Schiff’s opening statement 2.0

Click here to view original web page at

When Adam Schiff, the chairman in charge of the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee, wrote this op-ed to regain some momentum for President Trump’s impeachment. It’s a tall order, one which I can’t picture him succeeding at. When the faux whistleblower first came forward, the American people were told lots of tall tales by the faux whistleblower.

When the snitch first burst into the national spotlight, articles were written about how President Trump repeatedly pressured Ukraine’s President Zelenskiy to investigate former VP Joe Biden. Articles like this one soon were filling newspapers’ front pages:

President Donald Trump repeatedly pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during a July phone call to investigate Hunter Biden, the son of leading Democratic rival Joe Biden. Trump brought up the point again and again, a total of about eight times, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday afternoon, as a whistleblower’s complaint about a call with an unnamed foreign leader was morphing into a political scandal.

Biden quickly pressed President Trump to release the transcript of the call. Surprisingly, that’s what President Trump did — after clearing the decision with Ukraine’s president.

The transcript showed that the repeated pressures never happened. Think of it as the international version of ‘Hands up, don’t shoot.’ Back to Schiff’s op-ed. Here’s the opening paragraph of Schiff’s op-ed:

A little over one month has passed since the White House released the record of President Donald Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Americans read for themselves how President Zelensky sought more weapons critical to Ukraine’s defense, and how President Trump responded: “I would like you to do us a favor though” and laid bare his abuse of the power of the presidency.

From the call record alone, we have stark evidence that President Trump sought Ukraine’s help in the 2020 election by pressing that country to investigate a political opponent. Ukraine, which lies on the front line of Russian aggression, is financially, militarily and diplomatically dependent on the United States. The president’s corrupt pressure to secure its interference in our election betrayed our national security and his oath of office.

Notice Schiff’s slipperiness? He starts by saying President Trump wanted President Zelenskiy to do him a favor without saying what the favor was.

In the next paragraph of Schiff’s op-ed, Schiff said that “President Trump sought Ukraine’s help in the 2020 election.” Notice that Schiff didn’t quote President Trump. According to the transcript, the favor didn’t have anything to do with seeking “Ukraine’s help in the 2020 election.” Here’s what President Trump sought a favor with:

I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your weal thy people … The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation .. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.

The favor consisted of finding out about the DNC server that was hacked in 2016. How is that asking for help in the 2020 election?

Saying that that’s a stretch is understatement. That’s so elastic that it could stretch around corners. Then Schiff tries making his case:

What we have found, and what the American people will soon learn through the release of additional testimony transcripts and in public hearings, is that this is about more than just one call.

Schiff told NBC’s Chuck Todd in March of 2017 that he’d seen evidence that was “stronger than circumstantial.” We still haven’t seen that proof. In fact, Robert Mueller didn’t find it. But we’re supposed to trust “Shifty Schiff that it exists? That won’t happen, especially after this fiasco:

Schiff’s case is built on quicksand. It isn’t built on anything solid. That being said, there’s something important that needs investigating. That’s the faux whistleblower. He made a provocative accusation that turned out not to be accurate.

Making unsubstantiated accusations against the president of the United States is serious business. If you’re making that accusation, you’d better have rock-solid proof. Schiff doesn’t have it. It’s doubtful he ever will.