Adam Schiff’s drive to impeach Trump based on opinions, deception and illusions – Not facts


HR All-State
Aug 19, 2019
Rep. Adam Schiff is a poor man’s Harry Houdini. He is a cheap illusionist performing amateurish parlor tricks of deception in his quest to convince his audience that he possesses damning evidence of an impeachable offense committed by President Trump.

Schiff, D-Calif., has no such evidence, of course. But like most illusionists, Schiff employs misdirection and confusion. He attempts to convince you that opinions are evidence, while facts are not. This is the stuff of rank political magic where perceptions are distorted through clever manipulation of the process.

Schiff has become the master manipulator aided, in large part, by the secrecy of his faux magic act. He won’t allow you to peek behind the curtain to see for yourself the witnesses he has called in his “super top secret” impeachment inquisition. You are never permitted to view transcripts of depositions or examine testimony that purports to incriminate the president. That, of course, would ruin all the hocus-pocus.

Americans are now finally getting to see how the House Intelligence Committee chairman rigged his inquisition with hearsay witnesses and others who had nothing meaningful to offer except their own personal interpretations of a July 25 conversation between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The best evidence of what transpired is, in fact, the only pertinent evidence. Everything else is secondary and immaterial. The transcript of the telephone call and the statements of the two participants, Trump and Zelensky, are the only relevant evidence. All other witnesses are simply offering their gratuitous interpretation and opinion of the conversation to which they were not a party.

The Ukrainian government has confirmed that it did not even know that the U.S. had suspended security funds until almost five weeks after the call with Trump. This seriously undermines the argument by Democrats that there was a “quid pro quo” for the aid.

It is impossible for there to be a “quid pro quo” when the recipient of the “quid” is oblivious to the existence of the “quo.” This is common sense, which is in short supply these days in the bowels of the House basement where Schiff pursues his “super top secret” inquisition.

It is folly for Democrats to argue that a diplomatic conversation of this nature somehow constitutes an impeachable offense. Schiff, the illusionist, can offer nothing but impressions, perceptions, judgments and opinions. It is all irrelevant and a sham. Facts are what matter.

A hundred so-called “whistleblowers” relying on hearsay about a conversation to which they were never privy cannot change the factual equation laid bare by the transcript of the Trump-Zelensky telephone call.

Not even the great Houdini could pull off that trick.


HR King
May 29, 2001
Jarrett's a Trumpkin shill, guilty of aiding and abetting:

Pro-Trump commentary and attacks on DOJ

Jarrett has been accused of allowing his political positions to color his legal commentary, often choosing his legal positions based on which political party would be affected. In August 2017, Jarrett called for a grand jury for Hillary Clinton over her email controversy.[6] A day later, when a grand jury was impaneled by special counsel Robert Mueller in the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Jarrett said that grand juries were an "undemocratic farce".[6] Jarrett later called the Mueller investigation "illegitimate and corrupt" on Fox News, stating that "the FBI has become America's secret police" and "a shadow government".[7][8] Jarrett likened the FBI to the KGB, the Soviet security agency, for which he received PolitiFact's "Pants on Fire" rating.[9] According to PolitiFact, "numerous historians of the FBI and the KGB say the comparison is ridiculous. The KGB implemented the goals of the Communist Party leadership, including countless examples of tortures and summary executions. The FBI, by contrast, is subject to the rule of law and is democratically accountable."[9]

In the context of possible collusion between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government, Jarrett has said that any such collusion would not be a crime: "Collusion is not a crime. Only in antitrust law. You can collude all you want with a foreign government in an election. There is no such statute."[10][11] According to PolitiFact, the statement is false. Three prominent election law scholars said there are at least four laws that would prohibit the sort of activities under investigation, whether those laws mention collusion or not. Jarrett's focus on a single word fails to reflect the reach of the criminal code."[10]

Jarrett has said that former FBI Director James Comey may have broken the law by releasing a memo to press wherein Comey recounted a conversation with President Trump where Trump requested that Comey end the investigation into Michael T. Flynn.[12] University of Texas School of Law professor Bobby Chesney said Jarrett's assertion was "nonsense".[12] University of Georgia law professor Diane Marie Amann also refuted Jarrett's assertion.[13]

In February 2018, Jarrett asserted that he had a "highly reliable congressional source" which told him that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein "used the power of his office to threaten members of Congress"; The Huffington Post described the assertion as "dubious".[8]

The Russia Hoax
In 2018, Jarrett published the book The Russia Hoax which alleges that "Hillary Clinton’s deep state collaborators in government" engaged in "nefarious actions" to protect Clinton and undermine Trump.[14] The book was an Amazon and New York Times best-seller.[14] President Trump praised the book.[15] According to Rolling Stone magazine, the book "amounts to 286 pages of recapping every single bad thing the Clintons have ever been accused of doing (Uranium One is, again, mentioned dozens of times.)... The idea that the Clinton email investigation could be dropped, and the Russia investigation taken up just a few months later isn’t seen as coincidence, but conspiracy, a bit of revenge enacted by an intelligence community full of Clinton fans."[14] In a review for The Washington Post, Carlos Lozada described the book as a Trump hagiography.[16] In 2018, PolitiFact highlighted five claims made in Jarrett's book as false, misleading and unsubstantiated.[17]