Schiff was aware that President Barack Obama was briefed in 2017 that Hillary Clinton was allegedly planning to manufacture a Russian collusion scandal - just days before the start of the Russian investigation. Indeed, the first Durham conviction was of Kevin Clinesmith, the former FBI agent who pleaded guilty. Schiff was long aware that there were allegations of misleading or false information given by the FBI to the secret court. Third, Schiff attempts to portray the sole problem with the Steele dossier as Russian analyst Igor Danchenko. Indeed, until the Durham indictments, Schiff continued to defend the Russian collusion investigation and the Steele dossier. Indeed, while the Clinton campaign was denying that it funded the dossier, American intelligence knew that that was a lie. Second, Schiff ignored repeated contradictions in Steele’s dossier as well as evidence that the dossier was paid for and promoted by the Clinton campaign. In 2017, even fired FBI agent Peter Strzok admitted that “we are unaware of ANY Trump advisors engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials” and “Steele may not be in a position to judge the reliability of his subsource network.” Schiff would have had access to some of this intelligence. Most recently, Steele went public with a laughable claim that Michael Cohen, Trump’s former counsel, was lying to protect Trump despite spending years trying to get Trump charged criminally. Even his own sources told the FBI that Steele wildly exaggerated information and distorted intelligence. Schiff’s spin, however, continues to deny the obvious about the Russian collusion scandal.įirst, many would guffaw at the claim that Steele was and remains a “well-respected British intelligence officer.” Soon after the dossier was shopped to the FBI, British intelligence flagged credibility problems with Steele. After all, he was the chair of the House Intelligence Committee and assured the public that our criticisms were meritless and the dossier was corroborated. Schiff was the main voice swatting down such criticism and his endorsements were treated as dispositive for media from MSNBC to the Washington Post. Some of us have spent years being pummeled for questioning the obvious problems with the Steele dossier, including the long-denied connection to the Clinton campaign. Schiff’s spin is enough to cause permanent vertigo. But I don’t think there ought to be any pardon, no matter which way the lies cut.”
There ought to be the same standard in terms of prosecuting the liars. And I’ll tell you this, if he’s convicted, he should not be pardoned the way Donald Trump pardoned people who lied to FBI agents, like Roger Stone and Mike Flynn. Danchenko lied to Christopher Steele and then lied to the FBI. And we couldn’t have known, of course, years ago that we would learn years later that someone who is a primary source lied to him. “I don’t regret saying that we should investigate claims of someone who, frankly, was a well-respected British intelligence officer. However, Schiff recently has attempted to defend himself by claiming that Steele was a respected former spy and that he was lied to by a Russian source. Schiff was one of the greatest promoters of the Steele dossier despite access to briefings casting doubt about Steele and the underlying claims. Schiff’s interview on NBC’s Meet the Press may be the final proof of the death of shame in American politics. While even the Washington Post has admitted that it got the Russian collusion story wrong in light of the findings of Special Counsel John Durham, House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff, D-Calif., is still insisting that he was absolutely right to promote the discredited Steele dossier. In the age of rage, there appear fewer and fewer actions that are beyond the pale for politics.
The famous philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal once declared that “the only shame is to have none.” The problem with shame is that it requires a sense of guilt over one’s actions.
0 kommentar(er)
