion –even though Schiff had not seen a scintilla of evidence to support his public claim.  He was playing the odds – and he got burned when Mueller drew the opposite conclusion.  In his report, Mueller was unequitable that no one – not Trump, not any members of his family, no campaign staffers  and no America at all –had criminally colluded with any Russians.

In view of the two years of baseless accusations carried across the anti-Trump media as fact, Mueller’s conclusion was the big – really BIG – take away.  It was also what Democrats and the media chose to ignore or refute.  Schiff was the point man in that effort.

At the opening of the so-called impeachment inquiry, Schiff – as chairman of the committee – read into the Congressional Record a false version of the phone conversation between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky —  an alleged conversation that Schiff, himself, had fabricated.

We can all recall how Schiff feigned surprise when a whistleblower had contacted authorities to report his allegation against Trump with regard to that phone call. It was later discovered that the whistleblower had first contacted Schiff’s office – and it was there that the scheme was concocted to run the allegation through a secretive whistleblower process.  This was a Schiff set-up by any stretch of the definition.

Where testimony is hearsay or when facts are inconclusive, Schiff offers up his opinions with absolute certainty — as if they were fact-based.  Even as his committee was supposedly “searching” for the facts and the truth, Schiff was offering up judgmental conclusions.

It is one thing to be a partisan – even a strident partisan – but quite another to be an obsessed partisan.  That is a level at which facts, honesty, integrity and fairness all go out the window.  We have seen this in the rules for the unprecedented impeachment “inquiry” hearings by several House committees – of which Intelligence was only the most prominent.  The fault for that bit of political mischief rests on the shoulders of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  But, the highly biased rules of the Intelligence Committee were the work of Schiff.

From the selection of witnesses, holding testimony in secret and the out-of-context leaks of testimony to the mendacious interpretations offered by Schiff, the entire process was designed – not to find the facts – but to make the best possible case against Trump.  If this were a judicial process, Schiff would be convincingly accused of prosecutorial misconduct.

The Pelosi/Schiff decision to not wait on the courts’ decision over the jurisdictional dispute between the President and the Congress  — which would decide whether the most critical witnesses would have to testify or not – means that politics was driving the entire impeachment process.

Whether they could not wait for the truth or did not trust the truth is moot.  They are moving to impeach before having completed the necessary work.  In fact, Democrats had decided to impeach even before they could claim ANY evidence of wrongdoing – specious as it may be.  They simply wanted the 2016 election to be undone – and a weaponized impeachment was their only opportunity.

The #NeverTrump Resistance Movement began the moment he was elected.  It gained a foothold in Congress through the elections of a number a radical leftist – personified by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – and the pre-existing obsessed partisans already in the House – personified by Schiff.

While we only have had three examples of an impeachment process, the current one is by far the most partisan, the most politicized and the least justified.  The fact that this nation is now in the midst of a divisive and destructive impeachment process is due to a crazed element within Congress that has gained dominance – of which Adam Schiff is one of the master manipulators, who has put partisan politics above the good of the nation.  We can only hope that the hypocrisy, the dishonesty and the damage done in the House will be mitigated as the process moves on to the Senate.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.

17 Comments

  1. Robert

    No matter who exposed what Trump did, is of no importance. Unless I am mistaken I was always taught if you see a violation of the laws of this USA, it is my responsibility to report it, then it is up to law enforcement to investigate, that is exactly why the Federal and State Governments has an Anonymous reporting law.
    Now on investigating Trump that is Congress’s job in every respect being the DOJ has come up with a stupid, against he Constitution that “a sitting President can not be indicted.”, the Constitution says no one is above the law.
    Now to protect a person who breaks the law is a serious violation of the law, as nearly everyone here says, but never willing to back it up, when it is the person they support who broke the law.
    This will all go down in History about what the Republican Party does in this instance and i do not think it will be a good event in the history of the USA.
    No i am not a Liberal, I have been a republican who supports the party very well financially, and i believe in the old adage of the party, TRUTH AND HONOR, which has been lost under the Trump Administration.
    Now it seems to operate like the Mob and their DON of the USA.

    Reply
    • ssilv48

      One thing for sure here is that there are criminals on both sides of the isle that are not only stealing monies from the American taxpayers, but from foreign country’s also, (Russian collusion, which have proven many time’s it was Hillary and all of the higher officials in an illegal unvetted office of oboma), that so far the first way they are trying to get rid of President Donald Trump of a criminal cost of 35 MILLION, there are just more on the demo rats side, but there are many republicans that are taking monies and do not want to get caught also. They could not get the Russian collusion to stick with all theie lie’s, so now they are trying because of hear say. Next time, as this will not stick, will be their say. Most of this started by letting an illegal Kenyan born muslime in charge of America for 8 illegal years and oboma needs a proper vetting still to this day. Funny how all the people under the oboma administration are after a few short years of making $170,000.00 are now worth 52 MILLION DOLLARS. Can anyone explain how that can be done legally??? The reason this keeps going on is that no one is doing their job, except President Trump, by exposing the criminals and they are all pissed off because a proper investigation will put all these criminals in JAIL WHERE THEY ARE SUPPOSE TO BE.

      Reply
    • Kathleen DeMaggio

      In the first place, the Whistleblower has to be legitimate. Mark Levine gave three rules to be a legitimate whistleblower and this one does not meet the criteria. Second, they started talking about impeaching Trump the day of this election and have been blaming it on everything all over the board. They don’t have a crime or misdemeanor to pin the impeachment on. Nancy is going back to blaming the Russians again. That has been litigated. Over. It just boils down to hating Trump because he is doing things that the Democrats could get done or couldn’t even think up to do. They are a waste of time and space.

      Reply
      • Joe S Bruder

        Since Trump released a sanitized version of the transcript, and it STILL incriminated him, doesn’t that alone prove that the whistleblower was legitimate? And the fact that people who were at the meeting where Trump made his “offer you can’t refuse” tried to escalate their concerns up the chain of command and were stonewalled or completely shut down shows both a recognition that the act was not legal and a desire to hide the evidence, proves that the crime was real. Further testimony by diplomats and even White House staff showed that it was ongoing for several months, and that Guiliani and Trump were running the show. How much evidence do you need?

        And don’t forget, the hearings are the equivalent of a grand jury – they don’t convict anyone, just determine the charges. And this is not a criminal trial – the President doesn’t have to break the law to be removed by the Senate (although there is plenty of evidence that Trump regularly flouts and breaks the law at every turn). The Senate has to determine whether Trump abused his office or not, and crimes such as bribery, extortion, and obstruction of justice are alleged but not necessary to convict.

        Trump has complained about not having his top staff members testify, while it was his own decision to prevent them from testifying. He has consistently blocked every bit of documentation that he can. Trump was given the opportunity to send his lawyers to the latest hearings, and refused. For that matter, I’m sure the committees would welcome Trump to testify too, but we all know how that would go. He can’t tell the truth to (literally) save his own life. He has also started doling out money to Republican Senators for their upcoming campaigns. He’s openly bribing the jurors, and you don’t see anything wrong with that!

        Welcome to the Cult of Donald Trump!

        Reply
        • Brooder

          How many times do we have to show you they’re lying before it gets through to you? Will you continue to spin their lies and very emphatic but good for nothing talking points here when you come to realize you’ve been bamboozled? I think you will.

          Reply
    • Knock Knock

      Robert writes “then it is up to law enforcement to investigate.” Well sure – but I don’t see that happening. How can any fair-minded person call this an investigation. Joe makes it clear above that they’re moving on before the can ‘investigate’ the most important players. Right now it’s all hearsay. And it’s a waste of my taxpayer money all predicated on the idea that a phone conversation asking to do something that really should be done is somehow a big deal. It just isn’t.

      Reply
    • Knock Knock

      Haha – a big deal would be something like flying a plane load of money to a corrupt government without congressional approval with no paper trail explaining why ‘our government’ gave ‘them’ this secret payoff. Let’s investigate that stuff!

      Reply
    • Charles Spencer

      You are a total sellout if you think that this impeachment has legs. In our court system, you need proof not theories. Your statement only prove your biased.
      While I’m a Democrat and wish Trump wasn’t elected, do wish that we follow the rule of laws.
      As far as the Statement that we hear all the time, “ No one is above the law” , it should be applied to Adam Schiff and his bending of the law when it came time to look at impeachment. Schiff push thru his desires to Deny 62 Million voters there choice for President only to regain power in the executive branch is a disgrace and speeches like yours shows how biased the leader ship for the Democratic Party and yourself exist.

      Reply
      • Joe S Bruder

        The impeachment hearings have turned up evidence and testimony that Trump tried to extort Ukraine into investigating a political rival, and also tried to cover it up. This is way more serious that anything that Nixon did. Impeachment is the remedy that is specified by the Constitution, and the House is following the Constitution as well as previous precedence.

        You can disagree about policy, and that is for voters to decide (and don’t forget that Trump did NOT win a majority of votes in his election, and there is ample evidence to prove that the Russians worked to help him win, even if it couldn’t be proven that Trump himself was in on it). However, if a President abuses his power to prevent a fair and honest election, then it is up to Congress to intervene in order to keep the election fair. The House is doing exactly what they should be doing.

        Reply
  2. John

    I agree, the hearing has been incomplete, if the people who trump has prohibited from testifying were testifying and the KING himself we would have a clearer view of the depth and breadth of the corruption. Unfortunately, the cult of Trump would hang in there like like lemmings, be ware of the kool aid!

    Reply
  3. Susan

    Since when is anyone guilty until proven innocent in the United States of American? And since when can anyone be proven guilty based solely on hearsay? It is not up to the President to prove his innocence. It is up to Congress to prove his guilt. The witnesses so far all claim that their testimony is only their opinion or feelings about the matter. Where and what is the evidence?

    Reply
  4. George

    There is no whistleblower. I think it is a hoax which the Democrats used to open up a case for impreachment. The lawyers who represent the whistleblower has no client. It is a freud and they can not produce the whistleblower. I do not see anyone in the Democratic party able to verify there is a whistleblower and no crediiable member of Congress has seen or spoken to this whistleblower. The hold impreachmemt process so far is just a bunch fabrications and opinions about laws being broken. Those who have testified so far are all liberals. The deck is being stacked to prove there is impraechable crimes when there are none. This whole process is personal and has nothing to do with impreachment. Adam Schiff should not being in charge the hearings. He has demonstrated he is willing to do anything necessary to impreach. Nancy is just as bad. The big picture i think, the Democrats want to take over the government by changing the Constitution , and the Bill of Rights to take citizens right away and institue their insane policies and agenda. Warren clearly said, ” I will be the last American President”. What does that tell you.

    Reply
  5. Charles Spencer

    You are a total sellout if you think that this impeachment has legs. In our court system, you need proof not theories. Your statement only prove your biased.
    While I’m a Democrat and wish Trump wasn’t elected, do wish that we follow the rule of laws.
    As far as the Statement that we hear all the time, “ No one is above the law” , it should be applied to Adam Schiff and his bending of the law when it came time to look at impeachment. Schiff push thru his desires to Deny 62 Million voters there choice for President only to regain power in the executive branch is a disgrace and speeches like yours shows how biased the leader ship for the Democratic Party and yourself exist.

    Reply
  6. carol

    Schiff and ALL of the demoncrats are liars. They are trying to get Trump out of office to secure their power and make this country a socialist shit hole. They hate Trump because he is out to expose just how criminal they really are…..

    Reply
  7. Kurt Walker

    If there was ever anyone who deserves one between the eyes it’s that pos Schitf.

    Reply
  8. Craig Michael Vandertie

    Numerous components of a terminal viral pandemic plague who adhere to and embrace the principles of which Communistshariazionhasidism is based guilty of so many obvious sins against the genuinely cognizant patriots of this nation that Trump claimed almost a whole 3 years ago would be charged, tried, found guilty and sentenced for their sins against those who adhere to and embrace the principles of which our fair and just laws Constitutional Republic are based and yet not one has yet been charged and it is highly improbable they ever will, alas our once great nation is doomed.

    Reply
  9. reynaldo

    So this hollow, petty, puerile Impeachment clown show is based on a flimsy 2nd hand report of the US-Ukraine Presidents’ innocent phone call distorted by a “whistle blower” leak to unfairly oust a duly elected US President who’s tirelessly achieving eclat on many fronts for the benefit of most Americans. The useless ploy is inane, insane, costly, unjust & should be promptly dropped, erased.
    A foreign “misadventure” hardly impacting vital US interests will be causing a Constitutional crisis!
    The 2 charges of a vague abuse of power & moot obstruction of Congress could conceivably be
    stretched as “low” misdemeanors if that & might have been prosecuted on all past 45 Presidents.
    This latest mockery of US justice makes us the world’s laughing stock so insulting to common decency, logic & intelligence. Shameful. Intolerable.

    Reply

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.

Follow Us