And You Just Thought Adam Schiff Was Evil

“The impeachment trial of President Trump has ended, but the threat to our democracy continues. In the short time since the trial concluded, the president has proven that the House managers’ warning to senators that he will never change was prescient. President Trump’s actions demonstrate the need to develop and pass legislative reforms to safeguard the checks and balances of our democracy. Building new guardrails to defend against authoritarian-minded presidents must now be a top priority for Congress.

Within days of the Senate vote, Trump began to exact revenge against officials who complied with lawful subpoenas and told the truth to Congress. He had a security escort remove Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a decorated combat veteran, from the White House’s National Security Council, along with his twin brother, who served as an ethics attorney. The president’s vengeance against civil servants is disturbing enough, but it occurred alongside an even greater danger that has come into sharper focus this week: the politicization and potential weaponization of the Department of Justice. Trump insists he has the absolute right to direct the actions of the department. His efforts to obstruct investigations into his own misconduct and that of his associates — firing FBI Director James B. Comey, seeking to fire Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III and much more — are well documented. And now, the president has found his Roy Cohn in Atty. Gen. William Barr, who has shown himself willing to be the president’s political fixer and do his bidding at the expense of the department’s independence.

The severity of the threat to our democracy was made plain last week in a succession of troubling actions by the Justice Department.

Last Monday, the department recommended that Roger Stone, the president’s longtime political advisor, and self-proclaimed “dirty trickster,” be sentenced according to standard federal guidelines for the serious crimes he committed. Mr. Stone was convicted last year on seven charges related to lying to Congress about his dealings with the president and WikiLeaks — the platform publishing Russian hacked emails beneficial to the Trump campaign — and witness tampering. Late that same evening, the president tweeted in outrage, calling the recommendation “a miscarriage of justice.” The next morning, at Barr’s urging, the department reversed course and recommended a more lenient sentence, using language so unusual for the DOJ that it looked like it could have been written by Stone himself.

Barr claims he had planned to intervene in the case before reading the president’s tweet, but he does not deny his personal involvement. It is exceedingly rare for attorneys general to overrule the sentencing recommendation of their career prosecutors. Doing so in a case involving the president’s own wrongdoing may be unprecedented. As a result, the career prosecutors on the case demonstrated something in short supply in the White House but abundant among public servants — moral courage. One by one, they withdrew from the case, and one resigned altogether.

By the end of the week, reports emerged that Barr had ordered the review of other “politically sensitive” criminal cases, including that of President Trump’s former national security advisor, Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators to cover up the nature of his own interactions with the Russians. This follows yet another Barr-ordered review intended to sow doubt about intelligence community findings that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help then-candidate Trump, and a nearly successful effort to cover up the whistleblower complaint that ultimately led to Trump’s impeachment.

These interventions by Barr to benefit the president have profound implications for the rule of law and our democracy. With a willing attorney general and compliant congressional Republicans, Trump is attempting to utilize the instruments of justice for his political benefit, something that would give him immense power to punish and harass his political opponents and protect his friends. We cannot let that succeed. Institutions are only as strong as the people who protect them. Public servants, at personal cost, stepped forward in the impeachment inquiry and in the wake of the Stone sentencing reversal. Judges have also demonstrated a vital independence from this lawless president. Congress must also do its part through vigorous oversight, and also by enacting a new set of reforms to prevent presidential abuses akin to those passed after Watergate. Work on these is already underway. The president has continually taken advantage of the slow judicial review process to delay oversight of his administration. In response, Congress should enact legislation to expedite judicial review of congressional subpoenas, an idea House Republicans favored unanimously under President Obama.

There is also a clear need to legislate a stronger firewall between the Department of Justice and the White House, one secured by more than regulations or norms. One first step was introduced by my fellow House impeachment manager, Hakeem Jeffries, to require logging and disclosure of White House contacts with DOJ. But more will be required to prevent an unethical president from initiating or interfering in cases that involve the president’s enemies, allies or family members. Along these lines, I have introduced legislation to constrain the abuse of the pardon power. President Trump has repeatedly dangled pardons to his associates as they face federal criminal investigations. The bill would ensure that in the event, the president issues a pardon in a case related to him or his family members, the complete investigative files would be provided to Congress to ensure he could not obtain the corrupt benefit of covering up his own misconduct.

Some of these reforms may not become law while Trump remains in office, but that must not stop us from getting started. The future of our democracy depends on it.”

Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) represents California’s 28th Congressional District in the House of Representatives, where he serves as chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Analysis

Our record of many of Schiff’s historical lies to Americans and in Congressional hearings are documented. There will be no re-hashing of those previous events and our conclusions. We know you’re familiar with those and we want to honor your time in this discussion today. But his comments in this LA Times opinion letter are so outrageous and untruthful they scream for a truthful response. I’ll be brief: (Schiff’s words are in red)

• Schiff’s accusation is that POTUS had Vindman removed from the White House and the National Security Council as vengeance for Vindman’s testimony before Schiff’s committee during impeachment. Schiff left out a couple of facts. Vindman’s supervisor had felt and previously reported that Vindman had been secretly leaking information to the press. Additionally, Vindman verbally proclaimed his disagreement with several of Mr. Trump’s foreign policy positions. Vindman was NOT removed for his  testimony. He was removed because of National Security information being passed on with no authorization. Schiff “hinted” that Vindman was fired. He was not. He was simply reassigned to his original post at the Pentagon from which he was transferred to the White House in a “temporary position.” Schiff forgot to include that information in his letter.
• “And now, the president has found his Roy Cohn in Atty. Gen. William Barr, who has shown himself willing to be the president’s political fixer and do his bidding at the expense of the department’s independence.” Schiff accused the Attorney General of being evil, devious, and willing to do the bidding of his boss, no matter if doing so violated the law. Did Schiff give an example that explained the logic of that attack on AG Barr? No. He simply explained it by adding additional unfounded allegations. By any legitimate historical basis, the sentence for Stone as recommended by those Mueller prosecutors was outlandish, excessive, unwarranted, and partisan. Remember: those prosecutors were Democrats, hated Trump, and had failed in their attempt to remove POTUS from office. They saw Stone as a way to get even. Schiff said Stone’s sentence was a “sentencing reversal” — that’s a blatant lie. Stone had NEVER been sentenced. There had been no sentencing hearing! The seven-to-nine-year sentence was merely a recommendation to the judge by those prosecutors. Such recommendations are often changed by federal judges. In fact, the judge in the case, (who was anti-Trump all the way) Amy Berman Jackson, commented that it was unusual for the Department of Justice to take the side of any defendant in a trial that their department prosecuted — especially to request easier sentencing. But she concurred that the final Stone sentence of 34-40 months was historically much more realistic and appropriate than the original seven-to-nine years. Schiff forgot to include that in his letter.
• Schiff blasted AG Barr’s authorization for the examination of the Michael Flynn case in which Flynn was pretty much forced to plead guilty to lying to keep his son out of prison. Schiff didn’t mention that. He also failed to mention that in the Flynn case, Flynn’s attorney has petitioned the court to allow the withdrawal of his guilty plea and for a new trial. Schiff claimed that in these “interventions,” Barr was doing so “to benefit the president and have profound implications for the rule of law and our democracy.” For the life of me, I cannot understand how Barr’s actions could possibly be viewed in that light! Barr like millions of Americans feels the Mueller Investigation was tainted, and he stated that in his Congressional testimony during his Senate confirmation hearing. Facts uncovered so far confirm that. Barr cannot change anything already done in the courts. But he, as would any other Attorney General, would make certain there was equal justice under the law for all those caught up in the partisan battle by the Left to unseat President Trump. If there was no wrongdoing there, Barr will not do anything. Schiff forgot to include that information in his letter.
• Schiff declared that Congress intends to put serious restrictions even on just the contact between the White House and the DOJ — even demanding a log recording every such contact! The audacity of Schiff’s claim — and his fellow Congressman Hakeem Jeffries for drafting legislation to do that — is mind-boggling. They in doing this, if successful, would subvert the separation of powers mandated in the Constitution. They both must feel the Department of Justice is part of the Judiciary — that third co-equal branch of government. It’s not: it’s part of the Executive branch. President Trump heads the Executive Branch and therefore has all Constitutional authority over the DOJ. Schiff nor any other member of Congress has any authority to take any actions to change that structure. Congress has no authority to tell members of the Executive or Judiciary Branches of government what to do. Schiff forgot to include that information in his letter.

That’s enough of my sentence-by-sentence “analysis” of Mr. Schiff’s letter. You can better analyze it than can I. The content of his letter as egregious as it is does not surprise me. Americans have learned this warped justice perception is the justice system in which Mr. Schiff functions.

Have you ever speculated as to the source of Adam Schiff’s alternate perception of the Rule of Law? What is the basis on which he has developed such factless political positions regarding legislation?

He represents the 28th California Congressional District. It includes West Hollywood, Burbank, parts of Pasadena, Glendale, the Verdugo Hills communities of Sunland and Tujunga, as well as parts of central Los Angeles including Hollywood, the Hollywood Hills, Echo Park, Silver Lake, and Los Feliz. As it includes Glendale and Little Armenia, it has the largest Armenian-American population of any district in the country. The district also includes two of Southern California’s more significant gay enclaves, West Hollywood and Silverlake. Knowing his district’s geographical coverage explains a bit of the acceptance of his constituents of his mostly far-left political ideals. The majority of citizens in his district embrace a left-leaning political perspective. His certainly confirms the reality of his quest for a much larger, more powerful and much more controlling federal government. Reading his comments that Congress needs to take more control of the Executive Branch of government in spite of the Constitutional separation of power reveals his hunger and quest for power.

Summary

Schiff is not alone in his power-grab agenda. Those on the far-left and many in the middle of the Democrat Party agree with Schiff. Their philosophy is simple: “Give our government the power to rule all parts of the lives of Americans. We can do better ‘for’ them than can they for themselves.” And Schiff certainly feels he is the best to put such a government together. He also feels conservative Americans are nothing more than a necessary evil. He’d prefer there to be no conservatives at all so as to not mess with the top-down government utopian vision he holds for the U.S.

How many others share those feelings? Sadly, it’s probably more than we can even imagine. Rep. Schiff and many other Democrats still function politically as if they have no concern for the truth nor what the majority of Americans feel.

I have argued with many who feel that Adam Schiff is evil, that he purposely misleads in most if not all of his communications with voters. I am no longer in the “disagreement mode” in that regard. I don’t know if he’s evil — I don’t know his heart. But as we were taught in the Bible, “Out of the abundance of the heart a Man speaks.” If that’s true, (and I’m certain it is true) Adam Schiff hates conservatism and conservatives. He has made a conscious decision that HIS lies are OK because it is him speaking them. He certainly feels like political expediency as he defines it is the only way Washington should run.

My belief in those things about him are based on Scripture. The following is based on my opinion:

Adam Schiff has his eyes on a larger more important role in Washington. I’m certain he thinks often about becoming U.S. Senator for California. Too, on his plate, are wishes for the office of Attorney General and someday even 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

I have news for Mr. Schiff: I have faith in the American people — far more faith than what I have in him. I’m certain that most Americans feel the same. I have no pulse of the feelings of Californians from his Congressional district or the remainder of California voters. But I think I have more of an unbiased opinion of them than does Adam: I trust that as CNN and MSNBC give him more airtime, the LA Times publishes more of his OpEd’s, and more of his committee hearings are televised, more Americans will catch on. They’ll see for themselves how narcissistic he is and how little he feels for them. He’s destined to go back to private law practice.

Wait a moment: I think he’s over-qualified to be California governor!