Thanks To SCOTUS, The ‘Foreign Interference’ Crowd Can Keep Peddling Hoaxes To Silence You
Though previous cries of 'foreign interference' have been hoaxes designed to malign or silence opponents, SCOTUS lets the censors continue.Though previous cries of 'foreign interference' have been hoaxes designed to malign or silence opponents, SCOTUS lets the censors continue.'Schiff just hit the fan': House Republicans poised to censure Rep. Adam Schiff
The GOP-controlled House is poised to censure Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and possibly fine him $16 million for his role in advancing the debunked Russian collusion narrative, abusing the trust afforded him as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and for behaving "dishonestly and dishonorably."
Now, it's just a matter of getting Florida Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna's resolution to the floor and seeing it through to a vote.
While House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) indicated he supports Luna's resolution and is "working with her on the best timing to bring it to the House Floor to help it pass," not all Republicans are on board with the current wording of the resolution.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) indicated that if the resolution comes to the floor, he will vote against it, noting, "I'm still litigating a federal lawsuit against Pelosi over a salary reduction she imposed on me for my refusal to wear a mask. ... The Constitution says the House may make its own rules but we can't violate other (later) provisions of the Constitution. A $16 million fine is a violation of the 27th and 8th amendments."
Republicans will need to present a united front to see the resolution through, as Democrats intend to introduce a motion to table or kill the resolution and are sticking together, reported Axios.
Luna, a member of the Freedom Caucus, suggested the vote will likely be held Thursday morning.
\u201cLooks like my vote to censure & condemn @RepAdamSchiff will likely be held Thursday morning.\u201d— Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (@Rep. Anna Paulina Luna) 1686676571
The resolution, introduced by the Florida congresswoman May 23, accuses Schiff of abusing the trust afforded him while serving as ranking member and then chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It further condemns him for behaving "dishonestly and dishonorably on many other occasions."
The resolution states Schiff cited evidence of collusion between former President Donald Trump and Russia "that — as is clear from reports by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, and Special Counsel Durham — does not exist. ... By repeatedly telling these falsehoods, Representative Schiff purposely deceived his Committee, Congress, and the American people."
Luna's resolution also drags Schiff for:
- lending "credibility to the Steele dossier — a collection of debunked collusion accusations funded by President Trump's political rivals — by reading false Steele allegation into the Congressional Record at a HPSCI hearing on March 20, 2017";
- abusing his privileged access to classified information by composing "a false memo justifying the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant application on trump associate Carter Page, which Inspector General Horowitz later found was riddled with 17 major mistakes and omissions, provoking FISA Court Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer to state unequivocally that the Federal Bureau of Investigation acted to 'mislead the FISC'";
- grossly violating Carter Page's civil liberties by smearing him "as a Russian collaborator and justifying spurious investigations of him";
- "falsely denying that his staff coordinated with a whistleblower to launch the first impeachment of President Trump"; and
- reciting "a false, concocted rendition of a phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky."
Luna claimed Schiff owes the American people a debt, as his "lies, misrepresentations, and abuses of sensitive information" resulted in a Russian-collusion investigation that cost taxpayers $32 million.
This figure appears to reflect the cost of the two-year special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller as indicated in an expenditures report circulated by the Department of Justice in August 2019.
To recoup this debt, Luna suggested that Schiff be fined $16 million.
Concerning the forthcoming vote on the resolution, Luna tweeted, "Schiff just hit the fan."
Schiff hit Twitter with a response Tuesday, employing a turn of phrase coined by Adolf Hitler: "Today Rep. Anna Paulina Luna introduced a resolution to censure & fine me $16 million. Authors of the big lie are attacking me for telling the truth &holding Trump accountable. This is not just an attack on me—it’s an attack on our democracy & the institution of Congress."
\u201cICYMI\u2014Today Rep. Anna Paulina Luna introduced a resolution to censure & fine me $16 million.\n\nAuthors of the big lie are attacking me for telling the truth &holding Trump accountable.\n\nThis is not just an attack on me\u2014it\u2019s an attack on our democracy & the institution of Congress.\u201d— Adam Schiff (@Adam Schiff) 1686687384
After first seizing upon the Republican effort to hold him accountable as a fundraising opportunity, Schiff later told CNN that he was "flattered" by the "MAGA resolution," which he suggested was a testament to his effectiveness.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Unhinged leftist Keith Olbermann faces bipartisan scorn after demanding that Jake Tapper resign over admission Durham report is 'devastating to the FBI'
The Durham report, which revealed this week that the FBI investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign was baseless, has served to further discredit the already scandal-plagued bureau.
Even CNN's Jake Tapper felt compelled to admit on his show Monday that the report is "devastating to the FBI, and to a degree it does exonerate Donald Trump."
While Tapper attempted to pin some blame on former President Donald Trump, the CNN host nevertheless managed to draw the ire of Keith Olbermann, a YouTube personality unswayed by facts and ever committed to the debunked Russian-collusion narrative.
Olbermann demanded on Twitter that Tapper resign for noting the FBI's self-inflicted reputational wounds, which even the FBI has acknowledged in softened language to have been "missteps."
In response to Tapper's suggestion that the report is "devastating to the FBI," Olbermann tweeted, "It isn't. Not even close. No charges, just partisan 'conclusions.' And Tapper of the new non-journalist Chris Licht CNN is propagandizing," adding, "Jake Tapper needs to resign."
\u201cCNN's new scandal:\n\n@jaketapper says the Durham Report is "devastating to the FBI"\n\nIt isn't. Not even close. No charges, just partisan "conclusions." And Tapper of the new non-journalistic Chris Licht CNN is propagandizing\n\nJake Tapper needs to resign\u201d— Keith Olbermann\u2199\ufe0f (@Keith Olbermann\u2199\ufe0f) 1684187251
In a rare show of unity and bipartisanship, Twitter users of various backgrounds and political persuasions blasted Olbermann over his viral tweet, which has over 570,000 views.
Investigative reporter Matt Taibbi wrote, "Keith, @JakeTapper is right. And the report isn't just devastating to the FBI, it's devastating to media figures who ran bogus stories that were either leaked by the Bureau, or laundered through it."
Taibbi then cited various instances where Olbermann previously peddled baseless agitprop on his now-defunct GQ show "The Resistance with Keith Olbermann."
Several of the show's episode titles allude to Olbermann's confident assertions of what have been demonstrated to be falsehoods: "Case Closed. Collusion Has Been Proven"; "A Timeline of Treason"; "Trump Will Not Be Cleared"; "Trump is Aiding the Enemy"; and "Trump is Lying About Russia."
Here is one of Olbermann's false reports from 2017:
Case Closed. Collusion Has Been Proven | The Resistance with Keith Olbermann | GQ youtu.be
In a subsequent tweet, Taibbi asked, "Which parts do you think are incorrect, Keith?"
Liberal journalist Eli Lake, who serves as contributing editor at Commentary, wrote, "This is the first resistance in the history of resistance to align itself with a federal police force," referencing Olbermann's former show "The Resistance," whereon he advanced falsehoods discredited in the Durham report and elsewhere.
Lake added, "To call Keith a buffoon is an insult to buffoonery."
One Twitter user wrote to Olbermann, "Your tears of denial are delicious."
Another commentator cut to the bone, writing, "It’s clear… you’re entire identity is tied to your Trump views these last 5 years."
The Durham report, which Olbermann does not consider to be "devastating," stressed that the Department of Justice and the FBI "failed to uphold their mission of strict fidelity to the law" when launching the probe into the Trump campaign.
Durham said the FBI utilized “raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence" to open the investigation into the Trump campaign but did not follow the same standard when approaching alleged election interference in relation to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
Durham also found that the FBI “did not and could not corroborate any of the substantive allegations” made in the infamous Steele dossier of lurid accusations against then-candidate Donald Trump, and "neither U.S. nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Sen. Graham joins critics calling for Pulitzer Prize given to Washington Post and New York Times to be rescinded after Durham report proved their narrative to be 'politically motivated crap'
The Pulitzer Prize board honored New York Times and Washington Post reporters with a cash prize and its once-esteemed award in 2018 for peddling the thoroughly debunked Trump-Russia collusion narrative, which proved politically expedient for the liberal reporters' ideological comrades in Washington at the time.
In light of the damning Durham report, critics now reckon the awards to be albatrosses around the necks of those who dutifully worked to mislead the nation — put there by an organization apparently indifferent to the storm gathered as a consequence.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has joined those now urging that the Pulitzer Prize awarded to the staff at both papers be "taken back."
Graham told Fox News' "America's Newsroom" Tuesday that "we have a situation where the FBI ran every stop sign available, kept pushing a warrant against an American citizen based on a Steele dossier that was a piece of fiction. The information was supplied the FBI by two Russian agents. It was used to get a warrant against an American citizen to turn his life upside down and create a cloud of the Trump presidency and try to deny him the presidency."
With the full understanding provided in the Durham report that the investigation was from the get-go a stitch-up predicated upon a false claim, originally approved and advanced by failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Graham stressed that three things should happen:
First, Attorney General Merrick Garland "should pick up the phone and call all those that were harmed by this and say, 'Even though it didn't happen on my watch, I'll apologize to you. This is not the Department of Justice that I want you to believe in,'" said Graham.
Second, FBI Director Christopher Wray should "get on the phone and apologize to the people that had their lives ruined by the FBI."
Third, "the Pulitzer Prize given to the Washington Post and New York Times should be taken back because the entire episode was politically motivated crap. That's not something you should get a Pulitzer Prize for," added Graham.
Graham doubled down on this third suggestion Wednesday, tweeting, "Awarding the Washington Post and New York Times Pulitzer Prizes for reporting political fiction as fact regarding President Trump shows that these prizes are awarded not based on the product of your work, but the subject you go after. They should rescind the prize."
The awards in question went to the staffs of the New York Times and the Washington Post for what the Pulitzer Prize Board characterized as "deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration."
The Daily Mail reported that the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post remains unrepentant.
"The Post stands by its reporting," said Jennifer Lee, a spokeswoman for the paper, citing a 2022 review by the Pulitzer board that claimed no aspect of the awarded stories "were discredited by facts that emerged subsequent to the conferral of the prizes."
This statement appears to indicate that false reports may be deserving of awards, just so long as the truth comes out after the receipt of the prize.
While the Washington Post evidently stands by past false narratives, the New York Times appears keen to downplay newly revealed truths.
In its Monday story on the Durham report, the Times claimed, "Mr. Durham’s 306-page report revealed little substantial new information about the inquiry," suggesting that Durham's hunt "for evidence to support Mr. Barr’s theory that intelligence abuses lurked in the origins of the Russia inquiry" had proven fruitless.
It added, "The special counsel’s final report nevertheless did not produce blockbuster revelations of politically motivated misconduct, as Donald J. Trump and his allies had suggested it would."
TheBlaze reported in 2019 that then-President Trump said the Pulitzer committee should revoke a joint Pulitzer Prize from both newspapers "for their coverage (100% NEGATIVE and FAKE!) of Collusion with Russia."
\u201cSo funny that The New York Times & The Washington Post got a Pulitzer Prize for their coverage (100% NEGATIVE and FAKE!) of Collusion with Russia - And there was No Collusion! So, they were either duped or corrupt? In any event, their prizes should be taken away by the Committee!\u201d— Donald J. Trump (@Donald J. Trump) 1553901917
In response to Trump's suggestion, the New York Times wrote in a March 29, 2019, tweet, "We're proud of our Pulitzer-prize winning reporting on Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election. Every @nytimes article cited has proven accurate."
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) took to Twitter Monday to comment on the Durham report, writing, "Disgraceful. Obama-Biden officials and the corrupt corporate media pushed these piles of lies for years. Accountability now— starting with WaPo and The New York Times returning their Pulitzer Prizes for breathlessly spreading these ‘Russia, Russia, Russia’ lies."
Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) posed the question, "Ready to give your Pulitzer back now?"
\u201cReady to give your Pulitzer back now?\u201d— Congressman Byron Donalds (@Congressman Byron Donalds) 1684186374
Sean Spicer, who served as press secretary and White House communications director under President Donald Trump, quipped, "How will the Washington Post send back its Pulitzer? USP, FedEx, UPS."
Former Georgia state Rep. Vernon Jones (R) wrote, "For three years the liberal media portrayed the now-infamous Steele dossier — the original basis for the Trump- Russian collusion claims — as true, and the New York Times and Washington Post received Pulitzer Prizes for a story that not only has been debunked but shown to be the product of Hillary’s Clinton’s presidential campaign."
The Georgia Republican suggested that it's time for the papers to issue apologies.
Graham Reacts to the Durham Report youtu.be
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Law professor asks Adam Schiff to show his phantasmal evidence of Russian collusion after Durham report reveals FBI investigation was baseless
Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff went on repeated media tours and sounded off on the House floor following the 2016 election, claiming there was "plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight" regarding the Trump campaign and Russia — a false claim originally approved and advanced by failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
Schiff's thoroughly discredited claims now appear to be even more damning in light of the release of the final version of special counsel John Durham's report.
Legal scholar and George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley has called on Schiff to account for his apparent lies, suggesting that "this would be a good time for former House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff to reveal that evidence he said showed the Russian collusion ..."
Here are but a few of the televised instances in which Schiff claimed there was evidence of collusion:
\u201cThere is 40+ hours of Adam Schiff blatantly misleading Congress & the American people with his Russian Hoax lies. The Durham report shows Schiff had ZERO evidence. \n\nWhen will Pencil Neck @RepAdamSchiff be prosecuted and stripped of his congressional duties?\u201d— Grand Old Patriots\ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8 (@Grand Old Patriots\ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8) 1684250482
TheBlaze indicated Monday that Durham's final report paints Schiff, at best, as a maligner.
Durham said the FBI utilized “raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence" to open the investigation into the Trump campaign but did not follow the same standard when approaching alleged election interference in relation to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
Durham also found that the FBI “did not and could not corroborate any of the substantive allegations” made in the infamous Steele dossier of lurid accusations against then-candidate Donald Trump, and "neither U.S. nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation."
“As noted, it was not until mid-September that the Crossfire Hurricane investigators received several of the Steele Reports. Within days of their receipt, the unvetted and unverified Steele Reports were used to support probable cause in the FBI’s FISA applications targeting [Carter] Page, a U.S. citizen who, for a period of time, had been an advisor to Trump,” the report says.
The Durham report further revealed that the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign was virtually baseless and that most of those involved and responsible knew that to be the case, including then-Vice President Joe Biden, then-President Barack Obama, CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey, and other partisans briefed on the so-called "Clinton Plan" on Aug. 3, 2016.
These revelations and those accompanying them in the report altogether appear to indicate that the confidence behind Schiff's assertions was either similarly baseless or based on a sense that the actual truth would not ultimately come out.
Turley previously intimated that there might be something to the latter possibility, given Schiff's vigorous and long-standing opposition to Durham's investigation.
For instance, in November 2020, Schiff suggested congressional probes were bad for the country, despite having himself celebrated the initial Trump-Russia collusion investigation, reported Fox News Digital.
Schiff, who led the impeachment efforts against former President Donald Trump, suggested that concerted efforts to ascertain what really happened amounted to an "obstruction of the transition" of then-President-elect Joe Biden into power, then accused Republicans of "tearing down our democracy."
In December 2020, the California Democrat appeared even more uneasy about the prospect that someone might discover it had all been a crock.
Schiff spoke out against then-Attorney General William Barr's selection of John Durham to serve as special counsel and questioned whether Barr even had the authority to do so. He went farther to suggest that Biden's attorney general should shut down the probe, which he claimed was "politically motivated," reported the Daily Caller.
"I would presume the next attorney general will look to see if there is any merit to the work that John Durham is doing and make a rational decision about whether that should continue at any level," said the former House Intelligence Committee chair.
Prior to fighting the Durham investigation, Schiff played defense for the FBI, claiming on Feb. 2, 2018, that "FBI and DOJ officials did not 'abuse' the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, omit material information, or subvert this vital tool to spy on the Trump campaign," adding that "DOJ met the rigor, transparency, and evidentiary basis needed to meet FISA’s probable cause requirement."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
freebeacon.com