Full of Schiff

Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff is a smart fellow and a perfect spokesman for Hillary Clinton’s interests. Slippery and willing to say anything, he can add a vague threat of harm when he thinks the occasion calls for it. Yesterday Schiff appeared on FOX News Sunday for a segment with Senator James Lankford to discuss last week’s revelations about the information found on Hillary’s Clinton’s unsecured private server for her official State Department emails. FOX News has posted a report on the segment (transcript here, video below). Sarah Westwood also covered the segment for the Washington Examiner.

Last week’s news was generated by the letter of Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough, III to Senators Burr and Corker. McCullough was appointed by Obama and was enthusiastically supported by Democrats. As Paul facetiously wrote last week, he is “an unlikely member of the vast right-wing conspiracy.”

Catherine Herridge embedded a copy of McCullough’s letter to the Senators in her FOX News report breaking the story last week and posted it here. McCullough responded to the Senators’ inquiry on the “classification determination process used within the Intelligence Community (IC) for reviewing former Secretary of State Clinton’s emails.” McCullough’s response included one dry paragraph that made all the news (on FOX and online, anyway):

To date, I have received two sworn declarations from one IC element. These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IC element to be at the CONFIDENTIAL, SECREt, and TOP SECRET/SAP level. According to the declarant, these documents contain information derived from classified IC sources. Due to the presence of TOP SECRET/SAP information, I provided these declarations under separate cover to the Intelligence/oversight Committees and Senate and House leadership. The IC element is coordinating with State to determine how these documents should be properly treated in the FOIA litigation.

FOX News host Chris Wallace wound up with this question to Schiff yesterday:

WALLACE: Congressman Schiff, I want to pick up on one thing that Senator Lankford said, the inspector general, Charles McCullough, who sent this information, and he wasn’t offering it, he was simply reporting what the intelligence community was saying, appointed by Barack Obama, confirmed unanimously by a Democratic-controlled Senate. He hardly seems like the right person for a political hit job.

SCHIFF: Well, I would say this, Chris, you’ve got several Republican chairs who are actively campaigning against Hillary Clinton and doing investigations of her at the same time. One of which went to a —

WALLACE: Charles McCullough isn’t. He was a — he was an Obama appointee.

SCHIFF: No, no, no. No, let me finish. One of which went to a Trump rally and said his purpose is to defeat Hillary Clinton. These are people who are conducting investigation in Congress of the secretary during the presidential campaign. So I think the inspector general has to be very careful not allow — not to allow him to be used by one political party against another during the presidential race. And I think the inspector general had to know or should know that when you put an unclassified form letter, you have to reasonably expect it’s going to be leaked. And that letter, I have to say, was gratuitous in the information it included. It could have transmitted the information from the intelligence community without commentary in it. But by putting that commentary in it, knowing it’s going to be leaked, I think the inspector general does risk his reputation. And once you lose that as inspector general, you’re not much good to anyone. So I think the inspector general has to be very careful here.

Translation: “That’s a nice name you’ve got there. I wouldn’t want anything to happen to it.”

Reading McCullough’s letter against Schiff’s description of it, we see that Schiff is parsimonious with the truth and liberal with falsehood. Add the threat to McCullough’s reputation leveled by no one other than Schiff himself, and Schiff proves himself Clintonian through and through.

Responses