S*******i
发帖数: 2018 | 1 http://www.wsj.com/articles/is-cnn-protecting-adam-schiff-1513030251
这个Schiff尼玛就是full of sh!t, 长得也是一副太监样。Tucker一年前就羞辱这个傻逼
了。
We’re certainly living in strange times when the ranking member of the
House Intelligence Committee is among the most media-friendly lawmakers in
Washington. The times would be less strange if the media were a little less
friendly in return.
Since they are charged with overseeing America’s spy agencies, the members
of the House and Senate intelligence committees are usually as tight-lipped
a group of politicians as you’ll find. Each one takes an oath to protect
the country’s secrets and is expected to take special care in protecting
the classified information entrusted to them.
That’s the hope anyway. In practice Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.) rarely
misses an opportunity to publicly characterize the non-public information
that he claims to have seen. This raises the question of whether he’s
violating the rules of the committee by discussing classified intelligence,
or perhaps misleading the public about what he’s seen. Before giving him
yet another platform to hurl allegations of treasonous behavior, journalists
should first demand that he show up with some facts.
For the better part of a year, Mr. Schiff has been teasing the public with
claims of wrongdoing by his political adversaries, but refusing to back them
up. Back in March, NBC News reported:
The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee claimed Wednesday
evening that he has seen “more than circumstantial evidence” that
associates of President Donald Trump colluded with Russia while the Kremlin
attempted to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the Ranking Member on the committee, was asked
by Chuck Todd on “Meet The Press Daily” whether or not he only has a
circumstantial case.
“Actually no, Chuck,” he said. “I can tell you that the case is more than
that and I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than
circumstantial evidence now.”
That sure sounded ominous. But nearly nine months later, he’s still going
on talk shows and making accusations. He’s still declining to back them up.
And he’s still finding friendly news organizations to broadcast his claims
, even though by this time a fact-free Schiff accusation of collusion with
Russians can hardly be considered news. On Sunday Jake Tapper interviewed Mr
. Schiff and the CNN host did make an effort to finally get Mr. Schiff to
show his cards.
Mr. Tapper noted that “we haven’t seen the actual connection. We haven’t
seen an actual proof of cooperation and collusion. So, what am I missing
here?”
Mr. Schiff responded, “Well, you know, I think you have to look at the
pattern and the chronology.” Mr. Schiff then proceeded to make a case for
collusion that was no more than circumstantial, and perhaps less. Mr. Schiff
referred to contacts between Trump associates and Russians and then shared
his theory that the WikiLeaks publication of hacked Democratic emails in
2016 amounted to help promised by the Russians to the Trump campaign.
Concluded Mr. Schiff: “And that’s pretty damning, whether it is proof
beyond a reasonable doubt of conspiracy or not.”
But when Mr. Tapper responded by asking for evidence on some of the
particulars, he received the stock Schiff answer, according to CNN’s
transcript:
TAPPER: Do you know of any instance where the Russians said, we’re going to
do it this way, we’re going to do it through WikiLeaks, we’re going to do
it through DCLeaks, this is how we’re going to get this information out
there?
SCHIFF: I can’t comment. That’s an issue that we have been investigating.
And I don’t want to comment at this point or not what the state of that
evidence is.
But Mr. Schiff has spent months commenting on the state of the evidence
about Russia and the Trump campaign, and he’s claimed over and over that it
points to collusion. What he has refused to do is disclose the evidence for
his claims.
At that point in the interview Mr. Tapper moved on to other questions,
instead of telling Mr. Schiff that it’s well past time to back up his
claims.
Of course Mr. Schiff doesn’t just answer to the media; he also has pledged
to keep America’s secrets. He could correctly argue that according to the
rules of the House Intelligence Committee he is prohibited from disclosing
classified information.
But the rules go further than that. As a member of the committee, Mr. Schiff
is not only barred from disclosing classified material; he’s also
prohibited from discussing such information, or even causing it to be
discussed.
Is it possible that he’s managed to avoid running afoul of House rules
because the information doesn’t exist? |
|
