Twitter Never ‘Fact-Checked’ Russia Hoaxers Schiff, Swalwell, and Lieu

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., left, and Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, arrive to interview former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, at the Capitol in Washington, Thursday, March 8, 2018. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

By KRISTINA WONG

Twitter on Tuesday began “fact-checking” President Trump’s tweets but let elected representatives of the U.S. Congress claim that the president’s campaign colluded with Russia to win the 2016 elections for three years.

Jack Dorsey, the founder and CEO of Twitter, said Wednesday evening that the company’s intention is to “connect the dots of conflicting statements and show the information in dispute so people can judge for themselves.”

However, for three years — throughout 2017, 2018, and 2019 — Democrat members of Congress stated as fact on Twitter that they had evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, which fueled the leftist narrative that the election was illegitimate.

Their claims were “in dispute” by other members of Congress, as well as members of the Trump administration and the president, but Twitter never flagged them as such, as it did with Trump’s recent tweets.

On April 21, 2019, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) tweeted that special counsel Robert Mueller “did find evidence of collusion.”

In fact, Mueller’s report — released three days before — said that since collusion was not a legal term, his team looked for any conspiracy or coordination with Russia and did not find any.

It said, “The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

However, there was no Twitter “fact check” for Schiff.

Similarly, almost a month after Mueller released his report, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) tweeted there was “some collusion.” He previously tweeted that he used the word “collusion” as “shorthand for conspiracy” — which Mueller explicitly did not find.

Lieu was not “fact-checked,” although Mueller’s report disputed his tweet.

Screen Shot 2020-05-28 at 5.51.20 PM

Screen Shot 2020-05-28 at 5.54.50 PM

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) on January 17, 2019, claimed that a BuzzFeed report was “MORE evidence of collusion.” No “fact-check” from Twitter. His tweet was retweeted more than 3,000 times and liked more than 12,500 times.

Screen Shot 2020-05-28 at 5.58.27 PM

He also claimed seven days earlier, “I saw collusion from the very beginning.”

In 2018, Schiff claimed that there was “evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia” in “plain sight.”

Swalwell claimed that the House Intelligence Committee had “unearthed evidence of collusion.” His tweet has not been “fact-checked” even though the committee recently released more than 50 interview transcripts with former Obama and Trump campaign officials who presented no evidence of collusion.

Screen Shot 2020-05-28 at 6.02.53 PM

On March 17, 2018, Schiff stated as fact, “We did find evidence of collusion.”

Screen Shot 2020-05-28 at 6.05.58 PM

On February 28, 2018, Lieu stated, “Issue is not whether there was collusion. Issue is how high up the campaign did the collusion go.”

Screen Shot 2020-05-28 at 6.08.37 PM

Lieu on January 10, 2018, tweeted, “The evidence shows not just collusion, but also Obstruction of Justice” by Trump “on multiple occasions.”

Screen Shot 2020-05-28 at 6.14.19 PM

Rand Paul Reveals Impeachment Question Censored by Chief Justice John Roberts

(INSET: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts) Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) departs after speaking to the media about the "whistleblower" question blocked by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts during the impeachment trial proceedings of US President Donald Trump on Capitol Hill January 30, 2020, in Washington, DC. - The …

By MATTHEW BOYLE

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) opened Thursday’s impeachment trial proceedings with one of the first submitted questions for the record, but Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts refused to read the question to the Democrat impeachment managers and President Donald Trump’s counsel.

The text of the question to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Trump’s counsel, as Paul submitted it to Roberts, was subsequently obtained by Breitbart News. The text of Sen. Paul’s Thursday question exactly as submitted to Roberts, the senator’s office confirmed to Breitbart News, was:

To the Manager Schiff and counsel for the President:

Manager Schiff and Counsel for the President, are you aware that House Intelligence Committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella when at the National Security Council together, and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings?”

In the question, Paul does not identify Eric Ciaramella, a CIA analyst who has been widely reported to be the “whistleblower” whose complaint launched the Democrats’ impeachment proceedings, as the “whistleblower.”

But Roberts has now multiple times throughout the trial censored any mention of Ciaramella’s name, despite his direct involvement in these matters.

Paul also tweeted this after the fact:

CAP

Recent investigative reports from RealClearPolitics have indicated that Misko, now a Schiff staffer on the House Intelligence Committee, and Ciaramella have a close relationship and were overheard discussing efforts to try to plot against President Trump.

Roberts has not offered any legal argument for hiding the individual’s identity. As Breitbart News has repeatedly explained, the only statutory protection for people who submit whistleblower complaints is that the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) cannot name him or her publicly:

Even left-wing mainstream media outlets—CNN, the New York Times, National Public Radio (NPR), and Reuters — determined that, certainly, no law prohibits President Donald Trump or members of Congress from disclosing the name of the leaker who sparked the impeachment inquiry.

Even Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) confirmed this fact by reading a passage from the Washington Post into the record of the House impeachment hearings which states: “That appears to be the lone statutory restriction on disclosing a whistleblower’s identity, applicable only to the inspector general’s office. We found no court rulings on whether whistleblowers have a right to anonymity under the ICWPA or related statutes.”

Further, Breitbart’s Senior Editor-at-Large Joel Pollak has written President Trump has a right under the Sixth Amendment to confront his accuser at a trial where he is the defendant. He explains: “even if the Chief Justice were to rule that it does not, the Senate can overrule him. If the president wants to call the whistleblower to testify, he will likely have to do so.”

In October, RealClearInvestigations published an individual’s name whom author Paul Sperry believes is likely the “whistleblower” Eric Ciaramella, an analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), who worked for the National Security Council under the Obama and Trump administrations.

Republicans to Subpoena Whistleblower, Hunter Biden, Alexandra Chalupa

WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 20: Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) listens as Gordon Sondland, the U.S ambassador to the European Union, testifies before the House Intelligence Committee in the Longworth House Office Building on Capitol Hill November 20, 2019 in Washington, DC. The committee heard testimony during the fourth day of …

By KRISTINA WONG

Republicans intend to subpoena testimony and documents related to the anonymous whistleblower, Hunter Biden, and Democratic National Committee contractor Alexandra Chalupa, according to a letter they sent to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA).

“Although Speaker Pelosi promised that Democrats would ‘treat the President with fairness,’ you have repeatedly prevented Republicans from fully and fairly examining issues central to the Democrats’ ‘impeachment inquiry,’” House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Oversight and Reform Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan (R-OH) wrote in a November 20, 2019, letter.

“We therefore write to inform you that we intend to subpoena testimony and records in an attempt to inject some semblance of fairness and objectivity into your one-side and partisan inquiry,” they said.

On the whistleblower, they wrote that the whistleblower’s testimony is “necessary for a full and fair understanding of all relevant facts.” They wrote:

The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community reported that the whistleblower had a political bias against President Trump and public reports suggest that the whistleblower worked closely with former Vice President Joe Biden. In addition, there are multiple discrepancies between the whistleblower’s complaint — the piece of evidence central to the Democrat’ inquiry — and the closed testimony of the witnesses. For these reasons, we must assess the whistleblower’s credibility and the sources he or she utilized to develop the anonymous complaint.

On Biden, they wrote that since witnesses raised the issue of Hunter Biden getting paid $50,000 per month for sitting on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company that was under investigation, learning more about it would be “directly relevant to the inquiry”:

According to the New York Times, Hunter Biden was ‘part of a broad effort by Burisma to bring in well-connected Democrats during a period when the company was facing investigations backed not just by domestic Ukrainian forces but by officials in the Obama administration.’ Reports suggest that Burisma paid Hunter Biden $50,000 per month through a company called Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC. Because witnesses explained that Hunter Biden’s presence on Burisma’s board raised concerns during the Obama Administration and President Trump briefly raised this issue during his phone call with President Zelensky, this information is directly relevant to the Democrats’ ‘impeachment inquiry.’

On Chalupa, they also wrote that her testimony would be “directly relevant” since witnesses have testified that Trump believed the Ukrainians “tried to take [him] down”:

In August 2016, less than three months before the election, Valeriy Chaly, then-Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States, authored an op-ed in a U.S. newspaper criticizing candidate Trump. In addition, in January 2017, Politico reported about Ukrainian government’s effort to ‘sabotage’ the Trump campaign in 2016 by working closely with the media and a Democratic National Committee consultant named Alexandra Chalupa. The Politico article detailed how Chalupa ‘traded information and leads’ with staff at the Ukrainian embassy and how the Ukrainian embassy ‘worked directly with reporters researching Trump, [Trump campaign manager Paul] Manafort, and Russia to point them in the right directions.’ Because witnesses testified that President Trump believed that Ukraine ‘tried to take [him] down’ in 2016, this information is directly relevant to the Democrats’ ‘impeachment inquiry.’

Nunes and Jordan concluded:

The American people see through your sham ‘impeachment inquiry.’ The American people understand how you have affirmatively prevented Republicans from examining serious issues directly relevant to the issues. Therefore, to provide some basic level of fairness and objectivity to your ‘impeachment inquiry,’ we intend to subpoena the anonymous whistleblower and Hunter Biden for sworn testimony in closed-door depositions. We also intend to subpoena the following entities for record relevant to the Democrats’ ‘impeachment inquiry’:

    1. The whistleblower for documents and communications relating to the drafting and filing of the complaint dated August 12, 2019, and the personal memorandum drafted on or around July 26, 2019.
    2. Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC and any subsidiaries or affiliates for records relating to Hunter Biden’s position on the Board of Directors of Burisma Holdings; and
    3. The Democratic National Committee for communications with Ukrainian government officials and for records relating to Alexandra Chalupa.

“We look forward to your prompt concurrence. Your failure to concur with all of these subpoenas shall constitute evidence of your denial of fundamental fairness and due process,” they wrote.

Jim Jordan Blasts Pelosi for Calling President Trump an ‘Impostor’

11/20/2019

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) used a portion of his time during Tuesday’s public impeachment hearing before the House Intelligence Committee to remind the American people that Democrats have been hell-bent on impeaching President Trump since the day he took office and slammed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for calling the duly elected president an “imposter.”

This impeachment scam is otherwise called, THE SHAMING OF TRUMP AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.. Pelosi confirmed it.

She’s confused as usual and she’s projecting about Ocommie.

 

Republicans Laugh at Schiff’s Outrageous Claim He Doesn’t Know Name of “Whistleblower”

 

Republicans House Members in the room for Wednesday’s Intelligence Committee public impeachment inquiry hearing laughed when committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) claimed he does not know the name of the whistleblower whose anonymous second-hand claim of misconduct by President Trump with regard to Ukraine instigated the partisan impeachment process by Democrats.

The reaction by Republicans was reported by Alex Miller of Newsy, “Schiff says he doesn’t know the identity of the whistleblower, entire front row of republicans laugh.”

CAP

Axios reporter Alayna Treene reported Republicans laughed and sneered, “Republican members of Congress in the audience laughed & sneered to each other when Schiff said this”

CAP

Schiff’s dubious claim (falsely reported as a “fact check”) was also challenged online by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), “In response to @Jim_Jordan, Adam Schiff claims he doesn’t know the identity of the whistleblower. If he doesn’t know their identity, how will he prevent them from being named?”

CAP

Daily Mail reporter David Martosko, “Adam Schiff claims he doesn’t know the identity of the Ukraine whistle-blower. How is this possible? His staff met with the person.”

CAP

Trump War Room co-host Raheem Kassam noted problems with Schiff’s denial, “Schiff says he doesn’t know the identity of the whistleblower, despite his staff being in contact with the whistleblower. Ok, but if he doesn’t know the identity, how can he as the Intel Chairman stop the whistleblower being named? And how is the name being redacted in docs?”

CAP

Presumably Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) was one of those laughing at Schiff from his front row seat.

CAP

Unfortunately, Gohmert and his fellow Congressmen were placed by Schiff in “Bob Uecker” front row seats in the back of the room behind the media.

Intel Committee Republicans set up a sign on their side of the dais that said, “93 days since Adam Schiff learned the identity of the whistleblower.

CAP

Chairman Mao Tse Schiff is not amused.

CAP

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑