Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) appears to have doctored material that he presented in Monday evening’s hearing before the January 6 committee, exactly as Schiff did notoriously during President Donald Trump’s impeachment probe in 2019.
The committee was debating whether to hold former White House head of staff Mark Meadows in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over documents over which Trump claimed executive privilege. On Tuesday, the full House voted to hold Meadows in contempt and recommend him to the Department of Justice for prosecution.
Do you trust the main stream media?
"*" indicates required fields
According to The Federalist, Schiff doctored text messages he gave to the committee, changing the language and giving the misleading impression in a visual presentation that he was quoting real text messages rather than fabrications.
According to Sean Davis, during a hearing on the riot at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, Adam Schiff claimed to have proof that a member of Congress texted former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to instruct former Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.
Schiff not only misrepresented the content of the text message and its source, but he also doctored actual text messages, which The Federalists received and studied in their full. One letter was doctored to read: “On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all electoral votes that he considers are unlawful as no electoral votes at all.” He used the communication as justification for forcing Meadows to testify and holding him in contempt.
However, the initial communication came from former Department of Defense Inspector General Joseph Schmitz, who wrote detailed legal arguments that were given to Meadows by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH). And Schiff omitted the entire exchange, which read (emphasis added): On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should declare all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all — in accordance with founding father Alexander Hamilton’s guidance and judicial precedent.
"*" indicates required fields
‘No legislative act can be legal that is contradictory to the Constitution,’ stated Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78. In Hubbard v. Lowe, the court stated, ‘That an invalid statute is not a law at all is a premise no longer open to debate.’ 226 F. 135, 137 (SDNY 1915), denied the appeal, 242 U.S. 654 (1916). An unconstitutionally appointed elector, like an unconstitutionally passed legislation, is no elector at all, according to this logic.
Schiff left out the parts in bold above that related to a legal basis for rejecting voters. As Davis noted, Schiff removed the final two paragraphs and the final phase of the first paragraph of the text message in his statement and on-screen graphic before introducing punctuation that was never there, all without indicating what he was doing. Schiff’s image, which was doctored to seem like an identical screenshot, was similarly doctored in that it included text that was never in the original message and removed content that was.
Schiff has routinely fabricated evidence in the course of investigations. He staged a dialogue between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during the opening hearing of the House Intelligence Committee’s inquiry against President Trump in 2019. When confronted, Schiff attempted to argue that he was only doing a “parody,” rather than generating a misleading public impression.
Later, during testimony before the Senate in Trump’s impeachment trial, Schiff impersonated a Trump comment to Zelenskyy once again. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), a fellow January 6 committee member, similarly fabricated evidence against Trump when he mentioned the Charlottesville “very good people” deception in Trump’s second impeachment hearing. Trump’s defense then shattered the deception.
Consider Schiff’s struggles with stating the truth. First, he claims to have “more than circumstantial proof” of Russian collaboration with then-President Donald Trump. He didn’t generate any of it.
Then, Schiff’s reading of a claimed phone transcript of a phone discussion between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was revealed to be utterly false. Then there was Schiff’s phony assertion about communication with Trump’s second impeachment trial whistleblower.
Schiff has a lengthy history of spreading misinformation and has never faced any consequences. Schiff’s complaints about misinformation are simply more misinformation from the California lawmaker.
And, while he won’t say it, his major concern is that Twitter will no longer suppress opposing viewpoints. He is irritated that the flow of information will now contain opposing viewpoints. That is the sole reason Schiff and practically every other liberal Democrat oppose Musk’s purchase of Twitter.