RUSH: Now, let’s move on to Adam Schiff. In Adam Schiff, ladies and gentlemen, we’re dealing with a… I want to be believed here so I don’t want to be engaging in any histrionics. The guy is a bad human being. He’s a bad guy. He is dishonest. He is not trustworthy. He oozes slime and smarm. He has an arrogance and a condescension about him that are really personally off-putting to me.
He’s incapable of the truth. He is so poisoned with hatred for Trump that he suffers, I think, purposeful delusions. I think that he purposely deludes himself as a way of dealing with his abject failure as first the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee and now the chairman. He has almost, it seems, taken it upon himself to get rid of Trump. He was the champion of the Trump-Russia collusion theory in the House, and he has openly lied so many times about having documented and documentable proof of Trump collusion with Russia.
He has yet to produce it. He doesn’t have it because it doesn’t exist. But the thing about Adam Schiff — and let’s do a little timeline here. For those of us that follow stuff every day, we know who he is and that I call him Pencil Neck. He’s got bug eyes. He looks like he and Ocasio-Cortez could have the same father and mother. They have the same eyes. I mean, gigantic bug-eyed things and they never blink. I mean, it’s okay. Humans are humans. It’s still distracting.
Now, two years ago Adam Schiff lied to the American people. He said he had “absolute proof beyond circumstantial” that Trump had colluded with the Russians, and he repeated that lie for two solid years every chance he got. He was on the media more than he wasn’t. He repeated the lie from his ranking committee chair on the House Intelligence Committee. He got the networks to give him endless appearance opportunities, and he took advantage of every one — and, on every one, he lied repeatedly that he had evidence.
Now, at the beginning, he admitted that they didn’t have any evidence even after some hearings — which, he said, was a problem because “we know it exists.” So even when he was acknowledging they didn’t have any evidence, the reason was because Trump was covering it up or Trump supporters were not being forthcoming. Well, guess what? Adam Schiff has just been revealed to be a “fact witness”! You know, guy like Schiff love to use that term.
It makes ’em sound like they’re really super experts in something, “fact witness.” “Wait a minute. He’s a witness.” No, no! Schiff talks about people being “fact witnesses,” which means, “They cannot be disbelieved. They cannot be rejected. They are fact witnesses.” Well, I’m gonna turn the table on him. He is now a fact witness in this so-called whistleblower scandal. He was involved in creating the whistleblower’s complaint — and in an abject lie that he himself had to blow his own cover because it was gonna get blown eventually.
The original story was this. Trump makes a phone call to the President of Ukraine. Nobody knew about it the phone call until a whistleblower prepared a complaint for the inspector general. In this complaint, it was said that Trump had mentioned seven or eight times that he wanted the president of Ukraine to make up and dig up dirt on his opponent. The whistleblower and everybody was allowed to make it all up because they never thought Trump was gonna release the transcript of the call, so they could say anything at all happened on it– and they did.
They made it up. Seven or eight times Trump demanded this or that, wanted the president to make up stuff, not get back to him until he had made it up. He promised, threatened to withhold American aid if the president didn’t do what he wanted. All of this, they said, was Donald Trump trying to dig up dirt on a presidential opponent/candidate opponent for 2020. Then Trump screwed all of that up by releasing the transcript — and when the transcript was released, it was learned that Trump had not said anything seven or eight times.
He did not ask anybody to make anything up. He didn’t say, “Dig it up.” He didn’t say, “Don’t get back to me until you have it,” and he never threatened to withhold American aid. None of what they had said about it was true. The whistleblower was blown sky-high. After the transcript was released, everybody in the public knew more than the whistleblower knew. The whistleblower has thus been obviated and relegated to unnecessary.
As such, this whistleblower will never testify because it was then learned that he didn’t know anything firsthand! He was told these things. Then he prepared his report, his whistleblower report for the inspector general. Well, guess what? None of that’s true, either. Because what was revealed yesterday in the New York Times was that the whistleblower first contacted Adam Schiff, not the inspector general, and that Adam Schiff helped him write whistleblower complaint.
We have often thought that committee staff of either the Judiciary or the Intelligence Committee actually wrote the whistleblower report because it’s written like an experienced lawyer would write something, and the whistleblower has been outed by the New York Times as a CIA agent. And the software they did that was to give the guy credibility. In the New York Times world, if you tell your readers that the source is CIA, well, that means automatically believable and credible.
Well, they goofed up, because by telling us the source was the CIA, they told us where to look for the other conspirators at the same time! Everybody was wonder, “Well, well, well, well, who told the whistleblower? If the whistleblower does not have firsthand knowledge of it, then who told him?” A-ha! Now we know. So thank you, New York Times, for outing your operative as a CIA agent. That tells us where to look for the other conspirators in this sordid tale.
So the New York Times runs this story yesterday saying that Pencil Neck was the original recipient of the whistleblower’s information. And people are wondering, “Why would the New York Times do this? Why would the New York Times run a piece undermining Pencil Neck and undermining impeachment?” But if you read the story as I did, you find out that the revelation came directly from Schiff’s spokesman, a guy named Patrick Boland.
The New York Times even says so. Yet everybody seems to have missed that, which makes me think that once Trump unexpectedly, surprisingly released the transcript, Schiff realized all of this was gonna come out. He realized it. Trump releasing that transcript smoked these people. I cannot he hasn’t this enough. Releasing that transcript blue up every plan they had made, and it was already implemented. They were lying about what Trump said in the phone call.
They all Trump would never release it to protect presidential privacy, that they could then make up what Trump said — and then at the same time get a twofer: Accuse Trump of a cover-up, stonewalling, obstruction. Oh, it was all laid out! It was ready to happen! And Trump blows everything to smithereens by releasing the transcript. So now Schiff and his office know all of this is gonna come cascading out. They had to get in front of it.
They called the New York Times knowing that the New York Times is gonna cover for ’em, knowing that the New York Times is not gonna blow Schiff up. They’re gonna report it, but they’re not gonna report it in a way that criticizes or ruins or destroys Schiff. He will be protected. Schiff realized all this is gonna come out. So he gave it to the New York Times — and he’s a longtime source for the New York Times, by the way. So he knew exactly who to call, who to have his spokesman call, so they could put the best possible spin on it.
That is why the article mostly is comprised of quotes from Schiff’s spokesperson and one of the whistleblower’s lawyers. But they report the fact and then they try to disguise it and hide it and misdirect you away from it. But the bottom line is: The whistleblower is not illegitimate. The whistleblower is not some super patriot concerned about the violation of the U.S. Constitution and worried about the president destroying our country. None of that.
It’s all an orchestrated campaign to be able to tell the American people a brand-new set of lies that Trump blew to smithereens by releasing the transcript. So just like Christine Blasey Ford was not real… She was not someone unknown to anybody who came forward to say, “This guy raped me! This guy abused me!” It was orchestrated, it was planned, it was kept in a drawer in the event they needed it. Dianne Feinstein was assigned the effort to go public with it, not Blasey Ford’s member of Congress.
It’s the same thing here. The whistleblower goes to Schiff… Forget the term “whistleblower.” The leaker! The conspirator goes to Schiff. “Okay. Here’s what we want to say that Trump just said to this phone call. ” So Schiff works with the whistleblower, they prepare the complaint, manufacture a series of lies. The media scarfs it up and regurgitates it, and now we’re on to a brand-new Trump-colluding-with-foreign-governments scandal which did not happen.
I’m telling you that their impeachment inquiry is made of the same flimsy balsawood as this attempt. Schiff has been exposed in a major way. He’s being covered for by the Drive-By Media. Now, I want to get to the timeline because he’s lied through his teeth, and I want to document that and have the audio of him falling for the fake Russian comedian phone call where they claim to have nude photos of Trump with Putin or whatever it was.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH Now, here the quickly is the Adam Schiff timeline.
On August 12th, the whistleblower files his complaint. That’s right: August 12th. Nobody knows about it then, but that’s what it happened.
On August 28th, two weeks later, Adam Schiff tweets that Trump is withholding Ukraine military aid while his personal lawyer is seeking political help to get Joe Biden.
On September 9th, Schiff announced an investigation, writes to the White House demanding a transcript of the Zelensky call. This is before the whistleblower complaint was ever made public. Schiff wants a transcript of the call before anybody knows anything about this. How does he know about it? The whistleblower complaint had not been made public. This was Schiff’s first attempt at being able to claim that Trump was stonewalling and obstructing and ultimately covering it up.
Six days later, September 15th, Schiff implies he doesn’t know the subject of the whistleblower’s complaints. He says he only knows it involved the president or VP, and he said on Face the Nation on September the 15th, “At the end of the day, if the IG doesn’t take this complaint seriously, whistleblowers will just leak their information to the press,” which is what seems to have been the whistleblower’s complaint about the CIA. Schiff is setting all of this up with full knowledge of what’s to come.
September 17th, Schiff tells MSNBC, “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to.”
September 19th, Atkinson briefs lawmakers on the Hill without revealing the substance of the complaint. Schiff tells the media he’s “eager to find out what the subject of the urgent complaint.” In other words, he lied again, because then yesterday the New York Times runs the story that he was running the whistleblower, that Schiff was the first recipient of whatever the whistleblower had — and that it was Schiff who helped the whistleblower compose it, write it, put it together in an official complaint, not the inspector general.
This timeline with Schiff being exposed as a full-fledged liar indicates that this has been a political operation from the get-go. When Schiff, back on Face the Nation, said he didn’t know the whistleblower’s complaint, didn’t know the details — on September 9th, he wants a transcript of the president’s call with the Ukrainian president — nobody knows anything yet! And then after that, Schiff says he doesn’t know.
Anyway, you’ve gotta think Christine Blasey Ford or Steele dossier. Folks, all of this was completely and totally manufactured (including the lies of what Trump said on the phone call) on the belief — they bet — that Trump would not release the transcript. When that happened, Schiff has been exposed to the point that the New York Times had to out him.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Back to the phones. Crystal River, Florida. This is Kyle. I’m really glad you waited, sir. I appreciate it. Hello.
CALLER: Hey, Mr. Limbaugh. It is a tremendous honor. Thank you so much.
RUSH: You bet. Glad you made it through.
CALLER: Yes, me too. So with Pelosi rolling the dice on losing the House and with it her gavel, do you think that she was aware of the stunt that Schiff was pulling, or do you think she got played?
RUSH: I think more the latter, and I think she got kind of railroaded. I don’t think, for example… Now, I could be way off on this. But I don’t think she knew that Schiff had had this meeting with the whistleblower before the whistleblower had met with the inspector general. I think what Schiff did forced her to pull the trigger on this, because I don’t think Pelosi has ever wanted to do this.
CALLER: I agree.
RUSH: I don’t think Pelosi has ever wanted… Do you? I mean, she’s never sounded eager to do this.
CALLER: No. And, you know, just watching her over these last few months with just how calculated she was and the way she was trying to phrase things, the way that this rolled out, I just… I was having a tough time the believing that she was in on this.
RUSH: Yeah. Well, it’s kind of a tough thing to decide, because she is a radical leftist in and of herself. But she is not of the new variety as typified by The Squad. I think she has much more experience in these things than some of these whippersnappers do, and she’s got enough sense to know… The reason she was reluctant is that she knows exactly there isn’t a public opinion poll in favor of impeachment — and over in the Senate, she knows there’s never gonna be a conviction. The only way…
If they really do it, the only way it can possibly end is with Trump acquitted. That’s a guaranteed loser. So the bottom line here is that what Pelosi has done is actually very clever. She has created a campaign event that they are calling “impeachment” but that really isn’t, and I can’t emphasize this enough. This is not just my opinion. I’m not just sharing with you something that I want you to believe. Well, I’m doing that. But it’s not even a formal impeachment inquiry. You might even say it falls short of that.
They are simply conducting harassment of Trump and they are calling it impeachment. They know that their buddies in the media are gonna help it along. And as far as the people that consume Drive-By news are concerned, there’s an impeachment hearing going on. But in truth, there really isn’t. And one of the biggest examples of evidence that I could cite for you is remember the media yesterday and the day before went nuts reporting (impression) “The secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, has been ordered to testify before Schiff’s committee the judiciary Intelligence Committee on impeachment,” and what did Pompeo do?
He said, “Sorry, you’re not bullying me, and I’m not showing up there.”
You say, “Wait a minute! How can he not?”
Very simply. They don’t have subpoena power. They will not have subpoena power until there is a formal, official impeachment underway — and that will only happen when they have an official vote on the House floor among all members for it. But this illusion is big. I saw earlier today watching CNN, “The last Democrat holdout has signed on to impeachment,” as though there’s some real impeachment going on. But there isn’t yet. It’s just nothing more than a 2020 campaign strategy.
It’s the Democrats’ normal, everyday behavior that they are calling impeachment. It is a bunch of hype. In fact, my buddy Andy McCarthy’s written about it today. Let me give you some pull quotes from his piece. “The Democrats, of course, hope you don’t notice that the House is not conducting a formal impeachment inquiry. … What is portrayed as an ‘impeachment inquiry’ is actually just a made-for-cable-TV political soap opera. The House of Representatives is not conducting a formal impeachment inquiry. To the contrary, congressional Democrats are conducting the 2020 political campaign.”
Exactly right.
Another pull quote: “Moreover, there are no subpoenas.”
See? I told you. Don’t doubt me. “[T]here are no subpoenas. As Secretary Pompeo observed in his fittingly tart response on Tuesday, what the committee chairmen issued was merely a letter. Its huffing and puffing notwithstanding, the letter is nothing more than an informal request for voluntary cooperation. Legally, it has no compulsive power. If anything, it is rife with legal deficiencies. … Every presidential impeachment inquiry, from Andrew Johnson through Bill Clinton, has been the subject of bipartisan consultation and debate.
“The House has recognized that its legitimacy, and the legitimacy of its most solemn actions,” like impeachment, “must be based on the consideration of the whole body…” In other words, bipartisan. Both parties have to be… I’ll give you an example. They had a formal impeachment vote for Nixon in 1974. Do you know what it was? It was like 410 to 5. You know what that means? That means practically every Republican also voted with the Democrats to open an official inquiry.
That’s when Nixon was told by Howard Baker in the Senate that he had lost all support on Capitol Hill. That’s when Nixon resigned. Nothing even close to this has yet happened. The Democrats are doing this exclusively. The Republicans are not part of it. There is no bipartisan effort. There’s no bipartisan agreement. There hasn’t been any official debate. There hasn’t been any official testimony. There haven’t been any official considerations whatsoever. It’s nothing more than a joke that is designed to look real.
“Democrats are … determined to ram through an article of impeachment or two, regardless of whether the State Department and other agencies cooperate in the farce,” and these articles can be anything they want. But there won’t be any House managers assigned, and this case will never end up at the Senate because it would result in a Trump acquittal. And that means that the whole impeachment would have blown up in their faces. So it’s like I said yesterday and the day before.
You have to look at the news this way, folks.
Everything — everything — is an illusion.
Everything is an attempt to create an illusion that everything they’re reporting is real. But it isn’t. There is no impeachment. Trump did not ask the Ukrainian president to “dig up” and “make up” dirt on Biden. He was not seeking dirt on a political opponent. He was trying to get to the bottom of corruption entered into by American government official, ’cause we can’t have that. Same thing with China. And they all know this. They’re running a scam that all depends on the media’s pervasive ability to convince people that this actually is an impeachment.
No comments:
Post a Comment