Schiff Caught Lying

PUBLISHED: 5:13 PM 22 Jan 2020

Schiff Busted Lying To Senate About Ukraine ‘Concern’ After Fact Check

Many people argue that since Schiff wasn’t above lying during secret House hearings, why would he worry about lying to the Senate?

Why is this insane liar still in Congress, many wonder. (Source: NBC News YouTube Screenshot)

Adam Schiff’s behavior and statements yesterday were over the line, many people argue. He was busted lying about the President on the Senate floor, and he also claimed that unless the Senate calls more witnesses, it will be guilty of a cover up and obstructing justice… and President Trump will be considered guilty anyway.

Seriously. This is what he said. The man whose ties to the Ukrainian corruption are incredibly suspicious and who previously lied during House hearings, indicating that the transcript said things it did not say.

Many people wonder about the mental sanity of Adam Schiff.

Breitbart news reported:

CLAIM: If President Donald Trump really cared about corruption in Ukraine, he would have raised it before. But he never did.

VERDICT: False. Trump raised it specifically — even lecturing the former Ukrainian president about it in 2017.

Lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) claimed on Tuesday in President Donald Trump’s Senate impeachment trial that Trump did not care about corruption in Ukraine except when it allegedly involved his potential rival in the 2020 presidential election, former Vice President Joe Biden.

Schiff said:

You might ask yourself: if the president was so concerned about corruption, why didn’t he did he do that [withhold aid] in 2017? Why didn’t he do that in 2018? Why was it only 2019, there was a problem? Was there no corruption in Ukraine in 2017? Was there no corruption in Ukraine in 2018? No — Ukraine has always battled corruption. It wasn’t the presence or lack of corruption from one year to another. It was the presence of Joe Biden as a potential candidate for president. That was the key change in 2019. That made all the difference.

In fact, President Trump did raise the issue of corruption in Ukraine in 2017, the first year of his administration. He did so prior to releasing the Javelin anti-tank missiles, the lethal aid that President Barack Obama had refused to provide.

As State Department official Catherine Croft testified in her closed-door deposition during Schiff’s impeachment inquiry at the House Intelligence Committee, Trump lectured then-President Poroshenko — to his face — about corruption in Ukraine:

Catherine Croft excerpt (House Intelligence Committee)

Croft: The President was skeptical of providing weapons to Ukraine.

Q: Why?

A: When this was discussed, including in front of the Ukrainian delegation, in front of President Poroshenko, he described his concerns being that Ukraine was corrupt, that it was capable of being a very rich country, and that the United States shouldn’t pay for it, but instead, we should be providing aid through loans.

Notably, Schiff did not call Croft to testify publicly, making sure as few people as possible heard what she had to say about Trump’s long-standing frustration with corruption in Ukraine and elsewhere.

Schiff’s claim on the floor of the Senate — in pursuit of more State Department documents — was a baldfaced lie, and raises the question about why the Senate might need more evidence if the House has ignored what is already there.

Likewise, on Tuesday, Schiff argued that if the Senate doesn’t convict, Trump will be considered guilty anyway. Breitbart News reported:

In other words, if the Republican-led Senate does not carry out the impeachment trial the way the Democrats want it to, Trump will be considered guilty even if the upper chamber acquits him. A guilty verdict in the Senate would remove Trump from office.

Schiff told reporters:

If the Senate and the senate leadership … will not allow the calling of witnesses or the presentation of documents, If [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell makes this the first impeachment trial in history without witnesses or documents, it will not prove the president innocent. It will merely prove the Senate guilty of working with the president to obstruct the truth from coming out, so I do think that by structuring the trial this way, it furthers our case that what’s going on here really is a cover-up of evidence to the American people.

While McConnell says his newly unveiled resolution outlining the rules that will govern the Senate trial makes the process fair, Schiff argues otherwise, saying the guidelines “make it impossible to hear a fair trial.”

Of course, the Senate did approve the resolution.