Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

VIDEO: Trump trial team exposed Adam Schiff’s lies and manipulation behind impeachment

VIDEO: Trump trial team exposed Adam Schiff’s lies and manipulation behind impeachment

“[Schiff] had been caught out saying something that wasn’t truthful about that contact [with the so-called whistleblower], he had a reason to not want that inquiry. It was he who ensured that there wasn’t any inquiry into that.”

I was traveling much of this week, so I didn’t watch that much of the Democrats’ presentation of their case in the Senate impeachment trial. I saw bits and pieces, and checked in from time to time on Twitter.

The dominant presence was Adam Schiff. It seemed that almost every time I turned on the TV, he was talking and talking and talking.

Schiff is the person most behind the impeachment push and the biased House proceedings. We all know that. But the Republican trial team, particularly Patrick Philbin, skewered Schiff today with Schiff’s own prior lies and deceptions.

Philbin addressed Schiff’s prior claim to have knowledge of evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign with Russia, evidence that not even Mueller found, showing Schiff’s opinion’s and claims to have evidence to be unreliable:

Philbin also demonstrated how Schiff manipulated the House proceedings, from the intial emergence of the so-called whistleblower to denying Trump’s attorney’s a meaningful opportunity to particilate. Philbing showed video exposing Schiff’s shifting positions and interactions with the so-called “whistleblower”.

This is a key point that is not well understood in the public — Schiff created the pretext (the “whistleblower”), lied about Democrats having not contact with the “whistleblower,” then used his power as Intel Committee chair to prevent inquiry into the “whistleblower” and his interaction with Democrats. It was a devastating expose on Schiff’s manipulative lies.

(transcript via RCP)

PATRICK PHILBIN, DEPUTY COUNSEL TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: Now as a slight shift in gears, I want to touch on one last point before I yield to one of my colleagues. That relates to the whistleblower. The whistleblower who we haven’t heard that much about who started all of this. The whistleblower we know from the letter that the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community sent that he thought that the whistleblower had political bias. We don’t know exactly what the political bias was because the Inspector General testified in the House committees in an executive session, and that transcript is still secret. It wasn’t transmitted up to the House Judiciary Committee. We haven’t seen it. We don’t know what’s in it. We don’t know what he was asked and what he revealed about the whistleblower. Now you would think that before going forward with an impeachment proceeding against the President of the United States that you would want to find out something about the complainant that had started all of it because motivations, bias, reasons for wanting to bring this complaint could be relevant, but there wasn’t any inquiry into that.

Recent reports, public reports, suggest that potentially the whistleblower was an Intelligent Community staffer who worked with then Vice President Biden on Ukraine matters, which if true, would suggest an even greater reason for wanting to know about potential bias or motive for the whistleblower. At first when things started, it seemed like everyone agreed that we should hear from the whistleblower including Manager Schiff. I think we have what he said.

SCHIFF (tape): Yes, we would love to talk directly with the whistleblower.

We’ll get the unfiltered testimony of that whistleblower.

We don’t need the whistleblower.

PHILBIN: What changed? At first Manager Schiff agreed we should hear the unfiltered testimony from the whistleblower, but then he changed his mind and he suggested that it was because now we had the transcript. But the second clip there was from September 29th which was four days after the transcript had been released. But there was something else that came into play, and that was something that Manager Schiff had said earlier when he was asked about whether he had spoken to the whistleblower.

SCHIFF (tape): We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to.

PHILBIN: It turned out that that statement was not truthful. Around October 2nd or 3rd, it was exposed that the Manager Schiff’s staff at least had spoken with the whistleblower before the whistleblower filed the complaint and potentially had given some guidance, some sort to the whistleblower. After that point it became critical to shut down any inquiry into the whistleblower. During the House hearings, of course Manager Schiff was in charge. He was chairing the hearings. That creates a real problem from a due process perspective, from a search for truth perspective, because he was an interested fact witness at that point. He had a reason, since he had been caught out saying something that wasn’t truthful about that contact, he had a reason to not want that inquiry. It was he who ensured that there wasn’t any inquiry into that.

Now this is relevant here I think because as you’ve heard from my colleagues, a lot of what we’ve heard over the past 23 hours, over the past three days, has been from Chairman Schiff. He has been telling you things like what’s in President Trump’s head, what’s in President Zelensky’s head. It’s all his interpretation of the facts and the evidence trying to pull inferences out of things. There’s another statement that Chairman Schiff made that I think we have on video.

CHUCK TODD (tape): But you admit all you have right now is a circumstantial case.

SCHIFF: Actually, no Chuck. I can tell you that the case is more than that and I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now. Again, I think —

TODD: So you have seen evidence of collusion.

SCHIFF: I don’t want to go into specifics, but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial and is very much worthy of investigation.

PHILBIN: That was in March of 2017 when Chairman Schiff was ranking member of HIPSY was telling the public, the American public, that he had more than circumstantial evidence through his position on HIPSY that President Trump’s campaign had colluded with Russia. Of course, the Mueller Report, as Mr. Sekulow pointed out, after $32 million and over 500 search warrants or roughly 500 search warrants, determined that there was no collusion. That that wasn’t true. We wanted to point these things out simply because for this reason. Chairman Schiff has made so much of the House’s case about the credibility of interpretations that the House Managers want to place on not hard evidence just but on inferences. They want to tell you what President Trump thought. They want to tell you don’t believe what Zelensky said. We can tell you what Zelensky actually thought. Don’t believe what the other Ukrainians actually said about not being pressured. We can tell you what they actually thought. That it is very relevant to know whether the assessments of evidence he’s presented in the past are accurate. We would submit that they have not been and that that is relevant for your consideration.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Caught the audio of this today in the car. I was surprised NPR didn’t selectively edit it.

Later NPR had some ass hat on talking about how difficult it will be to “exonerate” Trump as innocent… as though that were anyone’s duty. Granted I caught this interview part way through but it sounded like they want to believe that Trump is guilty even if acquitted because he wasn’t exonerated.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Andy. | January 26, 2020 at 9:22 am

    Which has pretty much been their stance since the Mueller Report flopped. Since Mueller didn’t say explicitly that Trump was innocent, then he must be guilty.

When you haven’t committed the predicate crime – and EVERYBODY knows it – unless you’re in the deep south in 1920 or in soviet russia in 1930, or in nazi germany in 1930s, or in north korea (at any time) you have to be as lame as the GOP leadership to not get an outright acquittal during minute 1 of any hearing or trial.

As we have seen, once again, the GOP leadership is incredibly lame.

What if a “Trump” was in mcconnell’s position? Picture that.

Listening to the recorded CSPAN recording of the defense team’s work just now. Awesome job.

Keep in mind that the deep-state is powered by both Democrats and Republicans. We’ve all heard Miss Lindsey and McConnell and friends speak mournful words, but here we are witnessing their betrayal in the Senate Chambers instead of mocking the House Democrats over their Kangaroo Court.

    CKYoung in reply to stablesort. | January 25, 2020 at 9:57 pm

    We’ve seen a lot of GOP departures, retirements and “not going to run again” announcements. I’m guessing if they were partaking in deep state activities they were “asked” to leave.

Have to laugh at the fake news teams trying to prop up the schiffshow.

Democrats online are everywhere crowing about Schiff’s triumphant performance.

Still, I remain convinced that Trump’s high crime and misdemeanor was beating HRC in an election rigged in her favor.

Comanche Voter | January 25, 2020 at 10:00 pm

Properly done Schiff’s chestnuts should be roasted when it’s all over. He’ll be as nadless as Nadler. In a just world that is.

Why does the scene from the movie “Wizard of Oz” with the line “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain” come to mind?

Gotta keep pullin’ those levers and maintain the illusion.

I have followed closely.
Now, after watching the Defense opener, I am wondering just how many Democrat Senators are going to buy tickets for this cruise on a sunken ship.

I would sorely hate to have to be on the Prosecution and have to show up on Monday.

To me, it would be a bridge too far to ask I actually vote to support the impeachment, were I a Democrat.

How could one defend it?

Schiff is a disgrace. And frankly I am unimpressed with his legal acumen. He is just another corrupt prosecutor.

Why do I get the feeling that the lefties’ Tiger Beat reviews of his performance are all part of an orchestrated salvo in an attempt to take Nancy’s job for himself?

Trump exonerated. He, however gets the praise, and she gets the blame.

I couldn’t watch. When I fill my truck w/gas and I’m watching the meter rack up the numbers.

That was me. I became the meter. Counting the Schiff/Nadler/Dem lies. Racking up so fast no human eye could keep track of the tally.

VetHusbandFather | January 26, 2020 at 7:54 am

I don’t think it was that good of a takedown. The fact that he’s going after Schiff’s poor assessments of Trump’s intentions implies that it’s proper for Schiff and the Dem’s to make assessments about Trump’s intent in the first place. Unless they are written or recorded somewhere, the only person that know’s Trump’s intentions are Trump. Any assessment of his motives is irrelevant no matter how good you think you are at interpreting intent.

    cuthroattrout77 in reply to VetHusbandFather. | January 27, 2020 at 4:09 pm

    I disagree. Arguing that the approach of the House managers is not sound in legal basis lends no credence to their argument. Nor does it imply that their approach is justified.

Clueless Republican threatens to needlessly extend this dumpster fire by forcing a vote on issuing Biden subpoenas:

Sure. Sounds like a good idea. BAD IDEA! The next vote should be to end this circus right now!. Then it’s up to Judiciary Committee Chairman Leslie Graham to proceed with the investigation of the Ukraine/Burisma shakedown by the Biden, Kerry, Obama, the Clintons, Romney and whoever else was involved. This is the Senate. Put out the House dumpster fire first and send them packing.

Let’s not blow the impeachment part by turning this into a piling on party for attention-seeking grandstanders like Josh Hawley. Show some discipline and spine. Focus!

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Pasadena Phil. | January 26, 2020 at 9:34 am

    Agreed, there is zero reason for value in getting wrapped up in that entire side of things. Remind everyone this is not a Court of Law, this is a political process that operates differently than a Court. By the time it gets to the Senate the only witnesses that should be viable are once called to confirm testimony given to the House investigators. They had their chance at witnesses they should have called them.

    I would also point out in huge fashion the hypocrisy of Schiff for Brains and Naddless pissing and moaning about more witnesses when they haven’t even released all the transcripts from the witnesses they interviewed. If someone wants to make a motion about witnesses, it should be a motion to have the house release all of those transcripts.

    rebelgirl in reply to Pasadena Phil. | January 26, 2020 at 11:37 am

    He’s playing with the Dems’ heads…They don’t want those witnesses called.

    You’re misrepresenting what he’s doing: “Hawley will attempt to force a vote on the subpoenas if the Senate approves additional witnesses and documents as part of the upper chamber’s trial.”

    As with the Bidens, this is a warning to the Dems to not push for more witnesses because the Republicans have bigger guns. I don’t favor more witnesses, because it’s the House’s job to put together their case – but if some weaker Republicans seem inclined to vote to allow them, then the prospect of having the Democrats’ perfidy exposed may convince the Dems to drop the subject, given that Trump is going to be acquitted anyway. Is it a good idea? I don’t know, but rolling over like a puppy dog surely isn’t.

      It has already been made abundantly clear that were witnesses to be allowed (looking at you McConnell), the Republicans would make this move. We don’t need yet another discussion on this. So if this is a “necessary” threat, it isn’t being made to the Dems but to the GOP leadership. So this doesn’t inspire confidence in McConnell that he has the votes. The FOCUS right now is to END THIS CIRCUS. Maybe we need to put be lighting a bonfire under McConnell too.

        Missing the point. Anyway, since those quislings can and probably will vote for more witnesses (IF they vote for witnesses at all) both for and against Trump, your comment that it’s a threat against the Repulicans makes little sense. I’d like to have Rush turn out to be right – that the 4 Dem presidential candidates want to get out and campaign before Iowa, and won’t be in favor of anything that extends a process the results of which are a foregone conclusion.

The funniest part to me is that it will be the compliant and bias media that have a huge hand in showing what a farce this was. The media has thrown these idiots in front of cameras at every opportunity and never even once considered their contradictions and errors.

Usually, that would be the end of it since there is really no public forum for anyone to put together their clips and show the morons for what they are. Until now. I think that Saturday’s opener was a good preview of what we are going to be seen. Trumps defense team is going to use Schiff’s and others public statements to turn them into paste and highlight that their accusations are at best conjecture.

It actually does give me a warm fuzzy feeling to think that part of what could blow this apart is the bias media itself.

Adam Schiff’s own worst enemy is Adam Schiff!