Adam Schiff’s Latest Claim Doesn’t Survive the First Google Search
In 2019, Pirro’s show was indeed suspended for two weeks after she questioned the loyalty of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN).
Last Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to proceed with the nomination of former Fox News host Jeanine Pirro as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Before her tenure at Fox, Pirro had a distinguished career in law enforcement, serving as both a prosecutor and a judge in New York State. She brings extensive experience to the position.
Pirro is a well-known conservative and a staunch ally of President Donald Trump — factors that, for understandable political reasons, make her an unwelcome choice among many Democrats to lead the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C.
In May, Pirro was tapped to serve as the interim top prosecutor for the district once it became clear that strong opposition from Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) would block the path to confirmation for the previous nominee, Ed Martin.
As soon as Pirro was appointed by Trump to the position, she resigned from her role at Fox.
As the committee debated on whether to advance Pirro’s nomination, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) told his colleagues a blatant lie.
I mean even her own people at Fox thought she couldn’t be trusted to be on TV on their own network. And after the show was briefly taken off the air, Fox News producer Justin Wells described, ‘They took her off cause she was crazy. Optics are bad, but she’s crazy.’
Well, her own executive producer also described her as nuts. Are we going to put someone that even Fox — and I’m not a particular fan of Fox, but even Fox thought was crazy, nuts, couldn’t be trusted on live television. We’re going to trust her with the lives and liberties of people in the District of Columbia?
Schiff was operating at his usual level of veracity, which is to say he was lying through his teeth — again.
In 2019, Pirro’s show was indeed suspended after she questioned the loyalty [to the U.S.] of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN). And two weeks later, her program returned.
Frankly, after all of the antisemitic and anti-American slurs we’ve heard from Ilhan Omar over the years, I question her loyalty as well.
Schiff doubled down on his lies in a social media post on Sunday. He wrote, “Fox News took Jeanine Pirro off air because ‘she’s crazy’ and ‘nuts.’ Their words, not mine. Now we’re going to trust her with the lives and liberty of the people of DC? This is just absurd.”
Fox News took Jeanine Pirro off air because "she's crazy" and "nuts." Their words, not mine.
Now we're going to trust her with the lives and liberty of the people of DC?
This is just absurd. pic.twitter.com/GVxKI2Oc9O— Adam Schiff (@SenAdamSchiff) July 27, 2025
In the post below, John Tiegen, who survived the September 2012 Benghazi terror attack, claims Schiff slandered him personally by insisting there was no stand down order. Tiegen writes, “Yet I was on the ground, and I lived it.”
Adam Schiff has the nerve to call Judge Jeanine “crazy”?
Let’s talk about what’s actually insane:
•Schiff pushed the fake Trump-Russia hoax for years with ZERO proof
•Claimed to have “direct evidence” he lied
•Doctored text messages in Congress
•Slandered me personally over…— John “TIG” Tiegen (@TigTiegen) July 27, 2025
It is Schiff who is absurd, and he just might be the biggest liar in Congress. In a swamp like Washington, D.C., that’s really quite an accomplishment.
In January 2023, then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy removed Schiff from the House Intelligence Committee. In an interview with Punchbowl News at the time, McCarthy said, “Schiff has lied too many times to the American public. He should not be on Intel.”
McCarthy was referring to Schiff’s insistence for more than three years that evidence of Trump’s collusion with Russia to win the 2016 election was “in plain sight.” He may have been lying, but it sure put him on the map. He had arrived in Washington in 2001 and remained virtually unknown until he recognized that his moment had arrived at the 2016 Democratic National Convention. He found his niche and he ran with it.
Happy to talk to any reporter, he soon became the “go-to guy” for anything related to the Trump/Russia investigation. Schiff was finally receiving the attention he’d craved for so long.
Crestfallen after the Mueller investigation came up empty-handed, he seized upon Trump’s July 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for his next act. Schiff’s deceitful, manipulative actions in using that call to impeach Trump could fill a book.
At this point, lying isn’t just a political tactic for Adam Schiff — it’s his brand. From Russia to Ukraine, from committees to cameras, he has built a career on half-truths, distortions, and outright falsehoods.
Lying has worked for Schiff. Maybe one day it will stop working. Maybe sooner than he thinks.
Tick tock Adam Schiff.
Her confirmation starts the countdown to accountability and you know it.
— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) July 27, 2025
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
goes back to how woke >>leftist this nation is when “moderates” like fox corp have to fire tucker and bow to the left and hannity and ingrahm are ineffectual day in and day out with their buttkissing of rinos
You should buy a keyboard that has capitol letters. Makes it easier for folk to read it. Won’t help with comprehension however.
He’s trying to be a 21st century e. e. cummings. Or something.
Always reminds me of Cormac McCarthy, but I’m able to read McCarthy without difficulty.
BTW, McCarthy hated quotation marks.
Well, the good news is that the only commentator here on LI who defends Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens is destroycommunism.
Fox is better off without Tucker.
America would be better off without Tucker.
The world would be better off without Tucker but until then let him move his act to Qatar or Iran.
So she passed the committee. Senate Democrats are using every trick to delay. They might even filibuster her.
Cool. Make the geriatric d/prog do so with a speaking filibuster (which is how all of them should be IMO). No making any accommodations foe the elderly and infirm b/c the voters of their States chose them despite those things. Stand up and speak as long as you can ….but no sitting.
Nominations can’t be filibustered. Thank you Harry Reid.
“Now we’re going to trust her with the lives and liberty of the people of DC? This is just absurd.”
Hey, Adam… ever met the people on a DC jury?
Or the lawyers. Isn’t Hunter licensed in DC?
Schiff reminds me of the little rubber doll that when you squeeze it, its eyes bulge out! He is also an example of how voters in this country are self destructive because even a casual glance at his past would tell them that he is unfit for office or public trust. After being tossed out of an important committee in the House, he gets elected by the voters in CA. What possible yardstick could they be using to decide to vote for this bottom feeder?
There is a D next to his name. Thats why.
Just like MN.
That doesn’t explain how he won that D next to his name in the first place.
Pencil neck grabbing at straws. Better clean his mess.
Huh? He may indeed have been lying, but how have you proven that? How does the fact that she was reinstated after two weeks contradict what he said? He explicitly said that “the show was briefly taken off the air”, so where’s the lie?
To show he was lying you’d have to show that although they did take the show off the air, they didn’t say the things he claims they said. Well, maybe they didn’t, but show us that. At least tell us they didn’t say those things. But you don’t even do that. Nowhere in this article do you deny that they said them.
I have no idea whether they did, and nor do I care; their saying these things wouldn’t change my opinion of her. But that is the claim you’re calling a lie, so you have a duty to at least explicitly deny it!
Title is clickbait
Schiff said Fox took her off the air “cause she was crazy. … She couldn’t be trusted to be on TV on their own network.” That is NOT the reason Pirro was taken off the air.
Fox was unhappy because of a comment she’d made about Ilhan Omar (which, not that it matters, but I happen to agree.) Frankly, most of Fox’s audience probably agreed with it too. But the network was likely worried about a defamation suit.
How do you know that’s not the reason? She said something they didn’t like; how do you know they didn’t think it was a nutty thing to say?
Did Fox News producer Justin Wells say the words that Schiff quoted him as saying? Did her own executive producer say what Schiff says s/he said? You haven’t given any reason to suppose they didn’t. And if they did say those things, then how can you claim that they didn’t reflect the company’s thinking? Surely they were in a better position to know that than anyone else.
Schiff is certainly an established liar, but that doesn’t mean everything that comes out of his mouth is automatically untrue. If you accuse him of a specific lie you need to give some evidence that it is a lie.
Again, I have no idea whether it’s true, nor do I care. If Schiff is lying it can’t make me think any worse of him, and if he happens to be telling the truth this time it won’t make me think any better. Nor do the alleged opinions of Fox executives tell me anything about Pirro. So I have no dog in this fight at all. I’m just interested in making sense of what I read.
Can’t help yourself, can you?
No, I can’t help using reason and logic, and respecting the truth. Just as you can’t help lying, slandering, and despising the truth.
My one question is how can Adam Schiff-for-brains for a Congresscreep for California when he maintains his residence in Maryland? His supposed legal residence is some tiny condo north of LA, but his larger house, his wife, and the bulk of his life is spent *in Maryland*.
That doesn’t matter and never has. Neither Schiff nor any other congressman is required to have their house, wife, or spend “the bulk of their life” in their home state. On the contrary, those who adopted the constitution fully expected that congressmen would spend most of their term living in or near DC, and only occasionally go back home to their constituents.
Wrong. Members of Congress must reside in their home state. This is taken to mean their primary residence must be in their home state. Schiff claimed a DC residence as his primary for almost a decade to get a lower mortgage rate which is fraud
No, that is not true. Members of congress do not need to “reside” in their home state. The constitution carefully and deliberately does not say “resident”; it says “inhabitant”, and that word was chosen over “resident” precisely because it allows for long-term absences.
People who “take it to mean” their primary residence are mistaken.
Wrong. The Constitution is clear on this. Representatives must have their primary residence in the state they are elected to represent
No, they do not. Have you ever read the constitution? It simply does not say what you claim. Congressmen must be inhabitants of their home state on the day they’re elected. They do not need to be residents of that state, let alone have it be their primary residence. Indeed the constitution expects them to spend the bulk of their time in or near the capital, and thus to have their families there with them. That’s why the drafters chose the word “inhabitant” rather than “resident”.
Did Adam Schiff publicly defame the Judge ? Not on the floor of Congress. Then no immunity!
The speech or debate clause doesn’t only apply on the floor of congress. It applies anywhere they are speaking as a member of congress, and it applies to their staffers too.
It differs in this way from the privilege that members of parliament have in the UK and other Commonwealth countries.
Also there was no defamation, so he wouldn’t even need immunity. He made no false factual statements about her. Even if Ms Stauffer is correct that he was lying, his lie was about what Fox executives said, so he would be defaming them, not her.
Answered your own question. Because it works for him, often enough. He knows the drill.