There’s a certain comic aspect to Adam Schiff as he spews his lies while prosecuting the House Impeachment Hoax. I suppose that if he were a bit better looking, a comparison to Snidely Whiplash might be in order. However, what Schiff is doing isn’t only comic. It’s dangerous, so these suggestions by Frank Miele in an article over at Real Clear Politics may be more apt.
Watching Schiff spin his yarns as chief House manager for the impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump reminds me of the great dissemblers of Shakespeare, such as “Honest Iago,” who is only comfortable in his own skin when he is making the skin of others crawl. The “motiveless malignity” that poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge ascribed to Iago is writ large in the perfunctory perfidy that Schiff practices with unassuming ease. He would destroy a king, but he assures us he takes no pleasure in it, wink-wink, nod-nod.
Perhaps I am giving Schiff too much credit. He might be more akin to Monsieur Parolles of “All’s Well That Ends Well,” the arrogant know-it-all whose own words come back to haunt him: “He will lie, sir, with such volubility, that you would think truth were a fool.”
The House Intelligence Committee released its report relating to the Whistleblower Hoax, and it included information derived from telephone records obtained by the Democrats on the committee. That prompted me to retweet a tweet by Adam Schiff with this comment—
The Democrats might want to take note of how the House Impeachment Hoax is being viewed in the Senate. In order to get a conviction, the Democrats must convince 2/3 of the Senate to find against the President. Their tactics aren’t playing well, especially with Republicans.
There’s a big difference between 1974 and 2019. During Watergate, there was overwhelming evidence that Richard Nixon had participated in the attempt to cover up an actual crime, the burglary of the Democrats’ office, and everyone, both Democrats and Republicans, agreed that a crime had been committed. Today, the Democrats have tried for over three years and still haven’t come up with any charge other than First Degree Orange Man Bad. The Russian Collusion Hoax backfired and exposed apparent criminal activity and malfeasance by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The Ukrainian Hoax is backfiring, exposing apparent criminal activity and malfeasance by senior executive branch officials and diplomats. (Why, it’s almost enough to make one start to believe in some of those Deep State conspiracy theories!)
In 1974, Republican senators went to the White House and advised Richard Nixon to resign because of the overwhelming evidence against him. Today, Republican senators aren’t impressed by the underwhelming evidence presented thus far—and they and the public are questioning the fairness and honesty of the Democrats’ “investigation” in the House.If the Democrats are stupid enough to pass articles of impeachment against the President, they had better personally lawyer up because they likely will be called as fact witnesses by the Senate. I’ll bet that evidence such as Adam Schiff’s phone records will have been lawfully obtained and will form the basis of some of the questioning.
One of the process crimes that has caught many otherwise law abiding folks is 18 USC § 1001 which makes it a crime to knowingly falsify, conceal, or cover up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact when dealing with the federal government. Section (c)(2) of the law says that it applies to
any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress …
So, Gentle Reader, if you lied to a House committee, you could be prosecuted, convicted, and sent to jail for five years.
OTOH, if you were a member of Congress acting in your official capacity at a committee hearing, you would might claim that your lying was protected by the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution. While a congresscritter’s immunity with respect to a civil tort (eg., a defamation suit) is settled law, the courts didn’t find that protection in the Speech or Debate Clause. It stems from the Westfall Act, a federal statute that grants all federal employees absolute immunity from common-law tort claims arising out of acts they undertake in the course of their official duties.
AFAIK, a lie told by a congresscirtter in the context of a committee hearing has never resulted in a criminal referral, and immunity to 18 USC § 1001 or § 1621 (Perjury) under the Speech or Debate Clause has never been tested. IMHO, Adam Schiff’s clearly false statement during the House Impeachment Hoax hearing yesterday that he did not know the identity of the Whistleblower would make an excellent test case, but I doubt he will even be censured for his unethical behavior.
Lying liars gott lie.
And the public hearings for the House Impeachment Hoax have gotten underway. My podcasting partner Stacy McCain has an excellent post about the pending shenanigans over at The Other McCain (except for a typo in the headline, see my comment at his post).
More popcorn is available at Amazon.
It seems as if almost every one of the bombshells that have been produced in support of the Trump/Zelensky phone call collusion hoax have either been duds or have blown up in the accusers’ faces. For example, Rep. Schiff has admitted that The Whistleblower contacted congressional staffers before he contacted the Intelligence Community Inspector General. Not only was that a violation of the law which raises the possibility that The Whistleblower is not legally entitled to protection from prosecution for unauthorized sharing of classified information, but it is also at odds with the congresscritter’s previous versions of The Narrative.
Rudy Giuliani should put in for EOD pay.