THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
"Adam Schiff: House intel is 'already in touch' with Cohen to testify again"
Naomi Lim
12 DECEMBER 2018
The likely next House Intelligence Committee chairman says his panel wants to hear from Michael Cohen, President Trump's former fixer, one more time before he goes to prison.
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., told CNN Wednesday the committee was "already in touch" with Cohen's counsel about a possible appearance ahead of his March 6 deadline to report to authorities for his three-year sentence.
"We are very eager to have him come and testify."
"I was very pleased to see today that one of his lawyers issued a statement saying that he is more than willing to come and cooperate and share what he knows with us."
"And we certainly intend to take him up on that," Schiff said.
But the California Democrat would not commit Wednesday to holding a prospective hearing with Cohen, 52, in an open session.
Schiff also said that the Justice Department ought to rethink its policy concerning whether a sitting president can be indicted and prosecuted given the alleged reference to potential wrongdoing by Trump in Cohen's sentencing memo.
Trump has not been indicted and denies any role in crimes of which Cohen has been convicted.
Cohen's sentencing comes after he pleaded guilty in August to campaign finance violation, tax fraud, and bank fraud charges stemming from an investigation conducted by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York.
It also reflects a guilty plea he entered in November for lying to Congress after the count was brought by special counsel Robert Mueller.
He received 36 months for the first case and two months for the second, sentences which he will serve concurrently.
Aside from prison time, Trump's longtime personal lawyer will additionally have to pay a forfeiture of $500,000, restitution of $1.4 million, and a fine of $50,000.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=HPDHP17
ADAM SCHIFF
Re: ADAM SCHIFF
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 16, 2018
Op-Ed: Cut the crap, Adam Schiff!
Special Opinion to the Mirror by Paul Plante
First off, people, to understand where I am going here, we, the actual American people, whether born here or naturalized, need to ask ourselves why it is that of all the types of government there are in the world, we have this particular frame with an executive not beholden to the House of Representatives, because he does not serve at the pleasure of the House of Representatives, although the incoming Democrat party seems bent on changing that by using the threat of impeachment as a whip and a goad to bring the president under their direct control.
Think the Lilliputians, tiny people who are about one-twelfth the height of ordinary human beings who live in Lilliput, said to be ruled by an Emperor assisted by a first minister who carries a white staff and several other officials who later bring articles of impeachment against Gulliver on grounds of treason, and you are in the right ballpark!
Getting back to the main story here, which is about Adam Schiff, a top Lilliputian if there ever was one (no, people, there is no Constitutional bar to tiny people who are about one-twelfth the height of ordinary human beings serving in the United States House of Representatives as Democrats from California), we are hearing a lot these days about the “founders” from the Democrats and what are supposed their thoughts on the impeachment of a sitting U.S. president, and according to them, we have now reached the patently absurd position in this country, thanks to the Democrats, that a U.S. president can be impeached for allegedly defrauding the voters of the United States of America, who, by the way, do not elect presidents in the first place; the electoral college does, by not specifically telling them that while he was running for president, he was actually making hush payments to some women not his wife who he was alleged to have had carnal relations with, as if that could somehow disqualify a person from holding the office of president of the United States of America.
So let’s see what the actual founders have to say about why we have the frame of government in this country that we do, as opposed to all the alternatives, such as can be found in the Congo, and Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, for example.
Let’s start with FEDERALIST No. 6, Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States, which is exactly what we are seeing in the United States of America today, actually, with red states and blue states, by Alexander Hamilton for the Independent Journal to the People of the State of New York, where we learn about our actual history, not the history being invented on the fly by the Democrats, from someone who was actually there when it was happening, to wit:
THE three last numbers of this paper have been dedicated to an enumeration of the dangers to which we should be exposed, in a state of disunion, from the arms and arts of foreign nations.
I shall now proceed to delineate dangers of a different and, perhaps, still more alarming kind— – those which will in all probability flow from dissensions between the States themselves, and from domestic factions and convulsions.
end quotes
Focus on that last line there, people, and more specifically on the words, “domestic factions and convulsions,” where convulsions can be taken to mean “a violent social or political upheaval,” with such synonyms as turmoil, agitation, and disorder, as in “the political convulsions of the period,” which takes us directly to an article in The Hill entitled “Schiff: Trump may face ‘real prospect of jail time’” by Michael Burke on 9 December 2018, where we are told as follows:
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Sunday said that President Trump might “face the real prospect of jail time” after prosecutors indicated last week that he directed illegal payments during his 2016 presidential campaign.
end quotes
He “might,” Adam?
Do tell, dude!
Thanks for the timely head’s up, dude, but seriously, doesn’t the use of the word “might” imply that you are engaging in rank speculation?
Here, Adam, let me help you out by guiding you to an internet site entitled “Writing Explained,” and an article titled “May vs. Might: What’s the Difference?” where we learn that the two words may and might cause a lot of confusion in English and many writers aren’t sure when to use which one.
As to “might” as the word is used in The Hill article by California’s Adam Schiff, who incidentally is a Harvard-trained lawyer, so he should know the meaning of words as well as I do, it is used to express what is hypothetical, counterfactual, or remotely possible.
As the site tells us, right away we notice that might deals with situations that are speculative or did not actually happen, i.e. hypothetical, whereas may deals with situations that are possible or could be factual.
An easy way to express/remember this difference is that might suggests a lower probability than does may.
If something is very far-fetched, you probably want to use might.
You could say might is for things that are mighty far-fetched.
So, people, why then is California’s Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, who incidentally voted to invade Iraq based on bad intelligence, telling us in The Hill about something far-fetched?
And that answer is quite simple – California’s Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, is trying to inflame people’s passions in this country for the exact purpose of causing convulsions to disturb our national tranquility for cheap partisan political gain and in order to disrupt the functioning of our national government and to influence the next presidential election.
Simply stated, Adam Schiff is a Democrat bomb-thrower, which takes us back to The Hill, where bomb-thrower Schiff then states as follows, to wit:
“There’s a very real prospect that on the day Donald Trump leaves office, the Justice Department may indict him.”
end quotes
Oh, really Adam!
My goodness, how serious that sounds.
So, Adam, they may indict him on the very day he leaves office.
I see, I see.
But tell us, Adam, how is it that you happen to know the exact date that the Justice Department is going to indict Trump?
Are you colluding with the Justice Department to make that happen, Adam?
Getting back to The Hill:
“That he may be the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time,” he said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
end quotes
Now, people, really, can you believe this bull****?
Can you believe that the Justice Department, which doesn’t confirm or deny that it is conducting an investigation, is telling California’s Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, that the Justice Department is going to put Trump in jail after indicting him on the day he leaves office?
Is there anyone out there actually credulous (ready to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence as in “few people are credulous enough to believe such nonsense”)enough to believe that crap?
But let’s not stop there, because it gets even wilder yet, as follows:
Schiff, who is likely to be the next chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, added that the next president may have to determine whether to pardon Trump.
“We have been discussing the issue of pardons the president may offer to people or dangle in front of people,” Schiff said.
“The bigger pardon question may come down the road, as the next president has to determine whether to pardon Donald Trump.”
end quotes
Now, people, no wonder that the Democrats have made Adam Schiff of California into the top dog Democrat on House Intelligence Committee – it is because he is so intelligent, he not only knows what is going on now, but in the future, as well, as we can see right above here where he raises the serious existential question as to whether the next president will bother to pardon Trump after the Justice Department indicts him on the day he leaves office, or whether that next president, especially if a Democrat, will leave Trump to rot in jail, as the Democrats so clearly want him to, in retaliation for him defeating the Democrat’s own Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election they thought they had sufficiently rigged for Hillary to win.
And that spew of speculative crap from Adam Schiff, the California Democrat who is likely to be the next chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, despite the fact that he himself seems to be greatly lacking in real intelligence, despite his Harvard law degree, takes us back to Federalist No. 6, as follows for a possible explanation as to why Adam Schiff of California is spewing such **** in The Hill, to wit:
A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other.
To presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious.
end quotes
Enter Adam Schiff, people!
Stay tuned, for more is yet to come in this breaking story of drama and deceit from the nation’s capital of Washington, D.C. where truth, justice and the American way can no longer be found.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... am-schiff/
Op-Ed: Cut the crap, Adam Schiff!
Special Opinion to the Mirror by Paul Plante
First off, people, to understand where I am going here, we, the actual American people, whether born here or naturalized, need to ask ourselves why it is that of all the types of government there are in the world, we have this particular frame with an executive not beholden to the House of Representatives, because he does not serve at the pleasure of the House of Representatives, although the incoming Democrat party seems bent on changing that by using the threat of impeachment as a whip and a goad to bring the president under their direct control.
Think the Lilliputians, tiny people who are about one-twelfth the height of ordinary human beings who live in Lilliput, said to be ruled by an Emperor assisted by a first minister who carries a white staff and several other officials who later bring articles of impeachment against Gulliver on grounds of treason, and you are in the right ballpark!
Getting back to the main story here, which is about Adam Schiff, a top Lilliputian if there ever was one (no, people, there is no Constitutional bar to tiny people who are about one-twelfth the height of ordinary human beings serving in the United States House of Representatives as Democrats from California), we are hearing a lot these days about the “founders” from the Democrats and what are supposed their thoughts on the impeachment of a sitting U.S. president, and according to them, we have now reached the patently absurd position in this country, thanks to the Democrats, that a U.S. president can be impeached for allegedly defrauding the voters of the United States of America, who, by the way, do not elect presidents in the first place; the electoral college does, by not specifically telling them that while he was running for president, he was actually making hush payments to some women not his wife who he was alleged to have had carnal relations with, as if that could somehow disqualify a person from holding the office of president of the United States of America.
So let’s see what the actual founders have to say about why we have the frame of government in this country that we do, as opposed to all the alternatives, such as can be found in the Congo, and Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, for example.
Let’s start with FEDERALIST No. 6, Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States, which is exactly what we are seeing in the United States of America today, actually, with red states and blue states, by Alexander Hamilton for the Independent Journal to the People of the State of New York, where we learn about our actual history, not the history being invented on the fly by the Democrats, from someone who was actually there when it was happening, to wit:
THE three last numbers of this paper have been dedicated to an enumeration of the dangers to which we should be exposed, in a state of disunion, from the arms and arts of foreign nations.
I shall now proceed to delineate dangers of a different and, perhaps, still more alarming kind— – those which will in all probability flow from dissensions between the States themselves, and from domestic factions and convulsions.
end quotes
Focus on that last line there, people, and more specifically on the words, “domestic factions and convulsions,” where convulsions can be taken to mean “a violent social or political upheaval,” with such synonyms as turmoil, agitation, and disorder, as in “the political convulsions of the period,” which takes us directly to an article in The Hill entitled “Schiff: Trump may face ‘real prospect of jail time’” by Michael Burke on 9 December 2018, where we are told as follows:
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Sunday said that President Trump might “face the real prospect of jail time” after prosecutors indicated last week that he directed illegal payments during his 2016 presidential campaign.
end quotes
He “might,” Adam?
Do tell, dude!
Thanks for the timely head’s up, dude, but seriously, doesn’t the use of the word “might” imply that you are engaging in rank speculation?
Here, Adam, let me help you out by guiding you to an internet site entitled “Writing Explained,” and an article titled “May vs. Might: What’s the Difference?” where we learn that the two words may and might cause a lot of confusion in English and many writers aren’t sure when to use which one.
As to “might” as the word is used in The Hill article by California’s Adam Schiff, who incidentally is a Harvard-trained lawyer, so he should know the meaning of words as well as I do, it is used to express what is hypothetical, counterfactual, or remotely possible.
As the site tells us, right away we notice that might deals with situations that are speculative or did not actually happen, i.e. hypothetical, whereas may deals with situations that are possible or could be factual.
An easy way to express/remember this difference is that might suggests a lower probability than does may.
If something is very far-fetched, you probably want to use might.
You could say might is for things that are mighty far-fetched.
So, people, why then is California’s Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, who incidentally voted to invade Iraq based on bad intelligence, telling us in The Hill about something far-fetched?
And that answer is quite simple – California’s Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, is trying to inflame people’s passions in this country for the exact purpose of causing convulsions to disturb our national tranquility for cheap partisan political gain and in order to disrupt the functioning of our national government and to influence the next presidential election.
Simply stated, Adam Schiff is a Democrat bomb-thrower, which takes us back to The Hill, where bomb-thrower Schiff then states as follows, to wit:
“There’s a very real prospect that on the day Donald Trump leaves office, the Justice Department may indict him.”
end quotes
Oh, really Adam!
My goodness, how serious that sounds.
So, Adam, they may indict him on the very day he leaves office.
I see, I see.
But tell us, Adam, how is it that you happen to know the exact date that the Justice Department is going to indict Trump?
Are you colluding with the Justice Department to make that happen, Adam?
Getting back to The Hill:
“That he may be the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time,” he said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
end quotes
Now, people, really, can you believe this bull****?
Can you believe that the Justice Department, which doesn’t confirm or deny that it is conducting an investigation, is telling California’s Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, that the Justice Department is going to put Trump in jail after indicting him on the day he leaves office?
Is there anyone out there actually credulous (ready to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence as in “few people are credulous enough to believe such nonsense”)enough to believe that crap?
But let’s not stop there, because it gets even wilder yet, as follows:
Schiff, who is likely to be the next chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, added that the next president may have to determine whether to pardon Trump.
“We have been discussing the issue of pardons the president may offer to people or dangle in front of people,” Schiff said.
“The bigger pardon question may come down the road, as the next president has to determine whether to pardon Donald Trump.”
end quotes
Now, people, no wonder that the Democrats have made Adam Schiff of California into the top dog Democrat on House Intelligence Committee – it is because he is so intelligent, he not only knows what is going on now, but in the future, as well, as we can see right above here where he raises the serious existential question as to whether the next president will bother to pardon Trump after the Justice Department indicts him on the day he leaves office, or whether that next president, especially if a Democrat, will leave Trump to rot in jail, as the Democrats so clearly want him to, in retaliation for him defeating the Democrat’s own Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election they thought they had sufficiently rigged for Hillary to win.
And that spew of speculative crap from Adam Schiff, the California Democrat who is likely to be the next chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, despite the fact that he himself seems to be greatly lacking in real intelligence, despite his Harvard law degree, takes us back to Federalist No. 6, as follows for a possible explanation as to why Adam Schiff of California is spewing such **** in The Hill, to wit:
A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other.
To presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious.
end quotes
Enter Adam Schiff, people!
Stay tuned, for more is yet to come in this breaking story of drama and deceit from the nation’s capital of Washington, D.C. where truth, justice and the American way can no longer be found.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... am-schiff/
Re: ADAM SCHIFF
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 16, 2018 at 1:28 pm
Paul Plante says :
So who is this Adam Schiff we, the American people have been hearing so much about lately?
And that answer is quite simple – California’s Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, is a hack politician of the worst sort who is trying his damnedest to inflame people’s passions in this country for the exact purpose of causing convulsions to disturb our national tranquility not only for cheap partisan political gain and in order to disrupt the functioning of our national government and to influence the next presidential election, but to raise money for himself and the Democrats by purposefully and very skillfully using the arts of the demagogue to cause a violent political upheaval and turmoil, agitation, and disorder in our United States of America, which makes Democrat Adam Schiff a clear and present danger to our tranquility as a people in this country.
In a word, California Democrat is an enemy of the American people who are loyal to our Constitutional frame of government in this country.
In “An Address to the People of the State of New-York On the Subject of the Constitution, Agreed upon at Philadelphia, The 17th of September,” John Jay, a member of the New York State Convention, stated thusly about people like Adam Schiff, to wit:
There are times and seasons, when general evils spread general alarm and uneasiness, and yet arise from causes too complicated, and too little understood by many, to produce an unanimity of opinions respecting their remedies.
Hence it is, that on such occasions, the conflict of arguments too often excites a conflict of passions, and introduces a degree of discord and animosity, which, by agitating the public mind dispose it to precipitation and extravagance.
end quotes
Ah, yes, people, a conflict of passions that introduces a degree of discord and animosity by agitating the public mind to dispose it to precipitation and extravagance!
Said in a different way, Adam Schiff is trying to play us like a fiddle to tear us apart as a people and as a nation for partisan political gain.
And do I have proof of that?
Let’s go and see, starting with https://act.myngp.com/Forms/-4821868595118208256 where we find as follows, to wit:
CONGRESSMAN ADAM SCHIFF, A MOST EFFECTIVE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION TO TRUMP IN CONGRESS, SUPPORT SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY’S RESISTANCE EFFORTS!
Date: October 14, 2017
Time: 2:00 p.m.-4:30 p.m. (ALL)
Location: Stanford residence upon RSVP
$1K/$2.5K/$5K – Sponsorship levels
$1000 – Platinum – Reception & photo
$500 – Gold – Reception
$250 – Silver
$100 – Bronze
$50 – Young Dems only
VIP Reception 3:00-3:30 p.m. strictly observed due to time limitations.
In support of Santa Clara County Democratic Party Together We Can! fundraising campaign
Rep Adam Schiff fundraising event for SCCDP
Come hear Congressman Adam Schiff share the story of how he came to be one of Trump’s main nemeses on Capitol Hill with regard to the Russian interference and collusion investigations, where he played such a key role in moving things forward.
end quotes
Yes, people, Adam Schiff, along with Democrat Young Andy Cuomo of New York and Democrat U.S. Senator from New York City Charley, “Chuck” Schumer, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Socialists of America, who want to tear down our national borders, is the face of the RESISTANCE MOVEMENT here in the United States of America!
But resistance to what?
For that answer, let’s go back to the fundraising invitation to see what more we can learn about the Democrats’ plans for our future as a people here in the United States of America, to wit:
Why your support is needed now more than ever
Your generous donations will support SCCDP strategic efforts to flip the House in 2018 and beyond such as:
1) Flipping 7 targeted CA districts and other swing districts across the country red to blue.
2) Providing training to empower resistance volunteers to register voters and canvass effectively.
3) Hosting phone banks, texting voter outreach and organizing meetings for CA and swing state efforts.
4) Recruiting & sending our local volunteers into swing districts in CA and across the country.
5) Rapid response efforts that are key to big wins for the current Democratic minority in Congress.
6) Sustaining and expanding operations as needed including investing in necessary equipment.
7) Focused effort to win state houses across the country.
8) Partner with organizations addressing voter suppression to increase voter turnout.
9) Candidate training
We will be working directly with swing states in coordinated campaigns with the DNC to win in 2018!
Why?
Because we have thousands of volunteers we can mobilize in Silicon Valley.
We need to build the infrastructure resources to support at the highest level!
And we need your ongoing support to win in 2018 and 2020.
With gratitude,
Prameela Bartholomeusz
Finance Director, SCCDP
Bill James
Chair, SCCDP
Paid for by Santa Clara County United Democratic Campaign
end quotes
Does it sound like the Santa Clara County United Democratic Campaign is using Adam Schiff’s “resistance” to whatever it is he is resisting as a money-making tool to take over our various governments in this nation, state as well as federal, to put them all under the control of Silicon Valley in California?
Is that the way our Constitutional frame of government is supposed to work in this country?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-107167
Paul Plante says :
So who is this Adam Schiff we, the American people have been hearing so much about lately?
And that answer is quite simple – California’s Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, is a hack politician of the worst sort who is trying his damnedest to inflame people’s passions in this country for the exact purpose of causing convulsions to disturb our national tranquility not only for cheap partisan political gain and in order to disrupt the functioning of our national government and to influence the next presidential election, but to raise money for himself and the Democrats by purposefully and very skillfully using the arts of the demagogue to cause a violent political upheaval and turmoil, agitation, and disorder in our United States of America, which makes Democrat Adam Schiff a clear and present danger to our tranquility as a people in this country.
In a word, California Democrat is an enemy of the American people who are loyal to our Constitutional frame of government in this country.
In “An Address to the People of the State of New-York On the Subject of the Constitution, Agreed upon at Philadelphia, The 17th of September,” John Jay, a member of the New York State Convention, stated thusly about people like Adam Schiff, to wit:
There are times and seasons, when general evils spread general alarm and uneasiness, and yet arise from causes too complicated, and too little understood by many, to produce an unanimity of opinions respecting their remedies.
Hence it is, that on such occasions, the conflict of arguments too often excites a conflict of passions, and introduces a degree of discord and animosity, which, by agitating the public mind dispose it to precipitation and extravagance.
end quotes
Ah, yes, people, a conflict of passions that introduces a degree of discord and animosity by agitating the public mind to dispose it to precipitation and extravagance!
Said in a different way, Adam Schiff is trying to play us like a fiddle to tear us apart as a people and as a nation for partisan political gain.
And do I have proof of that?
Let’s go and see, starting with https://act.myngp.com/Forms/-4821868595118208256 where we find as follows, to wit:
CONGRESSMAN ADAM SCHIFF, A MOST EFFECTIVE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION TO TRUMP IN CONGRESS, SUPPORT SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY’S RESISTANCE EFFORTS!
Date: October 14, 2017
Time: 2:00 p.m.-4:30 p.m. (ALL)
Location: Stanford residence upon RSVP
$1K/$2.5K/$5K – Sponsorship levels
$1000 – Platinum – Reception & photo
$500 – Gold – Reception
$250 – Silver
$100 – Bronze
$50 – Young Dems only
VIP Reception 3:00-3:30 p.m. strictly observed due to time limitations.
In support of Santa Clara County Democratic Party Together We Can! fundraising campaign
Rep Adam Schiff fundraising event for SCCDP
Come hear Congressman Adam Schiff share the story of how he came to be one of Trump’s main nemeses on Capitol Hill with regard to the Russian interference and collusion investigations, where he played such a key role in moving things forward.
end quotes
Yes, people, Adam Schiff, along with Democrat Young Andy Cuomo of New York and Democrat U.S. Senator from New York City Charley, “Chuck” Schumer, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Socialists of America, who want to tear down our national borders, is the face of the RESISTANCE MOVEMENT here in the United States of America!
But resistance to what?
For that answer, let’s go back to the fundraising invitation to see what more we can learn about the Democrats’ plans for our future as a people here in the United States of America, to wit:
Why your support is needed now more than ever
Your generous donations will support SCCDP strategic efforts to flip the House in 2018 and beyond such as:
1) Flipping 7 targeted CA districts and other swing districts across the country red to blue.
2) Providing training to empower resistance volunteers to register voters and canvass effectively.
3) Hosting phone banks, texting voter outreach and organizing meetings for CA and swing state efforts.
4) Recruiting & sending our local volunteers into swing districts in CA and across the country.
5) Rapid response efforts that are key to big wins for the current Democratic minority in Congress.
6) Sustaining and expanding operations as needed including investing in necessary equipment.
7) Focused effort to win state houses across the country.
8) Partner with organizations addressing voter suppression to increase voter turnout.
9) Candidate training
We will be working directly with swing states in coordinated campaigns with the DNC to win in 2018!
Why?
Because we have thousands of volunteers we can mobilize in Silicon Valley.
We need to build the infrastructure resources to support at the highest level!
And we need your ongoing support to win in 2018 and 2020.
With gratitude,
Prameela Bartholomeusz
Finance Director, SCCDP
Bill James
Chair, SCCDP
Paid for by Santa Clara County United Democratic Campaign
end quotes
Does it sound like the Santa Clara County United Democratic Campaign is using Adam Schiff’s “resistance” to whatever it is he is resisting as a money-making tool to take over our various governments in this nation, state as well as federal, to put them all under the control of Silicon Valley in California?
Is that the way our Constitutional frame of government is supposed to work in this country?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-107167
Re: ADAM SCHIFF
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution
The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
October 16, 2000
Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General
In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination.
We believe that the conclusion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution.
THE NEW YORKERFEDERALIST No. 68
The Mode of Electing the President
From the New York Packet.
Friday, March 14, 1788.
HAMILTON
To the People of the State of New York:
THE mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents.
It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided.
This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.
A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder.
This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States.
But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.
The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes.
And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.
These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.
How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?
But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention.
They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment.
And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office.
No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors.
Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias.
Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it.
The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means.
Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.
Another and no less important desideratum was, that the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves.
He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence.
This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important choice.
All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President.
Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be the President.
The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.
Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.
It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.
PUBLIUS.
"Adam Schiff’s Plans to Obliterate Trump’s Red Line - With the Democrats controlling the House, Schiff’s congressional investigation will follow the money."
By Jeffrey Toobin
December 24 & 31, 2018 Issue
President Trump said some time ago that he believes his personal finances should be off limits to investigators.
In an interview with the Times in July, 2017, he asserted that if Robert Mueller, the special counsel, sought to investigate the Trump family’s business dealings he would be crossing a “red line.”
When, later that year, several news reports suggested that Mueller had subpoenaed Deutsche Bank for records relating to Trump’s businesses, the President reportedly told members of his staff that he wanted to fire Mueller in response.
It was never confirmed whether Mueller had actually subpoenaed Deutsche Bank, but the President’s aversion to the scrutiny of his business interests caught the attention of Representative Adam Schiff, who will become the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence next year.
On a recent weekend, at a busy restaurant in downtown Burbank, in the heart of his congressional district, Schiff talked about his plans for conducting an investigation that will be parallel to Mueller’s, probing Trump’s connections to Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other places around the world.
As Schiff described his approach, it became clear that he wasn’t just planning to cross Trump’s red line—he intended to obliterate it.
“Our role is not the same as Bob Mueller’s,” Schiff told me, over a vegan burger.
(He changed his eating habits a few years ago, in order to lower his cholesterol.)
The job of prosecutors like Mueller is to identify and prosecute crimes, not necessarily to inform and educate the public.
Congressional committees, like the one Schiff will soon lead, are supposed to monitor the executive branch and expose wrongdoing.
Mueller is supposed to file a report on his findings, but, in keeping with the regulations for the office of the special counsel, it will be up to his supervisor in the Justice Department, who is now Matthew Whitaker, the acting Attorney General, to determine whether Mueller’s report is made public.
Schiff has his own agenda for areas to investigate.
“The one that has always concerned me is the financial issues, which obviously have come much to the fore this week,” he said.
Shortly before Schiff and I spoke, Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal attorney, had pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about his role in the negotiations for building a Trump tower in Moscow.
Cohen had said earlier that these discussions ended in January, 2016, but he admitted in court that he had been negotiating with Russian officials, and keeping Trump apprised, through the first half of 2016, during the Republican Presidential primaries.
Trump has denied that he was doing business with the Russians during this period.
Schiff went on, “At the end of the day, what should concern us most is anything that can have a continuing impact on the foreign policy and national-security policy of the United States, and, if the Russians were laundering money for the Trump Organization, that would be totally compromising.”
Schiff hypothesizes that Trump went beyond using his campaign and the Presidency as a vehicle for advancing his business interests, speculating that he may have shaped policy with an eye to expanding his fortune.
“There’s a whole constellation of issues where that is essentially the center of gravity,” Schiff said.
“Obviously, that issue is implicated in efforts to build Trump Tower in Moscow."
"It’s implicated in the money that Trump is bragging he was getting from the Saudis."
"And why shouldn’t he love the Saudis?"
"He said he was making so much money from them.”
As the Washington Post has reported, Trump has sold a superyacht and a hotel to a Saudi prince, a $4.5-million apartment near the United Nations to the Saudi government, and many other apartments to Saudi nationals, and, since Trump became President, his hotels in New York and Chicago have seen significant increases in bookings from Saudi visitors.
In a break with the Republican congressional leadership, Trump refuses to take action against Saudi Arabia, notwithstanding substantial evidence that Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown Prince and the putative head of state, directed the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a journalist who lived in the United States.
Schiff also pointed out that Jared Kushner, the President’s son-in-law, met with the C.E.O. of a state-owned Russian bank in December, 2016, and that, the following month, Erik Prince, an informal adviser to the Trump campaign, met with the leader of a Russian sovereign-wealth fund in the Seychelles, an East African archipelago nation in the Indian Ocean.
“The American people have a right to know that their President is working on their behalf, not his family’s financial interests,” Schiff said.
“Right now, I don’t think any of us can have the confidence that that’s the case.”
All of these subjects, Schiff averred, were fair game for investigation by the committee that he will soon chair.
As the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, Schiff has directed a staff of eleven.
As the chairman, he will direct twenty-five, some of whom will be devoted to the Russia investigation.
“We’ve been deluged with résumés,” Schiff said.
It is now clear that during the campaign, when Trump was advocating the removal of sanctions on Russia, he was privately trying to make money in Moscow in a deal that may have required Putin’s help.
Schiff wants to know: “Is that why Trump is so pro-Russian?"
"Is his financial interest guiding his foreign policy?”
Schiff thinks the answer to those questions may be found in the records of Deutsche Bank, which has been fined hundreds of millions of dollars for laundering money for Russia, and was reportedly the only bank willing to do business with Trump in the nineteen-nineties, when major Wall Street firms declined to loan him money after a series of failed business ventures.
“We are going to be looking at the issue of possible money laundering by the Trump Organization, and Deutsche Bank is one obvious place to start,” Schiff added.
Since the beginning of the Trump Administration, Schiff has been a ubiquitous presence on television, speaking about matters related to the Russia investigation.
“The voice that Adam gives to these issues is one that is calming, logical, linear, measured but forceful,” Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader and likely the new Speaker of the House, told me.
“I have complete confidence in him to be very strategic in how he returns the Intelligence Committee to a bipartisan arena, without doing what Devin Nunes did as chairman of the committee, which I thought bordered on the criminal.”
The government watchdog Campaign for Accountability has filed complaints against Nunes for leaking confidential information from the ongoing Russia investigation.
(Nunes’s office denies these accusations as “discredited fake news stories.”)
Schiff repeatedly chastised the Republicans on his committee, led by Nunes, for their refusal to conduct a thorough investigation into Trump’s possible misdeeds, and he defended Mueller’s efforts to impose some accountability for the issues that fall within the special counsel’s purview.
With the Democrats now in control of the House of Representatives, Schiff’s responsibilities as chair of the committee will present both great opportunities and significant peril.
Schiff will no longer be able to blame the Republicans for wasting time.
It’s his investigation now, and he’s planning to heed the advice, familiar to viewers of the movie version of “All the President’s Men,” to “follow the money.”
A few years after Schiff was first elected to the House, in 2000, he and his wife, Eve, who had been living in his district in California, enrolled their two children in school in the Washington suburbs, so that Schiff could spend more time with his family.
Since then, he has spent every other weekend in his district, which includes Hollywood and parts of the San Fernando Valley.
On a recent Sunday, he spoke at a church service commemorating World AIDS Day, lit a Christmas tree at a street festival, and viewed an exhibit at the Los Angeles Museum of the Holocaust, where the tour guide told him that a new documentary about the Sobibór concentration camp was “getting Oscar buzz.”
Schiff then went to light the candles on an oversized menorah in front of a Mr. Luggage store at a mall in Burbank, where a man named David Nathan Schwartz introduced himself.
They discovered that they had been in the same third-grade class, in Framingham, Massachusetts.
Later, recalling third grade, Schiff told me, “That was the last time that someone called me Adam Shit."
"I think the kid’s mother actually washed his mouth out with soap.”
He was referring to an incident last month, when the President tweeted, “So funny to see little Adam Schitt (D-CA) talking about the fact that Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker was not approved by the Senate, but not mentioning the fact that Bob Mueller (who is highly conflicted) was not approved by the Senate!”
(In fact, there is no requirement for Mueller, who was named to his post by Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General, to be confirmed by the Senate.)
Schiff has been a frequent target of Trump, who has called him “sleazy,” a “leaker,” and “little.”
Schiff is not especially short or slight, but he does appear diminutive.
His expression is often neutral, and his countenance is unaffected by his periodic visits to the California sunshine; he could pass for someone in his late thirties or his early sixties.
(He’s fifty-eight.)
Schiff’s constituents at Disney, DreamWorks, and Paramount would probably cast him as an accountant.
He seems to cultivate this blandness of affect to convey that he deals in facts, eschews drama, and tells the truth.
As he often mentions, he spent half a dozen years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, a job that trained him in the presentation of evidence.
Schiff told me, “Trump has created a constituency for people who are not running around with their hair on fire.”
“The takeout finally came, so you can stop your panic cooking.”
Until March 20, 2017, Schiff’s skills were known to few.
Most of the committee’s business is conducted in secret, in a secure suite of offices three floors below the Capitol Visitor Center.
But on that day the Intelligence Committee held a rare public hearing, in which James Comey, who, at that point, was still the director of the F.B.I., publicly confirmed for the first time that the Bureau was investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Before Comey began to speak, Schiff gave an opening statement in which he clinically—and devastatingly—summarized the existing evidence in the case.
“Last summer, at the height of a bitterly contested and hugely consequential Presidential campaign, a foreign, adversarial power intervened in an effort to weaken our democracy, and to influence the outcome for one candidate and against the other,” he said.
“That foreign adversary was, of course, Russia, and it acted through its intelligence agencies and upon the direct instructions of its autocratic ruler, Vladimir Putin, in order to help Donald J. Trump become the forty-fifth President of the United States.”
Schiff laid out a story that became familiar in the next year and a half: how Trump’s campaign adviser, Carter Page, an eccentric oil-industry consultant, travelled to Russia during the 2016 campaign and gave a speech in which he criticized U.S. policy toward Russia for being too harsh; how Trump’s friend Roger Stone, a longtime political consultant, had advance knowledge of the theft, by Russian interests, of the e-mails of prominent Democrats; how Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign chairman and a noted lobbyist for pro-Russian interests, supervised the Republican Convention, where the Party platform became more sympathetic to Russia.
Michael Bahar, who was then Schiff’s top staffer on the committee, recalled, “Schiff kept saying at the time that it’s our job in Congress to educate people about what was really going on."
"That’s the way he approached his opening statement."
"He was saying, 'This is what we need to look at.'"
"It was so compelling and so detailed."
"It quickly became clear that it caused panic for those on the other side.”
What followed, a day later, has passed into Washington lore.
Nunes, who represents a district in California’s agricultural San Joaquin Valley, and Schiff had a reasonably productive relationship.
As the chair and the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, respectively, before Trump became President, they collaborated on bills to improve cybersecurity and to codify the rules on the collection of metadata by the intelligence agencies.
But, after Comey confirmed that there would be an F.B.I. investigation of the 2016 election, Nunes slipped into a highly partisan mode from which he has not yet emerged.
(Nunes has declined to comment.)
On the night of March 21st, Nunes leaped out of an Uber, in which he had been riding with a staffer, and made his way to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, next to the White House, where he reportedly met with Michael Ellis, a national-security lawyer in the White House Counsel’s Office, and Ezra Cohen-Watnick, then the senior director for intelligence for the National Security Council.
The next day, Nunes held a news conference, announcing, breathlessly, that he had received secret information corroborating Trump’s recent claim that President Obama had wiretapped his campaign.
Nunes’s story quickly fell apart, however, and his late-night visit to the White House complex, known as “the midnight run,” became the source of much mockery.
As a result, Nunes recused himself from his committee’s Russia investigation, although he continued to review related intelligence and later resumed leadership.
The incident established the lengths to which Republicans on the committee would go to defend Trump’s behavior.
Relations between Democrats and Republicans on the committee never recovered.
(Nunes declined to comment, but his spokesperson said, in a statement, “It’s amusing to see the Democrat-media complex continue to recall the false ‘midnight run’ story, which was invented by Schiff’s own staffers, fed by them to Schiff’s worshipful media allies, and debunked publicly by Chairman Nunes himself.”)
Still, during the following year the committee did bring in fifty-eight witnesses to testify about the Trump campaign’s connections to Russia in 2016, with Schiff usually leading the questioning for the Democrats.
The Republicans on the committee largely devoted their efforts to damage control on Trump’s behalf.
One critical issue was the meeting at Trump Tower on June 9, 2016, when the senior leadership of the Trump campaign, including Kushner, Manafort, and Donald Trump, Jr., met with a lawyer whom they had been told was a representative of the Russian government who had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.
According to telephone records available to the committee, three days before the meeting Trump, Jr., made a series of calls.
In the interval between one call from Russia and another to Russia on that day, Trump, Jr., spoke for three or four minutes to someone whose phone number was blocked.
This raised the question of whether Trump, Jr., had advised his father of the planned meeting—which both the President and his son have long denied.
Under Nunes, the committee declined to issue a subpoena to the telephone company to determine whether Trump, Jr., had been talking with his father.
Schiff told me that, when he takes over the committee, one of his first orders of business will be to issue such a subpoena.
Notwithstanding the frustrations that Schiff experienced under Nunes’s committee, he did have a chance to show off his prosecutorial skills when questioning witnesses.
In late September of this year, the House Intelligence Committee voted to release around fifty transcripts from the committee’s investigation, but, to date, only two transcripts—those of Erik Prince and Carter Page—have been made available.
Schiff has promised to expedite the release of the others.
Among the interviews to be disclosed is one with Kushner, as well as others with the Trump associates Hope Hicks, Corey Lewandowski, Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, Michael Cohen, and former Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Page, a foreign-policy adviser to the Trump campaign, who has a Ph.D. from the School of Oriental and African Studies, at the University of London, later tried to minimize his contacts with Russian government officials during his 2016 visit to Russia.
During Schiff’s questioning of Page, the congressman referred to a television interview that Page had given.
“You stated that you had no meetings, no serious discussions with anyone high up or in any official capacity; it’s just kind of man-in-the-street, you know,” Schiff said.
“Was that an accurate description of your trip to Moscow in July of last year?”
“Absolutely,” Page responded.
Schiff then asked whether Page considered Arkady Dvorkovich, the Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation at the time, to be a “high-up official or someone in an official capacity.”
Page sputtered that he did not “meet with” Dvorkovich: “I greeted him briefly as he was walking off the stage after his speech.”
Schiff, closing the trap he had laid, pointed to a memo that Page had written to Trump campaign officials, which stated, “In a private conversation, Dvorkovich expressed strong support for Mr. Trump. . . . ”
“Dr. Page,” Schiff said, “did you write that?”
Page said that he did, asserting, “That’s all he expressed in that brief hello.”
Schiff zeroed in: “Two minutes ago, you said you had no private meeting with Arkady."
"Is that correct?”
“Yes,” Page said.
“And now you say you did have a private conversation with him on the subject of U.S.-Russia relations."
"Is that correct?”
Page struggled to change the subject.
The partisan donnybrook in the Intelligence Committee continued through April, 2018, when the Republicans and the Democrats released separate final reports.
Nunes and the other Republicans concluded that the “committee found no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded, coordinated, or conspired with the Russian government.”
Schiff and the Democrats wrote, “The Majority’s report reflects a lack of seriousness and interest in pursuing the truth."
"By refusing to call in key witnesses, by refusing to request pertinent documents, and by refusing to compel and enforce witness cooperation and answers to key questions, the Majority hobbled the Committee’s ability to conduct a credible investigation that could inspire public confidence.”
Oddly, the first turning point in Schiff’s career also involved an investigation that initially ended in frustration, and that also concerned an employee of the federal government who betrayed his country to Russia (then the Soviet Union).
Richard Miller, the first F.B.I. agent to be prosecuted for espionage against the United States, was arrested in Los Angeles on October 3, 1984, along with a Russian émigré couple named Svetlana and Nikolai Ogorodnikov, who were, it emerged, sleeper K.G.B. agents assigned to the United States.
Miller, who had eight children and was burdened with financial problems, was involved in an extramarital affair with Svetlana and, it was alleged, passed her an F.B.I. counterintelligence manual and other classified documents in return for a promise of fifty thousand dollars in cash and fifteen thousand dollars in gold.
Robert Bonner, then the U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, tried the case himself.
Miller’s first trial ended in a hung jury.
Bonner won a conviction in the retrial, but that verdict was overturned by an appeals court, on the ground that evidence relating to a polygraph test had been improperly admitted against Miller.
Bonner, who had been nominated for a federal judgeship, assigned the case to Schiff, who had just turned thirty, to try it for a third time.
“I had total faith and trust in him, or I wouldn’t have assigned such a high-profile case to him,” Bonner told me.
At the time, Schiff’s ambitions were beginning to take shape.
Born in 1960, Schiff spent his early childhood in suburban Boston, where his father was in the garment business, working for the company that sold slacks made by the American menswear designer Farah.
(He is not related to the Schiff family that used to own the New York Post.)
When Schiff was eleven, the family moved to Northern California, where his father started a construction business, focussed on making gunite, which is used in the building of swimming pools.
After college, at Stanford, Schiff went to Harvard Law School, from which he graduated in 1985.
“Nothing like spending your summers shovelling gunite to convince you to go to law school,” he told me.
After a brief stint at a law firm, he joined the U.S. Attorney’s office in 1987.
Schiff won the Miller case, the judge having rejected Miller’s defense that he was actually recruiting the Ogorodnikovs as American spies.
Schiff recalled, “I must have dealt with a hundred F.B.I. agents over the course of that case—between witnesses and investigators—and it gave me an incredible respect for the work that they do.”
That experience led him to respond with an extra measure of disbelief when, later, Nunes and Trump posited that the President was the victim of an F.B.I. conspiracy to frame him for misdeeds connected to Russia.
Soon afterward, Schiff decided to run for an open seat in the California State Assembly.
He was, by his own admission, a pretty awful candidate—awkward, pompous, long-winded, and lacking a gift for the sound bite, which has since leavened his geeky public persona.
“I thought it was demeaning to have to answer questions on serious issues in thirty seconds,” he told me, and added, “Now I know you have to do it in a tweet.”
His friend Brian Hennigan, a colleague at the U.S. Attorney’s office, recalled Schiff’s early fund-raisers.
“You could see that the longer he talked the more people put their checkbooks away,” he said.
In that race, Schiff finished tenth in a fourteen-person field.
Determined, he resolved to improve as a candidate so that his next run for elective office might turn out better.
Parke Skelton, a California political consultant whom Schiff hired after his initial defeat, said, “Adam really, really wanted a career in politics, and he wanted to know what to do, and we saw that there were too many rising Democrats in Venice, where he was living at the time."
"So we looked for a place that was Republican but trending Democratic, so there wouldn’t be too many people ahead of him."
"We settled on Burbank.”
There, in 1994, a young Republican named James Rogan had just been elected to the State Assembly, and Schiff ran against him.
In November, Schiff lost that race, too, but he showed more promise, and two years later he was recruited to run for a seat in the California State Senate, which he won.
By then, Rogan had been elected to Congress, and in 1998 he became a leader in the fight to impeach Bill Clinton.
When Clinton went on trial in the Senate, Rogan was one of the House managers leading the charge—a role that earned him some powerful enemies back home in California, including David Geffen, the media mogul.
Geffen resolved to help raise money for a Democrat who was willing to challenge Rogan, and he and others decided on Schiff as the best option.
The contest became the marquee congressional race of 2000, and, with more than eleven million dollars spent between the two campaigns, it was, at the time, the most expensive House race ever conducted.
During that campaign, Schiff became a favorite of Pelosi, also a Californian, who was working her way up the Democratic leadership in the House.
“When we started, our delegation in the House was split almost evenly between Democrats and Republicans, and that’s when we told the national Democrats in Washington to leave us alone and let us do our transformation, and Adam was a big part of that,” Pelosi told me.
She said that, in the past year, as she advised Democratic candidates, she often cited Schiff’s first race.
“Adam ran that whole campaign against a person who was a prosecutor against Clinton without ever mentioning impeachment,” Pelosi said.
“So today, when we had this election, Adam’s is my poster story."
"I told them, ‘Don’t talk about Trump, don’t talk about impeachment, talk about kitchen-table issues.’”
Schiff won by nine points in 2000, and in his nine subsequent races he hasn’t faced a competitive challenge.
Rogan is now a state-court judge in California.
In 2019, the California delegation in the House will consist of forty-six Democrats and seven Republicans.
In 1992, toward the end of Schiff’s days as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, he took a six-month assignment in what was then Czechoslovakia, as part of a Justice Department program to assist in the transition to democracy after the Cold War.
It was a sobering experience.
“The economic dislocation from the arrival of capitalism created a real sense of aggrievement on the part of people whose skills were not valued in the new economy,” he told me.
“It created a wave of xenophobic populism not unlike what we’re seeing around the world and here today.”
While Schiff was on the assignment, the Czech Republic and Slovakia split into two countries.
His time there informed his congressional career.
“Adam and I were both first elected in 2000, and we went to orientation together,” Steve Israel, who represented a district on Long Island and parts of Queens until 2017, when he retired to write novels, said.
“They told us there were three kinds of members of Congress—the ‘pothole member,’ who concentrates on district issues, the ‘political member,’ who works on moving up the ladder, and the ‘policy member,’ who digs down in specific policy areas and becomes the expert on the floor of the House on those particular policies."
"Adam was always regarded as a policy guy."
"We started a ‘nerd caucus,’ because we wanted more detailed information on foreign policy, and started bringing in outside speakers."
"But the thing about Adam is that, while he is a policy guy, he has also grown into being the other two kinds of member as well."
"He’s become a political force, and they love him in his district, too.”
Schiff’s district includes the city of Glendale, which has a large Armenian-American population, and he’s become outspoken in support of recognition and commemoration of the Armenian genocide that took place in the early twentieth century.
Schiff’s roots in the “nerd caucus,” and his days in Slovakia, figure in his plans for the Intelligence Committee.
“One of the first open hearings that we’re going to have is on the rise of authoritarianism around the world,” he told me.
Russia, he said, “has been interfering in elections for a long time in Europe and elsewhere, and it’s not just what Russia is doing."
"There is a global rise of autocracy that ought to concern every American."
"This is the new ideological struggle that we’re in.”
Schiff cited Martin Luther King, Jr., who, paraphrasing the abolitionist cleric Theodore Parker, said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”
Schiff said, “There’s nothing inexorable about this."
"We are at an inflection point where we cannot say that next year more people are going to live in a free society.”
As Schiff sees it, Trump is pushing the country in precisely the wrong direction, at a pivotal moment.
“Normally, America would rise to this challenge,” he said.
“We would be championing democracy and human rights."
"But we have a President who’s very fond of ties with the autocrats, who disdains our fellow-democracies, and he is just adding kindling to this global trend."
"There is a constituency with the same kind of xenophobic populism that you see in Europe, in South America, and elsewhere, and Trump tapped into that, but he has certainly made that trend so much worse and more pronounced.”
He went on, “It’s not just that autocrats are winning in places like Brazil."
"The far-right parties in places like Germany and Austria are growing."
"He is undermining people like Merkel and Macron and others who are resisting that.”
A few years ago, Schiff became a friend of the late John McCain, whom he accompanied to a couple of international conferences.
Once, in Munich, McCain invited Schiff to tag along to a dinner with the singer Bono and Bill Gates—“Not my usual crowd,” Schiff said, with a laugh.
“At the dinner, we’re telling jokes, and Bono tells a joke about being Irish."
"And then he gets very serious and he says, ‘You know, I love Ireland, I’m a proud Irishman.'"
"'Ireland is a great country, but it’s not an idea.'"
"'America is not just a country; it’s an idea.’"
"And I realized, when he said it, that what’s really at risk right now is the whole idea of America."
"People around the world are questioning what we stand for."
"Maybe we’re not the country that they thought we were."
"And, as long as they don’t recognize what they see in the Oval Office, there’s a big responsibility on the members of Congress to speak those values, the way John McCain did.”
Still, Schiff knows that his legacy, to say nothing of his political future, will be defined by his handling of the Russia investigation.
The challenge he faces has made him a national figure, and his harsh view of Trump has set the tone for many other Democrats to follow.
At times, he may already have gone too far.
After Michael Cohen pleaded guilty in the Southern District of New York to facilitating unlawful contributions to Trump’s campaign, specifically the payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, Trump’s alleged former paramours, Schiff said, on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” that the President “faces the real prospect of jail time” for his role in the case.
Schiff told me, “The prosecutors said that Cohen deserved jail time because he helped conceal payments to women that, if they had been disclosed as they should have been, might have changed the outcome of the election."
"But that argument applies with even more force to Trump himself, because he was the guy directing the scheme, and the beneficiary of it."
"No jail time for him would be a terrible double standard.”
(Last week, Cohen was sentenced to thirty-six months for his crimes.)
Calling for the President to be incarcerated when he hasn’t yet even been charged, or the evidence against him fully revealed, is, at the very least, premature, and perhaps irresponsible.
Henry Waxman, a longtime congressman from a Los Angeles district before his recent retirement, conducted several successful investigations and has been a mentor of Schiff’s.
“Adam has done a superb job this last year,” he said.
“He achieved just the right tone in his public statements.”
But, Waxman added, Schiff now has a very different task ahead of him, and cautioned, “Don’t make wild accusations and then try to substantiate them."
"You start with the facts and stay with the facts, and lead them to drawing a conclusion."
"In terms of congressional investigations, don’t get ahead of the facts."
"Make them public and let people examine those facts and make their own conclusions.”
Turf fights, too, may be in Schiff’s future.
Other House committees, including Judiciary (chaired by Jerrold Nadler, of New York) and Oversight (chaired by Elijah Cummings, of Maryland), have overlapping jurisdiction when it comes to investigations of the White House, and they will want to mount their own hearings.
The prospect of too many investigations runs the risk of a backlash against the Democrats, as Pelosi herself acknowledges.
“There is joint jurisdiction among the committees, and we will have to collaborate,” she told me.
“We have to be careful in how we proceed."
"It’s all about priorities."
"What I have always said is you have to make your best case."
"You can’t make every case.”
The coveted testimony of Michael Cohen is an example of this complexity.
Schiff’s office has already been in touch with Cohen’s attorneys about possible testimony concerning his dealings with Russia on Trump’s behalf.
Schiff told me that he recognized that the subject of Cohen’s unlawful campaign contributions might fall under the ambit of another committee.
Pelosi will bear the ultimate responsibility for sorting out the range and order of Cohen’s testimony amid the contending congressional priorities and egos.
Schiff spent the run-up to the midterms travelling around the country campaigning to elect other Democrats to Congress.
He went to twenty-five states and raised or contributed six and a half million dollars for other candidates—one of the highest totals for any Democrat outside the congressional leadership.
Notably, his travels took him to Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, which are early Presidential primary states.
(In 2020, Schiff’s home state of California will be, too.)
California’s two Senate seats are occupied by Democrats, and he faces a crowded field if he wants to move up in the ranks of the Democratic leadership in the House.
A Cabinet post in a Democratic Administration would be another possibility.
Schiff’s travels led some to speculate that he may be considering a long-shot bid for President in 2020.
“It’s flattering to be asked the question,” he told me.
“It’s hard for me to look beyond the big job I have on my plate right now, which is to oversee the intelligence agencies and do a thorough investigation and see if the President was compromised."
'I would never say never."
"I can’t see past the job I have to do right now.”
For the moment, the election results in the midterms gave Democrats in the House a sense of relief that borders, for some, on giddiness.
Even Schiff seems jolly these days.
With the move into the majority, his staff has more work, but also more room to breathe.
Schiff’s elevated seniority has allowed his team to relocate to more commodious offices, which Schiff inherited from Darrell Issa, one of the many California Republicans whose congressional careers ended in 2018.
Schiff mostly sticks to business with his staffers, but they all know that he was a movie buff long before he became the congressman from Hollywood.
(Several years ago, his holiday gift to each staffer was a DVD of “The Big Lebowski,” which Schiff often quotes.)
It’s less known that, like many lawyers in Los Angeles, Schiff has been writing screenplays on the side for years, which together amount to a kind of autobiography.
“The first was a post-Holocaust story called ‘Remnant.’”
As Schiff recalled, “I had an agent at William Morris tell me it was good but no one would want to see it—too depressing."
"Then ‘Schindler’s List’ came out, and I was, like, ‘Come on!’”
His next, written when he was a prosecutor, was a murder mystery called “Minotaur.”
“I had a friend who was a producer, and he said there were two answers in Hollywood—‘Yes,’ and ‘Here’s a check.’"
"I was getting lots of yeses.”
But perhaps there is hope for his third.
“It’s a spy drama,” he said.
“That one is a work in progress.”
This article appears in the print edition of the December 24 & 31, 2018, issue, with the headline “Trump’s Red Line.”
Jeffrey Toobin has been a staff writer at The New Yorker since 1993 and the senior legal analyst for CNN since 2002. He is the author of, most recently, “American Heiress: The Wild Saga of the Kidnapping, Crimes and Trial of Patty Hearst.”
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018 ... s-red-line
Re: ADAM SCHIFF
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 16, 2018 at 7:15 pm
Paul Plante says :
And with respect to a further demonstration of the spew of political horse**** the potent demagogue California Democrat Adam Schiff is trying to feed us, let us turn to a Washington Examiner article entitled “Adam Schiff: House intel is ‘already in touch’ with Cohen to testify again” by Naomi Lim on 12 December 2018, where we learn as follows, to wit:
The likely next House Intelligence Committee chairman says his panel wants to hear from Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former fixer, one more time before he goes to prison.
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., told CNN Wednesday the committee was “already in touch” with Cohen’s counsel about a possible appearance ahead of his March 6 deadline to report to authorities for his three-year sentence.
“We are very eager to have him come and testify.”
“I was very pleased to see today that one of his lawyers issued a statement saying that he is more than willing to come and cooperate and share what he knows with us.”
“And we certainly intend to take him up on that,” Schiff said.
end quotes
Now, think about that for a moment, people – Michael Dean Cohen, the American attorney who was deputy finance chairman of the Republican National Committee from 2017 to 2018 known for having “a penchant for luxury” according to a 2017 New York Times article, is a convicted felon who among other crimes is guilty of lying to the same Congress this demagogue Democrat Adam Schiff of California is a member of.
So why then is Democrat demagogue Adam Schiff gloating about having this convicted liar testify to the same Congress he is already guilty of lying to?
Let’s go back to the article and see what more we can learn, as follows:
Schiff also said that the Justice Department ought to rethink its policy concerning whether a sitting president can be indicted and prosecuted given the alleged reference to potential wrongdoing by Trump in Cohen’s sentencing memo.
end quotes
AH, people, yes, the light bulb goes on – Schiff wants to use the testimony of a convicted liar to defeat our United States Constitution!
How so?
Well, when Schiff tells us that the Justice Department ought to rethink its policy concerning whether a sitting president can be indicted and prosecuted given the alleged reference to potential wrongdoing by Trump in Cohen’s sentencing memo, what Schiff is referring to is a document from the United States Department of Justice entitled “A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution” and dated October 16, 2000 which concludes that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
end quotes
There, people, is the legal and Constitutional conclusion this Democrat demagogue Adam Schiff wants the Justice Department to change, based on the word of convicted liar Michael Cohen.
“We don’t like Trump,” says Democrat demagogue Adam Schiff, “and our liberal base wants him indicted and impeached, so change the Constitution so it says we can do that!”
And in the meantime, Trump, who I am not trying to defend in here, my interest as a loyal American citizen and veteran is not defending Trump, it is defending OUR Constitution and laws this Adam Schiff is trying to pervert for partisan political gain, and as a means of raising money for himself, instead of being innocent until proven guilty, which used to be the standard in America before Adam Schiff and the Democrats changed it, is guilty based on the word of a convicted felon who is also a convicted liar.
Getting back to that Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General Schiff wants to have changed based on the word of a convicted liar, it continues as follows, to wit:
In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination.
We believe that the conclusion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution.
end quotes
The best interpretation of OUR Constitution, people – that is what this California Democrat Adam Schiff wants changed!
WHY?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-107262
Paul Plante says :
And with respect to a further demonstration of the spew of political horse**** the potent demagogue California Democrat Adam Schiff is trying to feed us, let us turn to a Washington Examiner article entitled “Adam Schiff: House intel is ‘already in touch’ with Cohen to testify again” by Naomi Lim on 12 December 2018, where we learn as follows, to wit:
The likely next House Intelligence Committee chairman says his panel wants to hear from Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former fixer, one more time before he goes to prison.
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., told CNN Wednesday the committee was “already in touch” with Cohen’s counsel about a possible appearance ahead of his March 6 deadline to report to authorities for his three-year sentence.
“We are very eager to have him come and testify.”
“I was very pleased to see today that one of his lawyers issued a statement saying that he is more than willing to come and cooperate and share what he knows with us.”
“And we certainly intend to take him up on that,” Schiff said.
end quotes
Now, think about that for a moment, people – Michael Dean Cohen, the American attorney who was deputy finance chairman of the Republican National Committee from 2017 to 2018 known for having “a penchant for luxury” according to a 2017 New York Times article, is a convicted felon who among other crimes is guilty of lying to the same Congress this demagogue Democrat Adam Schiff of California is a member of.
So why then is Democrat demagogue Adam Schiff gloating about having this convicted liar testify to the same Congress he is already guilty of lying to?
Let’s go back to the article and see what more we can learn, as follows:
Schiff also said that the Justice Department ought to rethink its policy concerning whether a sitting president can be indicted and prosecuted given the alleged reference to potential wrongdoing by Trump in Cohen’s sentencing memo.
end quotes
AH, people, yes, the light bulb goes on – Schiff wants to use the testimony of a convicted liar to defeat our United States Constitution!
How so?
Well, when Schiff tells us that the Justice Department ought to rethink its policy concerning whether a sitting president can be indicted and prosecuted given the alleged reference to potential wrongdoing by Trump in Cohen’s sentencing memo, what Schiff is referring to is a document from the United States Department of Justice entitled “A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution” and dated October 16, 2000 which concludes that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
end quotes
There, people, is the legal and Constitutional conclusion this Democrat demagogue Adam Schiff wants the Justice Department to change, based on the word of convicted liar Michael Cohen.
“We don’t like Trump,” says Democrat demagogue Adam Schiff, “and our liberal base wants him indicted and impeached, so change the Constitution so it says we can do that!”
And in the meantime, Trump, who I am not trying to defend in here, my interest as a loyal American citizen and veteran is not defending Trump, it is defending OUR Constitution and laws this Adam Schiff is trying to pervert for partisan political gain, and as a means of raising money for himself, instead of being innocent until proven guilty, which used to be the standard in America before Adam Schiff and the Democrats changed it, is guilty based on the word of a convicted felon who is also a convicted liar.
Getting back to that Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General Schiff wants to have changed based on the word of a convicted liar, it continues as follows, to wit:
In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination.
We believe that the conclusion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution.
end quotes
The best interpretation of OUR Constitution, people – that is what this California Democrat Adam Schiff wants changed!
WHY?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-107262
Re: ADAM SCHIFF
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 17, 2018 at 11:59 am
Paul Plante says :
Good morning, Carlos Bernstein, and the best of the season to you, and thank you for commenting and bringing that NEW YORKER article entitled “Adam Schiff’s Plans to Obliterate Trump’s Red Line – With the Democrats controlling the House, Schiff’s congressional investigation will follow the money” by Jeffrey Toobin in the December 24 & 31, 2018 Issue to our attention, wherein we are told “Schiff is not especially short or slight, but he does appear diminutive.”
Whether he is 3 feet 5 inches tall or 10 feet tall is really immaterial, as I am sure you will agree.
When I talk about “little” Adam Schiff, I am making a character reference, actually.
Consider this from that same article for a hint at what I am talking about, to wit:
Still, Schiff knows that his legacy, to say nothing of his political future, will be defined by his handling of the Russia investigation.
The challenge he faces has made him a national figure, and his harsh view of Trump has set the tone for many other Democrats to follow.
At times, he may already have gone too far.
After Michael Cohen pleaded guilty in the Southern District of New York to facilitating unlawful contributions to Trump’s campaign, specifically the payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, Trump’s alleged former paramours, Schiff said, on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” that the President “faces the real prospect of jail time” for his role in the case.
Schiff told me, “The prosecutors said that Cohen deserved jail time because he helped conceal payments to women that, if they had been disclosed as they should have been, might have changed the outcome of the election.”
“But that argument applies with even more force to Trump himself, because he was the guy directing the scheme, and the beneficiary of it.”
“No jail time for him would be a terrible double standard.”
(Last week, Cohen was sentenced to thirty-six months for his crimes.)
Calling for the President to be incarcerated when he hasn’t yet even been charged, or the evidence against him fully revealed, is, at the very least, premature, and perhaps irresponsible.
end quotes
Focus on that last sentence about “irresponsibility.”
Schiff is not just some simple-minded schmoe out there on the street blowing off excess steam who doesn’t know any better that even the most despicable among us are innocent until proven guilty.
He is a Harvard-trained lawyer, which puts him in the class of top-notch lawyers here in America like Michael Cohen, and besides that, he was a hot-shot U.S. attorney, and now he is a United States Congressman.
So why is he feeding us this bull**** as he is doing in that article where he tells us that Trump defrauded the voters by allegedly concealing the payments to those two women, one of whom earns her living getting money as a sex worker?
Doesn’t he know that Trump lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton?
More importantly, doesn’t he know that in America, the people do not elect presidents?
That is what the electoral college is for, as we can clearly see from FEDERALIST No. 68, The Mode of Electing the President, from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York by Alexander Hamilton on Friday, March 14, 1788, to wit:
THE mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents.
It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided.
This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.
A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder.
This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States.
But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.
The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes.
And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.
These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.
How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?
But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention.
They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment.
And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office.
No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors.
Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias.
Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it.
The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means.
Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.
Another and no less important desideratum was, that the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves.
He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence.
This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important choice.
All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President.
Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be the President.
The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.
Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.
It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.
PUBLIUS.
end quotes
Kind of takes some wind out of the sails of our Adam Schiff, does it not, with respect to his claim of Trump defrauding the voters.
It’s almost 2019, and I am still waiting for Adam Schiff, the real expert here on “Russian interference” in our elections to bring forth any credible evidence that the Russians in some way interfered with the votes of the electoral college, or that Trump defrauded the Electoral College in some way, and let me make clear that I make all these statements as an American citizen.
When will that credible evidence be forthcoming?
In my lifetime?
Or how about never?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-107789
Paul Plante says :
Good morning, Carlos Bernstein, and the best of the season to you, and thank you for commenting and bringing that NEW YORKER article entitled “Adam Schiff’s Plans to Obliterate Trump’s Red Line – With the Democrats controlling the House, Schiff’s congressional investigation will follow the money” by Jeffrey Toobin in the December 24 & 31, 2018 Issue to our attention, wherein we are told “Schiff is not especially short or slight, but he does appear diminutive.”
Whether he is 3 feet 5 inches tall or 10 feet tall is really immaterial, as I am sure you will agree.
When I talk about “little” Adam Schiff, I am making a character reference, actually.
Consider this from that same article for a hint at what I am talking about, to wit:
Still, Schiff knows that his legacy, to say nothing of his political future, will be defined by his handling of the Russia investigation.
The challenge he faces has made him a national figure, and his harsh view of Trump has set the tone for many other Democrats to follow.
At times, he may already have gone too far.
After Michael Cohen pleaded guilty in the Southern District of New York to facilitating unlawful contributions to Trump’s campaign, specifically the payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, Trump’s alleged former paramours, Schiff said, on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” that the President “faces the real prospect of jail time” for his role in the case.
Schiff told me, “The prosecutors said that Cohen deserved jail time because he helped conceal payments to women that, if they had been disclosed as they should have been, might have changed the outcome of the election.”
“But that argument applies with even more force to Trump himself, because he was the guy directing the scheme, and the beneficiary of it.”
“No jail time for him would be a terrible double standard.”
(Last week, Cohen was sentenced to thirty-six months for his crimes.)
Calling for the President to be incarcerated when he hasn’t yet even been charged, or the evidence against him fully revealed, is, at the very least, premature, and perhaps irresponsible.
end quotes
Focus on that last sentence about “irresponsibility.”
Schiff is not just some simple-minded schmoe out there on the street blowing off excess steam who doesn’t know any better that even the most despicable among us are innocent until proven guilty.
He is a Harvard-trained lawyer, which puts him in the class of top-notch lawyers here in America like Michael Cohen, and besides that, he was a hot-shot U.S. attorney, and now he is a United States Congressman.
So why is he feeding us this bull**** as he is doing in that article where he tells us that Trump defrauded the voters by allegedly concealing the payments to those two women, one of whom earns her living getting money as a sex worker?
Doesn’t he know that Trump lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton?
More importantly, doesn’t he know that in America, the people do not elect presidents?
That is what the electoral college is for, as we can clearly see from FEDERALIST No. 68, The Mode of Electing the President, from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York by Alexander Hamilton on Friday, March 14, 1788, to wit:
THE mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents.
It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided.
This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.
A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder.
This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States.
But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.
The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes.
And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.
These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.
How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?
But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention.
They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment.
And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office.
No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors.
Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias.
Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it.
The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means.
Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.
Another and no less important desideratum was, that the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves.
He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence.
This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important choice.
All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President.
Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be the President.
The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.
Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.
It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.
PUBLIUS.
end quotes
Kind of takes some wind out of the sails of our Adam Schiff, does it not, with respect to his claim of Trump defrauding the voters.
It’s almost 2019, and I am still waiting for Adam Schiff, the real expert here on “Russian interference” in our elections to bring forth any credible evidence that the Russians in some way interfered with the votes of the electoral college, or that Trump defrauded the Electoral College in some way, and let me make clear that I make all these statements as an American citizen.
When will that credible evidence be forthcoming?
In my lifetime?
Or how about never?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-107789
Re: ADAM SCHIFF
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 17, 2018 at 7:51 pm
Paul Plante says :
Slide, dude, what it is?
And best of the season to you, dude.
And while it is possible, likely, even, although whoever does really know, that Adam Schiff couldn’t beat his way out of a wet paper bag, the fact of the matter is that as an unchallenged Democrat demagogue who has participated in 227 TV interviews where he gets to twist and skew the minds of the gullible and unwitting and unthinking in America with his horse**** the Cape Charles Mirror is graciously allowing to be debunked in here, something you won’t find happening in the main-stream media, and especially The New Yorker, which has the gall to tell us that it is fighting fake news when the story it printed about Adam Schiff is a raft of clearly misleading news, if not all of it totally false; fact of the matter is that Adam Schiff, as Carlos Bernstein says, is very powerful right now in American politics, precisely because he is using main-stream media outlets like The New Yorker to create outrage that he is then able to harness; outrage that he is creating through the power of what are in essence outright lies, which outright lies, it might be said, are protected by the Arrest and Speech or Debate Clauses of Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution.
So Adam Schiff can legally use his position as a U.S. Congressperson to lie to us in order to cause civil disorder and tumults and sow discord, which he is doing quite well, which tumults and discord incidentally benefit the various security industries that pump money down the pockets of Adam Schiff https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/02/adam ... on-parsons , which I as an American citizen and combat veteran find quite despicable, to be truthful.
Check out the story “Who Is Adam Schiff?” by Branko Marcetic on 02.15.2018, where we have the following to consider:
Since Donald Trump’s election, a number of Democrats have tried to cast themselves as leaders of the “resistance.”
Few have done it with more gusto than Adam Schiff.
The California representative has become something like the point man for all things Trump-Russia, using his position as the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Select Intelligence Committee to act as the “guardian against the [administration’s] worst abuses” and making television appearances and public statements to warn about the administration’s alleged ties to Russia.
At the same time, Schiff has solidified his status as one of Congress’s leading anti-Russia hawks.
He has ardently supported harsher sanctions on Russia, warned of future election interference by the Kremlin, and cautioned that its operatives are trying “to tear us apart” through their online activities.
Last year, in response to the GOP’s decision not to endorse sending lethal arms to Ukraine in its platform — a policy he spent years working with Republicans like John McCain to push — he aggressively questioned those involved as part of the Trump-Russia investigation.
Schiff’s alarmism has paid off for him personally, catapulting him to national prominence and supplying him a potent theme for fundraising.
But it also has the potential to be profitable for another group: the arms manufacturers and military contractors that are among his biggest donors.
end quotes
Fear-mongering by this Adam Schiff put money in the pockets of his political supporters, and they in turn put money back in the pockets of Adam Schiff so he can tell us even more lies and divide us further.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-107789
Paul Plante says :
Slide, dude, what it is?
And best of the season to you, dude.
And while it is possible, likely, even, although whoever does really know, that Adam Schiff couldn’t beat his way out of a wet paper bag, the fact of the matter is that as an unchallenged Democrat demagogue who has participated in 227 TV interviews where he gets to twist and skew the minds of the gullible and unwitting and unthinking in America with his horse**** the Cape Charles Mirror is graciously allowing to be debunked in here, something you won’t find happening in the main-stream media, and especially The New Yorker, which has the gall to tell us that it is fighting fake news when the story it printed about Adam Schiff is a raft of clearly misleading news, if not all of it totally false; fact of the matter is that Adam Schiff, as Carlos Bernstein says, is very powerful right now in American politics, precisely because he is using main-stream media outlets like The New Yorker to create outrage that he is then able to harness; outrage that he is creating through the power of what are in essence outright lies, which outright lies, it might be said, are protected by the Arrest and Speech or Debate Clauses of Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution.
So Adam Schiff can legally use his position as a U.S. Congressperson to lie to us in order to cause civil disorder and tumults and sow discord, which he is doing quite well, which tumults and discord incidentally benefit the various security industries that pump money down the pockets of Adam Schiff https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/02/adam ... on-parsons , which I as an American citizen and combat veteran find quite despicable, to be truthful.
Check out the story “Who Is Adam Schiff?” by Branko Marcetic on 02.15.2018, where we have the following to consider:
Since Donald Trump’s election, a number of Democrats have tried to cast themselves as leaders of the “resistance.”
Few have done it with more gusto than Adam Schiff.
The California representative has become something like the point man for all things Trump-Russia, using his position as the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Select Intelligence Committee to act as the “guardian against the [administration’s] worst abuses” and making television appearances and public statements to warn about the administration’s alleged ties to Russia.
At the same time, Schiff has solidified his status as one of Congress’s leading anti-Russia hawks.
He has ardently supported harsher sanctions on Russia, warned of future election interference by the Kremlin, and cautioned that its operatives are trying “to tear us apart” through their online activities.
Last year, in response to the GOP’s decision not to endorse sending lethal arms to Ukraine in its platform — a policy he spent years working with Republicans like John McCain to push — he aggressively questioned those involved as part of the Trump-Russia investigation.
Schiff’s alarmism has paid off for him personally, catapulting him to national prominence and supplying him a potent theme for fundraising.
But it also has the potential to be profitable for another group: the arms manufacturers and military contractors that are among his biggest donors.
end quotes
Fear-mongering by this Adam Schiff put money in the pockets of his political supporters, and they in turn put money back in the pockets of Adam Schiff so he can tell us even more lies and divide us further.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-107789
Re: ADAM SCHIFF
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 16, 2018 at 10:12 pm
Paul Plante says :
Getting back to the Constitutional policy this Democrat demagogue Adam Schiff wants to change, the United States Department of Justice Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General titled “A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution” dated October 16, 2000 continues in more detail as follows:
Both the OLC memorandum and the Solicitor General’s brief recognized that the President is not above the law, and that he is ultimately accountable for his misconduct that occurs before, during, and after his service to the country.
Each also recognized, however, that the President occupies a unique position within our constitutional order.
The Department concluded that neither the text nor the history of the Constitution ultimately provided dispositive guidance in determining whether a President is amenable to indictment or criminal prosecution while in office.
It therefore based its analysis on more general considerations of constitutional structure.
Because of the unique duties and demands of the Presidency, the Department concluded, a President cannot be called upon to answer the demands of another branch of the government in the same manner as can all other individuals.
end quotes
What the Department of Justice is saying there, and clearly this Democrat demagogue Adam Schiff does not like it and won’t stand for it, is that a sitting American president, even when the Democrats in the House of Representatives clearly don’t like him because he beat the pathological liar they had put up for president in the biggest liar’s contest in my living memory outside of when Hillary Clinton ran against Hussein Obama, does not answer the demands of pipsqueaks like Democrat Congressman from Burbank, California Adam Schiff.
How that must gall our Adam!
Getting back to the Constitutional policy at stake here, the October 16, 2000 Opinion for the Attorney General titled “A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution” continues as follows:
The OLC memorandum in particular concluded that the ordinary workings of the criminal process would impose burdens upon a sitting President that would directly and substantially impede the executive branch from performing its constitutionally assigned functions, and the accusation or adjudication of the criminal culpability of the nation’s chief executive by either a grand jury returning an indictment or a petit jury returning a verdict would have a dramatically destabilizing effect upon the ability of a coordinate branch of government to function.
end quotes
And that, people, is exactly what this Democrat demagogue Adam Schiff from Burbank, California is trying to make happen with his calls for Trump to be indicted based on the word of convicted liar Michael Cohen – he wants to exert a destabilizing effect upon the ability of the executive branch of our national government to function, so as to gain political points for the Democrats going into the 2020 presidential elections, where incidentally and not at all surprisingly, in the most recent edition of The New Yorker, the December 24 & 31, 2018 Issue, in a story entitled “Adam Schiff’s Plans to Obliterate Trump’s Red Line – With the Democrats controlling the House, Schiff’s congressional investigation will follow the money” by Jeffrey Toobin, we are told that Schiff’s travels during the recent mid-terms have led some to speculate that Schiff may be considering a long-shot bid for President in 2020, which takes us back to the Constitutional policy Schiff is trying to change here as expressed in the October 16, 2000 Opinion for the Attorney General titled “A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution,” to wit:
The Department therefore concluded in both the OLC memorandum and the Solicitor General’s brief that, while civil officers generally may be indicted and criminally prosecuted during their tenure in office, the constitutional structure permits a sitting President to be subject to criminal process only after he leaves office or is removed therefrom through the impeachment process.
end quotes
There, people, is the Constitutional hurdle to prosecuting Trump that this Adam Schiff has to get removed so he can become known as the Congressman who took down a sitting American president.
Incidentally, in that same New Yorker article, we are told as follows concerning Schiff, to wit:
It’s less known that, like many lawyers in Los Angeles, Schiff has been writing screenplays on the side for years, which together amount to a kind of autobiography.
end quotes
And here is he, people, now sitting in Congress, and trying to write another screenplay that is going to put little Adam in the White House in 2020.
And why not?
His district includes Hollywood, afterall!
On that note, please stay tuned, because there is more of that comprehensive October 16, 2000 Opinion for the Attorney General titled “A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution” that Adam Schiff is trying to get changed based on the testimony of convicted liar Michael Cohen yet to come.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-107789
Paul Plante says :
Getting back to the Constitutional policy this Democrat demagogue Adam Schiff wants to change, the United States Department of Justice Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General titled “A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution” dated October 16, 2000 continues in more detail as follows:
Both the OLC memorandum and the Solicitor General’s brief recognized that the President is not above the law, and that he is ultimately accountable for his misconduct that occurs before, during, and after his service to the country.
Each also recognized, however, that the President occupies a unique position within our constitutional order.
The Department concluded that neither the text nor the history of the Constitution ultimately provided dispositive guidance in determining whether a President is amenable to indictment or criminal prosecution while in office.
It therefore based its analysis on more general considerations of constitutional structure.
Because of the unique duties and demands of the Presidency, the Department concluded, a President cannot be called upon to answer the demands of another branch of the government in the same manner as can all other individuals.
end quotes
What the Department of Justice is saying there, and clearly this Democrat demagogue Adam Schiff does not like it and won’t stand for it, is that a sitting American president, even when the Democrats in the House of Representatives clearly don’t like him because he beat the pathological liar they had put up for president in the biggest liar’s contest in my living memory outside of when Hillary Clinton ran against Hussein Obama, does not answer the demands of pipsqueaks like Democrat Congressman from Burbank, California Adam Schiff.
How that must gall our Adam!
Getting back to the Constitutional policy at stake here, the October 16, 2000 Opinion for the Attorney General titled “A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution” continues as follows:
The OLC memorandum in particular concluded that the ordinary workings of the criminal process would impose burdens upon a sitting President that would directly and substantially impede the executive branch from performing its constitutionally assigned functions, and the accusation or adjudication of the criminal culpability of the nation’s chief executive by either a grand jury returning an indictment or a petit jury returning a verdict would have a dramatically destabilizing effect upon the ability of a coordinate branch of government to function.
end quotes
And that, people, is exactly what this Democrat demagogue Adam Schiff from Burbank, California is trying to make happen with his calls for Trump to be indicted based on the word of convicted liar Michael Cohen – he wants to exert a destabilizing effect upon the ability of the executive branch of our national government to function, so as to gain political points for the Democrats going into the 2020 presidential elections, where incidentally and not at all surprisingly, in the most recent edition of The New Yorker, the December 24 & 31, 2018 Issue, in a story entitled “Adam Schiff’s Plans to Obliterate Trump’s Red Line – With the Democrats controlling the House, Schiff’s congressional investigation will follow the money” by Jeffrey Toobin, we are told that Schiff’s travels during the recent mid-terms have led some to speculate that Schiff may be considering a long-shot bid for President in 2020, which takes us back to the Constitutional policy Schiff is trying to change here as expressed in the October 16, 2000 Opinion for the Attorney General titled “A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution,” to wit:
The Department therefore concluded in both the OLC memorandum and the Solicitor General’s brief that, while civil officers generally may be indicted and criminally prosecuted during their tenure in office, the constitutional structure permits a sitting President to be subject to criminal process only after he leaves office or is removed therefrom through the impeachment process.
end quotes
There, people, is the Constitutional hurdle to prosecuting Trump that this Adam Schiff has to get removed so he can become known as the Congressman who took down a sitting American president.
Incidentally, in that same New Yorker article, we are told as follows concerning Schiff, to wit:
It’s less known that, like many lawyers in Los Angeles, Schiff has been writing screenplays on the side for years, which together amount to a kind of autobiography.
end quotes
And here is he, people, now sitting in Congress, and trying to write another screenplay that is going to put little Adam in the White House in 2020.
And why not?
His district includes Hollywood, afterall!
On that note, please stay tuned, because there is more of that comprehensive October 16, 2000 Opinion for the Attorney General titled “A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution” that Adam Schiff is trying to get changed based on the testimony of convicted liar Michael Cohen yet to come.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-107789
Re: ADAM SCHIFF
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 17, 2018 at 9:35 pm
Paul Plante says :
Stacy, what has any of that drivel got to do with Democrat demagogue Adam Schiff trying to shred our Constitution?
You tell us “(I)t’s a long, complicated story, which is part of why the MSM has so utterly dropped the ball covering it,” and then you tell us that Donald Trump is a con man and his father had mob ties.
What of it, Stacy?
What is the point?
And how is that any different than John F. Kennedy and his father?
Weren’t they close to the mob?
And then you tell us “Trump inherited those ties and established new ones, especially after he failed with casinos in Atlantic City and banks won’t lend to him.”
Have you even a shred of proof to back any of that up?
And Stacy, again, what of any of that?
Trump IS the president, is he not?
Are you saying that because he is mobbed up, that he can’t be president?
And then you come out with this gem: “That’s when he got into international money laundering.”
Okay!
Again, how is that relevant to anything this Democrat demagogue Congressman Adam Schiff is doing, or about to do?
Please enlighten us, because to me, it seems very much like you are taking us on a speculative wild goose chase with all this mob stuff and money laundering and all.
Let’s say it’s all true, Stacy – WHAT OF IT?
Then you come at us with this: “Trump ran for president as a cynical bid to increase the value of his brand.”
UH, didn’t Obama do the same, Stacy?
Dude comes into office without enough money to buy a decent pair of shoes or a suit that fit him right, and he leaves office ahead millions of dollars!
What’s up with that, Stacy?
And what about the Fox News article “The Obamas are on their way to becoming a billion-dollar brand” by Alex Pappas on 19 November 2018, where we are told as follows:
The cash keeps rolling in for Barack and Michelle Obama.
And it may not be long before they’re billionaires.
The New York Post reported the Obamas are on their way to becoming a billion-dollar brand, amid highly lucrative deals for books, speeches and Netflix videos.
The former president makes $400,000 per speech.
end quotes
How about Hussein Obama ran for president as a cynical bid to increase the value of his brand?
And then you come back with this: “The Apprentice TV shows weren’t bringing in as much money, so he decided to run for president (again — he dipped his toe in the water in 2012).”
What, Stacy, do you want us to make of that?
Should that have served as a disqualification for office, do you think – that his motives weren’t pure?
And that question takes us back to this assertion, to wit: “Trump has been on Russia’s radar since he visited in the 80s to try to build Trump Tower Moscow.”
“Putin seems to have some serious blackmail on him; that’s why Trump is so deferential to the Russian dictator/president.”
“At this point Russian government is effectively the Russian mob.”
end quotes
Stacy, let me tell you, you have a real talent for drama, you know that?
But of course you do.
So can we expect Adam Schiff, who is making money off of being the “resistance” to Trump, as if the Constitution somehow gave a Congressman like Adam Schiff the duty to be the “resistance” to a sitting president, to expose this serious blackmail Putin has on Trump?
Is that where this is going?
And no, Stacy, I am not going to go over to TWITTER, of all places, to try and find out either truth or facts, because TWITTER is the last place I would expect to find either, and frankly, Stacy, I am surprised and concerned that you are letting that crap on TWITTER get into your head to rot your mind!
And here we come, it seems, to your finale, to wit: I believe that eventually, somehow Trump will end up spending the rest of his life in jail.
He has betrayed the United States in his quest for money and fame.
Most of his family will get jail time, too.
Mueller is playing it smart; he’s working with state prosecutors so Trump can’t pardon everyone around him and himself for everything.
You may not believe a word I wrote.
That’s fine.
It’s your prerogative.
end quotes
I thought Mueller was supposed to be investigating Russian interference in our elections, Stacy, which incidentally, has never yet been proven.
Where is he getting all this extra authority from?
And where are these state attorney generals getting any Constitutional authority to conduct criminal investigations of a sitting American president?
And Stacy, I don’t know about anyone else, but I never thought you were a Hillary-loving libtard who wants to tax everyone to kingdom come and take everyone’s guns away, and I’m glad to hear you are not.
And like you, I too would like to see competent people running the government, because as you so accurately stay, this country has serious problems, and they’re not getting solved by the clown show in D.C.
Given that Adam Schiff is a big part of that clown show then makes this expose even more relevant to the times we are in, does it not?
And Stacy, thank you for having the courage to make your opinion known!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-107789
Paul Plante says :
Stacy, what has any of that drivel got to do with Democrat demagogue Adam Schiff trying to shred our Constitution?
You tell us “(I)t’s a long, complicated story, which is part of why the MSM has so utterly dropped the ball covering it,” and then you tell us that Donald Trump is a con man and his father had mob ties.
What of it, Stacy?
What is the point?
And how is that any different than John F. Kennedy and his father?
Weren’t they close to the mob?
And then you tell us “Trump inherited those ties and established new ones, especially after he failed with casinos in Atlantic City and banks won’t lend to him.”
Have you even a shred of proof to back any of that up?
And Stacy, again, what of any of that?
Trump IS the president, is he not?
Are you saying that because he is mobbed up, that he can’t be president?
And then you come out with this gem: “That’s when he got into international money laundering.”
Okay!
Again, how is that relevant to anything this Democrat demagogue Congressman Adam Schiff is doing, or about to do?
Please enlighten us, because to me, it seems very much like you are taking us on a speculative wild goose chase with all this mob stuff and money laundering and all.
Let’s say it’s all true, Stacy – WHAT OF IT?
Then you come at us with this: “Trump ran for president as a cynical bid to increase the value of his brand.”
UH, didn’t Obama do the same, Stacy?
Dude comes into office without enough money to buy a decent pair of shoes or a suit that fit him right, and he leaves office ahead millions of dollars!
What’s up with that, Stacy?
And what about the Fox News article “The Obamas are on their way to becoming a billion-dollar brand” by Alex Pappas on 19 November 2018, where we are told as follows:
The cash keeps rolling in for Barack and Michelle Obama.
And it may not be long before they’re billionaires.
The New York Post reported the Obamas are on their way to becoming a billion-dollar brand, amid highly lucrative deals for books, speeches and Netflix videos.
The former president makes $400,000 per speech.
end quotes
How about Hussein Obama ran for president as a cynical bid to increase the value of his brand?
And then you come back with this: “The Apprentice TV shows weren’t bringing in as much money, so he decided to run for president (again — he dipped his toe in the water in 2012).”
What, Stacy, do you want us to make of that?
Should that have served as a disqualification for office, do you think – that his motives weren’t pure?
And that question takes us back to this assertion, to wit: “Trump has been on Russia’s radar since he visited in the 80s to try to build Trump Tower Moscow.”
“Putin seems to have some serious blackmail on him; that’s why Trump is so deferential to the Russian dictator/president.”
“At this point Russian government is effectively the Russian mob.”
end quotes
Stacy, let me tell you, you have a real talent for drama, you know that?
But of course you do.
So can we expect Adam Schiff, who is making money off of being the “resistance” to Trump, as if the Constitution somehow gave a Congressman like Adam Schiff the duty to be the “resistance” to a sitting president, to expose this serious blackmail Putin has on Trump?
Is that where this is going?
And no, Stacy, I am not going to go over to TWITTER, of all places, to try and find out either truth or facts, because TWITTER is the last place I would expect to find either, and frankly, Stacy, I am surprised and concerned that you are letting that crap on TWITTER get into your head to rot your mind!
And here we come, it seems, to your finale, to wit: I believe that eventually, somehow Trump will end up spending the rest of his life in jail.
He has betrayed the United States in his quest for money and fame.
Most of his family will get jail time, too.
Mueller is playing it smart; he’s working with state prosecutors so Trump can’t pardon everyone around him and himself for everything.
You may not believe a word I wrote.
That’s fine.
It’s your prerogative.
end quotes
I thought Mueller was supposed to be investigating Russian interference in our elections, Stacy, which incidentally, has never yet been proven.
Where is he getting all this extra authority from?
And where are these state attorney generals getting any Constitutional authority to conduct criminal investigations of a sitting American president?
And Stacy, I don’t know about anyone else, but I never thought you were a Hillary-loving libtard who wants to tax everyone to kingdom come and take everyone’s guns away, and I’m glad to hear you are not.
And like you, I too would like to see competent people running the government, because as you so accurately stay, this country has serious problems, and they’re not getting solved by the clown show in D.C.
Given that Adam Schiff is a big part of that clown show then makes this expose even more relevant to the times we are in, does it not?
And Stacy, thank you for having the courage to make your opinion known!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-107789
Re: ADAM SCHIFF
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 18, 2018 at 12:00 pm
Paul Plante says :
People in this country forget our history when it comes to who has occupied the oval office before Trump.
Hussein Obama himself, by his own admissions, was snorting cocaine before he was president.
Dick Nixon was a crook.
LBJ was a liar.
And that is just in recent times.
There is absolutely nothing in our Constitution that requires a presidential aspirant to be honest.
It is a hope they will be, but it is not required and if it was, which I would be for, it would eliminate dead wood like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama from the presidential pool, along with future contenders like this Adam Schiff, who doesn’t mind misleading us and dividing us with his outright lies, and Young Andy Cuomo of New York state, as well.
As was said in FEDERALIST No. 51, The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments, from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York by either Alexander Hamilton or Jemmy Madison on Friday, February 8, 1788:
It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government.
But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?
If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
end quotes
Wouldn’t it be great if all of our presidential aspirants were in fact angels?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-108060
Paul Plante says :
People in this country forget our history when it comes to who has occupied the oval office before Trump.
Hussein Obama himself, by his own admissions, was snorting cocaine before he was president.
Dick Nixon was a crook.
LBJ was a liar.
And that is just in recent times.
There is absolutely nothing in our Constitution that requires a presidential aspirant to be honest.
It is a hope they will be, but it is not required and if it was, which I would be for, it would eliminate dead wood like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama from the presidential pool, along with future contenders like this Adam Schiff, who doesn’t mind misleading us and dividing us with his outright lies, and Young Andy Cuomo of New York state, as well.
As was said in FEDERALIST No. 51, The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments, from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York by either Alexander Hamilton or Jemmy Madison on Friday, February 8, 1788:
It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government.
But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?
If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
end quotes
Wouldn’t it be great if all of our presidential aspirants were in fact angels?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-108060