360 Comments
User's avatar
Yuri Bezmenov's avatar

Schiff and Swalwell are traitors. California is a cesspool of commissars. They will keep lying and cheating until they are held accountable.

Kelly Green's avatar

Schiff is the worst. The oiliest and worst of all of them except maybe Brennan.

Even in person he comes across immediately as a slick operator that can't be trusted. Which is why, of course, he got promoted by voters to Senator!

ocjackel's avatar

In California we have a primary system that nominates to the 2 top vote getters, even if they are from the same party. This usually guarantees it's always 2 democrats running for senate seats.

Schiff actively helped the republican candidate Steve Garvey in his campaign efforts with the hopes of getting Garvey the nomination. Garvey came in second over Schiff's real opponent democrat Katie Porter. He knew that if she came in second he would have a real fight on his hands in the general.

So, help Garvey come in second so that he had no real competition in the general.

It's basically what Hillary tried to do to Trump in 2016. Democrats thought there was no way she could lose to Trump. Well she FAFO.

Kelly Green's avatar

Why would Schiff ever subvert democracy like that? He loves democracy so, so much!

5JimBob's avatar

In a state where real competition takes place (not California), supporting the weaker candidate in a Republican primary is a popular Democrat tactic. It was made (in)famous by Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri. Her campaign paid for adds criticizing the stronger Republican Primary candidate as “not conservative enough” thus encouraging right wing primary voters to oppose him. McCaskill bragged about it after the general election. Another popular trick is to financially support a minor party candidate - usually the Libertarian Party candidate. That will often pull off a critical 2 or 4 percent of the conservative vote that would otherwise have gone to the Republican. Democrats had similar but usually smaller, problems with left wing party candidates. Notably the Green Party, and in 2000 with Ralph Nader’s Quixotic campaign that helped elect G. W. Bush in a tight election. But I never heard of any serious Republican financing help going to a fringe candidate. Is this merely “hardball” electioneering? I strikes me as certainly unethical, if the idea of an election is to present the finest choices a Party has to offer to the voting public. It’s certainly “undemocratic” behavior on the part of a Party so supposedly concerned about the preservation of “our democracy”.

Bull Hubbard's avatar

Garvey would have made a good Senator, but CA tends to not elect Republicans.

So we have California voters to blame for that absolute disaster Schitt (no typo).

edwardc_sf's avatar

Yea, as a California voter I now have a reason for why I should have voted for Ms Clinton - the state might have had a decent, at least in national as opposed to international affairs, Senator in Ms Porter.

Gary Burns's avatar

"Decent" is a word that should never be found in the same sentence with this woman's name. Ex staffers have many anecdotes about her abusive demeanor and even fellow Dem candidate Harley Rouda eviscerated her character in a piece to the Orange County Register imploring voters not to vote for her. CA voters will always end up with substandard representatives because they vote not with the intention of supporting the best candidate, but rather the one with the "D" following their name.

Thomas Vincze's avatar

In government we too often see the turd rises to the top.

Bob's avatar

Schiff is too smart for his own good.

Joachim2's avatar

I am not sure that "promoted [to office] by voters" should be the default assumption regarding our "public servants" at this point.

https://zarkfiles.substack.com/p/the-faberge-cantaloupe?utm_source=publication-search

https://zarkfiles.substack.com/p/breaking-news-texas-and-wisconsin

JD Free's avatar

There will be no consequences. There are never consequences.

Ryan Gardner's avatar

Yeah, well, outside of a few people Trump brought in, congress wants to get to the bottom of it as much as OJ wanted to catch the "real" killer.

We can't forget many of the Republicans got their hands dirty with this nonsense.

Talk about traitors.

Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

Nice OJ reference. Perhaps Schiff will write a book from Club Fed, called "If I Leaked It."

GMT1969's avatar

Since I doubt he could be held criminally liable, maybe Trump can get him for defamation. Sue him for $100 million. Foreclose on his house in Maryland and his condo in CA.

Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

Love that idea. If he lost both homes, he wouldn't have to worry about figuring out that one can only have one primary residence.

Bob's avatar

I am cynical about your cynicism. IMO, Trump was treated as crueely as any president in history and has a chip on his shoulder the size of Mt Rushmore.

There will be consequences. Consequences the sixe of Mt Everest.

Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

I like your optimism, Bob. I'm not betting any money on it, but I like it.

BookWench's avatar

It's like one of them is Pangloss, and the other is Martin, from Candide.

Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

Living up to your handle, dropping Voltaire on us heathens.

Kelly Green's avatar

Who's going to determine the consequences, you or a jury comprised of residents of the District of Columbia?

Skenny's avatar

With a jury pool comprised of 94 percent blue, there is not a possibility of an impartial jury.

Bob's avatar

Principally the judicial system based on the facts. Not hard to understand, Kelly.

Kelly Green's avatar

In this exchange, Kelly Green’s comment—“Who's going to determine the consequences, you or a jury comprised of residents of the District of Columbia?”—is a pointed rhetorical question meant to challenge Bob’s assertion that there will be massive consequences for Trump.

Here’s what it implies:

🧠 Interpretation of Kelly Green’s Comment

Skepticism toward Bob’s certainty: Bob claims there will be consequences “the size of Mt Everest,” implying overwhelming legal or political fallout. Kelly Green counters by asking who will actually decide those consequences—suggesting that Bob’s confidence may be misplaced.

Reference to D.C. jury composition: By invoking a jury “comprised of residents of the District of Columbia,” Kelly is likely alluding to the political leanings of D.C. residents, who tend to be overwhelmingly Democratic. This implies that any jury in D.C. might be predisposed against Trump or his allies, casting doubt on the fairness or predictability of any legal outcome.

Undermining the idea of impartial justice: The comment subtly critiques the notion that consequences will be objectively determined, hinting instead at political bias or predetermined outcomes.

🧩 Contextual Nuance

The exchange is steeped in political cynicism. Ryan Gardner compares congressional investigations to O.J. Simpson’s infamous search for the “real killer”—a metaphor for insincerity or performative justice.

Bob responds with a defense of Trump, portraying him as unfairly persecuted.

Kelly Green’s reply cuts through both narratives, questioning who actually holds the power to impose consequences and whether that process is truly impartial.

Would you like a breakdown of how jury selection in D.C. might influence high-profile cases, or how political demographics intersect with legal outcomes?

Rex's avatar

Let us pray it will be so.

Michelle Dostie's avatar

Otherwise known as accountability.

Nathan Woodard's avatar

I’m worried poor old Gibraltar is feeling left out here… sitting there all lonely while everyone else gets the big metaphor treatment. Don’t worry, Mr. Rock — your turn will come, and there will be plenty of metaphors before this whole affair is over. 🙂🙂🙂🙂

Matt L.'s avatar

Jeff Childers this AM speculated that Trump federalizing DC policing could be prelude to arrests of some high profile folks. Control the area where arrests will occur. I.e. the 'timing' on this is peculiar. I'm headed to the store for more popcorn.

Sherry 1's avatar

That Jeff Childers sure knows how to connect the dots! Love reading his Stacks b/c of the way he ‘sees’ seemingly separate events as connected.

Shortstack's avatar

That is precisely the reason that officials who take the oath of allegiance to the country and constitution see the leaking of (mis)information as their currency to “shape” the narrative (i.e. create a fiction that the public and courts will believe) to gain and retain power and control.

Remember Boy Scout James Comey who wore his “honesty” on his sleeve but admitted he leaked his interview notes with Trump on his way out of office. He did so to create the fiction that he was terminated wrongfully, though his actions actually demonstrated he was unfit for office. He knew he wouldn’t be prosecuted, but still reeks of sanctimony every time he opens his mouth. Schiff was likely only taking direction from Pelosi, who was tight with Hillary.

reality speaks's avatar

I am with you until Hilary is paraded around in an orange jumpsuit with leg irons there will be no justice and this is all for show.

BD's avatar

Considering the 'show' hillary and the democrats put on for years, I rather like this new show...even if they don't go to jail. Destroy their credibility once and for all,

Hollis Brown's avatar

so they thought that leaking classified intelligence that was completely fake would somehow lead to Trumps impeachment and eventual removal? and that they would never get caught?

epic hubris…

Biff's avatar

Just a reminder that this would have gone nowhere if the news media did not hate and want to see Trump removed as much as the Dems

Coolidge’s Ghost's avatar

If the media had just done their job this would all have been exposed years ago. What a sad pathetic group they have become.

Heyjude's avatar

Well, they are the same people who thought Kamala could get elected President.

Alice Ball's avatar

Hahahaha, so true Jude.

Paul Harper's avatar

Agreed! Speaking of deep-fakes, tried to watch Matt explain Russiagate to Deep-fake Dunce Chris Cuoma (no link). Unwatchable.

Matt needs to bring John Solomon on to explain some of the granular details. Enjoy Megyn Kelly's meticulous interview with Solomon just posted. Must watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S71HngTx4fs

Craig Ryan Close's avatar

We used to call this activity the self licking ice cream cone.

Jake's avatar
Aug 12Edited

I won’t be happy until he’s wearing booty shorts and a doo rag and getting his pancreas poked in genpop on a regular basis. If democrats are smart, this will be their fall guy because he’s the absolute dumbest of the lot.

Greer Marshall's avatar

If I was asked, which two members of congress I would expect had leaked, I would have guessed Schiff and Swalwell, in that order.

Nonurbiz Ness's avatar

Another reason Schiff got a Pardon. Did Swalwell?

Nathan Woodard's avatar

uhhh.....as i was just saying...... :/

Rather Curmudgeonly's avatar

The only thing more despicable than Schiff (or Swalwell) are the people that vote for them. That is our real problem, not scummy politicians - Trump is one too, but it is the people that vote for that scum AND feel good for doing so.

Mary Orlowski McFerson's avatar

Shiff is a total douche bag!

Nathan Woodard's avatar

whoa whoa easy there.....lets not be TOO hard on those douche bags! After all they were basically minding their own business and just doing their job before this other whole mess got so out of control.

LSieu's avatar

Who sleeps with the enemy, peddle influence and remain on the national security committee??? Their hubris is beyond blatant.

Bull Hubbard's avatar

"Don't turn around uh-oh!/The Commissar's in town oh uh-oh!"

"Alles klar, Der Kommissar?"

Ann Robinson's avatar

Flamboyance seems the only ticket to the pen for politicians. Unphotogenic frumps like Schiff and Swalwell might be too boring to prosecute in a world run by "influencers" and media carnies.

Geoff Wexler's avatar

Nobody cares about propagated coldwar2 psyops. The key lawyers in the administration are all putting out level 2 intel crumbs on covid.gov while Les is the only journalist I can personally vouch for who isn't afraid to put out level 10 intel only the attys in the administration have to suppress as long as they can, which isn't very long...

https://open.substack.com/pub/geoffwexler946269/p/the-magna-carta-of-mrna

John Carlson's avatar

Russiagate is 10x as bad as the Watergate cover up. Involved elected and appointed officials need to be exposed, their reputations destroyed and, in some cases, spend time behind bars contemplating their crimes to the American people.

SimulationCommander's avatar

If there's no justice for this, there will be no justice for any of it. Covid, 1/6, the 2020 election, the lawfare to get Trump.

That's unacceptable.

badnabor's avatar

I do have to give Trump and his administration some credit. They pulled the plug to drain the swamp, it's just that swamps are ridiculously full of decades worth of s**t. You can clear the drain and almost immediately it clogs and stops draining. It's gonna be a long hard job.

SimulationCommander's avatar

Hopefully whoever follows Trump continues the mission.

5JimBob's avatar

That’s why the Dems will move heaven and earth to win in 2028. It isn’t that they’re merely afraid of going to jail. They’re done with democracy since it lets the troglodytes occasionally get in the way of their progressive agenda. See James Carville’s recent rant about the need to pack the Supreme Court and create several new states with what would amount to permanent Democratic Party majorities. In order to “save” democracy “we (Carville and Co.)” can never again allow Republicans to run the country.

Jonathan's avatar

This is why we're seeing re-districting (some cynics might call it "gerrymandering") in Texas and other red states. The fight for the future is getting intense.

Justin's avatar

Maybe there is a reason for Trump taking over law enforcement for DC... Indictments handed out and the need for crowd control against paid agitators.

Michelle Enmark, DDS's avatar

Definitely a possibility. Jeff Childers in Coffee and Covid postulated something similar today as well. He’s predicting action in about two weeks.

Tim Hurlocker's avatar

I regard Watergate as something done to President Nixon, rather than anything done by him.

John Carlson's avatar

The issue with Nixon was the cover up. Watergate itself didn't directly implicate Nixon I believe.

DarkSkyBest's avatar

John Dean testified there was “a cancer on the presidency . . .” This time it’s Stage Four and has spread throughout all of our institutions. How did this happen? We over-imbibed on freedom our betters don’t think we deserve.

reel life's avatar

Nixon to Dean: A million dollars[hush money]? I could get that. But it would be wrong[said tactically, not morally]. Nixon asked the IC to say it was a 'national security' matter. RN had unclean hands in the deal.

Bonnie Blodgett's avatar

Russiagate was first and foremost an attack on the credibility of Russia!!!! It was all part of the plan outlined in the 2019 Rand Corp. report on how to weaken Russia by expanding NATO in a way that would not be tolerated by the U.S. if it had involved missiles in Mexico. The crime against Russians and Ukrainians killed in this senseless proxy war is far more horrific than anything we Americans have endured. That we got suckered and believed the shit we were told about Putin by both parties (yeah, Hillary's a monster but who could possibly be worse than Lindsay Graham?) has cost us taxpayers trillions . . . but what about human life? How many Americans have died? With the exception of paid mercenaries, not a single one.

John Carlson's avatar

Yes, there are many innocent Russians caught up in this quagmire. Through the many voters who have a seemingly timeless need for a bogeyman, western demagogues and putin's actions together have caused innocents in russia to be viewed as evil incarnate by most in the free world. Sad.

Nathan Woodard's avatar

yeah. it's pretty crazy, right? But apparently the "nothing to see here" crowd is so obsessed with Trump that they have no issues with gratuitously launching a false PR campaign against a nuclear armed power with an Iron-Curtain Withdrawal Complex and a bad case of Perestroikal Fatigue Syndrome.

Larry Massey's avatar

Oxymoron 'free world'. What free world?

John Carlson's avatar

Rhetorical question most likely ... but in case it's not, freedom is relative. Anarchy might be a concept attractive to some, but it's not for most. What's your ideal free world? No parameters, no constraints? Could our current world be more free? Sure. A better question might be how much freedom can humanity handle?

Larry Massey's avatar

Free World. Much simpler than you want to make it. The Free World is controlled by elite manipulators pretending to care about freedom, truth, free speech, human rights, etc. but are indentured servants to Zionists and personal greed. Ted Cruse, Pelosi, Starmer, McCrone, now add Trump to that list. Actually it's

the whole lot of the West. It's a heart breaker to learn who the 'evil empire' actually

is...

Nathan Woodard's avatar

yeah. it's pretty crazy, right? But apparently the "nothing to see here" crowd is so infected with TDS that they have no issues with capriciously and gratuitously launching a PR campaign against a nuclear armed power with an Iron-Curtain Withdrawal Complex and a bad case of Perestroikal Fatigue Syndrome.

Nonurbiz Ness's avatar

OBAMA KNEW IT WAS A HOAX AND DID'NT SAY ANYTHING! Reason enough to never vote for Democrats again!

CC's avatar

There are SOOOO many reasons never to vote for a Democrat again.....

Jo Standifer's avatar

All Nixon needed to do was erase the tape. These filthy crooks didn’t bother to burn the bags.

Doohmax's avatar

They never named the Supreme Court leaker did they? Only about 2 dozen persons could have been the leaker. Should have been pretty easy. Why no consequences?

DarkSkyBest's avatar

BTW, where are the NY appellate rulings Trump filed for some time ago? Taking a long time.

Mary L Silverberg's avatar

Appellate jurists actually take their time time to analyze an issue according to the law, using reason and precedent—unlike district court judges who can make snap decisions based on “feelings” and what they wish the law to be rather than what it is.

DarkSkyBest's avatar

According to reporting on PBS.org by AP reporter M. Sisak in an article 9/25/24 entitled, “ 6 things to know about Trump’s appeal of his $489 million civil fraud verdict.” “. . . The Appellate Division typically rules about a month after arguments, means a decision could come before Election Day . . .” Following those court arguments Politico ran this story on 9/26/24: “Massive civil fraud verdict against Trump gets frosty reception at NY appeals court,” by Eric Orden.

So it’s been almost eleven months since arguments. Trump posted a $175 million bond that some NY public office has invested in an interest generating account. Please.

As for his criminal case, the HuffPost yesterday: “Convicted Felon Trump Lies About Crime Rate in D.C., Deploys Troops.” The criminal case is and always was a joke, full of reversible error. It has been more than a year since conviction. The trial was long and the record huge, but c’mon appellate court, publish an opinion justifying this. They, in good conscience, cannot.

BookWench's avatar

Everything takes forever!

Biff's avatar

Here you have it. This is the real reason for the whistleblowers report being released. "Plummeting (?) poll numbers and the Epstein files scandal. Of course! Now it all makes sense!

Schiff's office hit back against the report in comment to Fox Digital Tuesday afternoon, claiming it was a "smear" that is "absolutely and categorically false."

"Kash Patel’s latest smear against Senator Schiff is absolutely and categorically false, and is just the latest in a series of defamatory attacks from the President and his allies meant to distract from their plummeting poll numbers and the Epstein files scandal," a spokesperson for Schiff said. 

DarkSkyBest's avatar

Ha! That quote you shared from the Senator’s office brought back a memory of a Johnny Carson sketch about hooking up a politician to a lie detector machine. Just found it on YouTube — so good. “How to tell if a politician is lying—new technology.” Nov. 3, 1982. Schiff would burn out the connections on the first fib. He is so evil.

Doohmax's avatar

Schiff’s lips were moving, so…..

Biff's avatar

Thanks. I'll def look for it on YouTube 👍

rtj's avatar

I had just seen this in the tabloids. Remember NPR saying that they just listened to everything Schiff told them. Good riddance. Schiff as CIA director and Hillary as POTUS - double bullet dodged. Lock them up .

Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

It's stunning that an asshat like Schiff actually believes he could be CIA Director.

Timothy G McKenna's avatar

perfect use of the word "asshat" He is Schitt

Nathan Woodard's avatar

hahahaha i was just about to write "what a perfect use of 'asshat'"!!!! You beat me to it. :)

rtj's avatar

You'd think. But you never know with Hillary.

Sherry 1's avatar

Yah, you do know with Hillary. She is a Schiff on steroids.

BD's avatar

Well true, but they thought that about the political hack Brennan, and look how that turned out.

Robert Jiroutek's avatar

Much larger caliber.

SimulationCommander's avatar

First, as you mention above, we have to note these aren't proven allegations.

But the facts do fit perfectly with what we already know. Adam Schiff went on TV for years and said he'd seen "proof" Trump was working with Russia. It's EXTREMELY likely that once Obama was gone, Schiff simply started running with the Obama/CIA plot that had been ongoing since (at least) August 2016. He was one of, if not THE, leading voices demanding impeachment.

Will be very interesting to see how this plays out.

Roger Holberg's avatar

I don't remember who it was but back during Russiagate I recall someone on the Republican side said that as soon as a hearing recessed, Adam Schiff would bolt and run to leak details from the hearing to CNN. He's such a dick!

SimulationCommander's avatar

Back then I was still a media 'consumer' (mostly Reason), but I remember thinking that he was ALWAYS the one making the most outrageous claims. Didn't he even read a fake transcript of the Ukraine call?

MTC's avatar

He certainly did

Roger Holberg's avatar

Yup, he's the one. A real POS, and I don't mean Person Of Substance.

rtj's avatar
Aug 12Edited

Instead of pencilneck, I call him pencildick to myself because I'm 12 years old and it makes me happy.

Nathan Woodard's avatar

hahahaa good! you all--matt's readers, that is--are the BEST! :)

Nathan Woodard's avatar

your not wrong...... think maybe Devin Nunes or maybe Lee Zeldin but im not sure...

Vet nor's avatar

Yeah, but as Brennan said: it rings true doesnt it?

Ring the bell on Shifty Schiff

SimulationCommander's avatar

It's certainly enough to open up an investigation. If the operation was as expansive as claimed, a whole lot of people were involved.

DarkSkyBest's avatar

Lots of people lawyering up. Will all the small fish be willing to, ahem, hang together with the boss fish?

MTC's avatar

If anyone goes down, Schiff needs to go down

SimulationCommander's avatar

That autopen pardon is going to be very contentious.

SimulationCommander's avatar

OK so I got hung up on this, and it turns out the autopen pardon is completely irrelevant as it pertains to this issue.

The text:

FOR ANY OFFENSES against the United States which they may have committed or taken part in arising from or in any manner related to the activities or subject matter of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.

-----

Obviously this can't be related to 1/6 because this happened 4 years previous.

Dell's avatar

Schiff would have been smart to push for the ridiculous and hopefully unconstitutional blanket pardon others got.

I hope Trump challenges those so that he can’t do it himself and start a pattern.

Patrick's avatar

Daily "bombshell" promises from the pencil neck.

Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

Who do you suppose is going to pay for all the lawyers? Reid Hoffman? Soros's kid?

SimulationCommander's avatar

A PAC funded by a shell corporation owned by a fictitious person who's funded by ActBlue.

Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

And operating from either Panama, Bermuda, or the Caymans.

Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

SimCom, since when does our media require proof in order to make allegations? Maybe back in the day, but not in the past 10 years.

SimulationCommander's avatar

The media does not.

I, however, am stuck in the old days.

DarkSkyBest's avatar

When he was named Head Spook, his code name was going to be “Bombshell.”

Nonurbiz Ness's avatar

Going back over the way Schiff conducted the "impeachment"hearings should be part of the mix. He was as corrupt as they come

Kurt's avatar

Schiff sure looks corrupt. Need some pretty big and clear evidence to jail him. These releases are a steady drum beat exposing nefarious activity. I hope they fall like dominoes.

Patrick's avatar

Schiff looks like a lot of other things too.

He needs to be in a South Park episode too, mmmkay?

Matt L.'s avatar

Yeah, whose head is bigger, Adam Schiff’s or Wayne Newton? I think Trump at one point referred to Schiff as ‘Watermelon Head’, the guy with the smallest neck and the biggest head, which is literally every character on South Park.

Patrick's avatar

I was thinking along the lines of Mr. Mackey, being Schiff's long lost brother

Matt L.'s avatar

You made me think of Mr. Mackey ‘shit himself’ South Park scene, which might be what Adam is doing right now.

Noitavlas's avatar

I've watched almost no South Park, nor will I, but that Mr. M "shit himself" episode was hilarious - in my very limited viewing, topped only by Eric's "I'm Transginger".

Robert Franklin's avatar

The first time I saw a photo of Schiff, I thought, "He's the sort of guy who, if he moves into the neighborhood, all the mothers say 'Get the children inside.'"

Nathan Woodard's avatar

i would give a lot to see that episode. Matt and Trey if you are reading this column please hear our call!

John Oh's avatar

Thanks Matt for not letting this dangerous episode of our recent history fade away.

It is very likely that some of the "leaked" material wasn't classified at all and may not have existed in any governmental document. Just made up fiction. How criminal is it for Schiff or a staffer to lie to a reporter? To claim to have seen secure information that didn't exist? Is it criminal for Hillary Clinton to lie about Trump and claim he's a Russian spy? The real target in this must be the IC actors that took the loony allegations as fact and used them as an excuse to investigate the man rather than the crime. That's not lying to the public and the media, it's treason and deserves the most serious punishment. As much as I'd like to see Hillary and Schiff in jail, the focus should be Brennan, Comey, Clapper and maybe even Susan Rice and Samantha Power.

Matt Taibbi's avatar

Well, take the Steele stuff that Trump was briefed on. Made up, not classified, but what reporters were told was in a highly classified annex to a public report. So, clearly a crime, even though it’s bullshit. I’d argue it’s worse because of it - they used the classification system to imply importance and gravity

TeamOfRivals's avatar

And then presented it to the House for impeachment of the president! There's a crime in there, too, right?

VideoSavant's avatar

Among the multitudes that need to face consequences, we need to include Chief Justice John Roberts.

The CJ is directly responsible for the oversight of the FISA Court, and Roberts was AWOL the entire time and as far as I'm aware, he's never dealt with the misdeeds of that court, the perpetrators of the FISA wiretap grants or introduced any guardrails to prevent the same happening in future.

Trump should go after him hammer and tongs about his mismanagement of one of his biggest responsibilities as CJ. And keep doing it until John Roberts is a former CJ.

Matt L.'s avatar

Great point, VideoSavant.

DavidH's avatar

Don't let Lisa Monaco skate.

TWC's avatar
Aug 12Edited

They gave not 2 shits re: Twitter Files...they will give not 2 shits on this. We inhabit a world of outright Propaganda. The Western 'Left' (Dems, Labour, et al) care about nothing other than maintaining hegemony.

Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

I think your very nice English could give birth to a new contraction: gaven't.

I might push back a little on this only being the Left. The elites of both parties were anti-Trump for some time (Dems still are). And there hasn't been anything hegemonic about Labor since Taft-Hartley was passed in 1947, placing some limitations on unions. And they've never been in charge of anything. If they had, all their jobs wouldn't have been shipped to Mexico and China.

Outis's avatar

On a side note, Matt, I just wanted to add a vote to the, "You're pursuing the right stories."

There's zero lack of attention to the topics you seem to be criticized for not covering. Topics that I find largely unresolvable, having been aware of them since I was a kid in the early 1970s. Not to mention there's zero chance of not getting dragged into an interminable debate no matter what you do in covering said topics.

So, please stay focused on the topics you seem to prioritize, in rough order:

1.) The insane duplicity and corruption that was spawned in early 2016, repercussions from which persist today.

2.) The ongoing censorship efforts and attacks on free speech. This includes topics related to #1 above, of course, as the group-think propagandizing in major media outlets played right into parallel censorship and "narrative control" measures.

3.) The never-ending shenanigans of the financial industry.

While I still think we need a new name as "Russiagate" seems dated at this point, this is without a doubt the (second) greatest political scandal of my life (and I remember following Watergate as a kid).

(N.b., the "first" greatest scandal began with the assassination of JFK which began the "assassination season" of the 1960s. But Watergate is nothing compared to Russiagate, not to mention Watergate may have been a set-up.)

Tim Hurlocker's avatar

At first I thought Trump's DOJ would go after a few high-value targets, like Comey and Brennan, to make an example. Now I have the sense that he will "go big" and cast a much wider net. This conspiracy is far more than a theory, it's maturing into a long list of pending indictments. Thanks for your dogged help making the case, Matt.

Steve Smith's avatar

How many state secrets did Swalwell "leak" to Fang Fang?

rtj's avatar

Spoiled rotten for choice, but he gets my nomination for dumbest Democrat in Congress.

Patrick's avatar

That's a close race. Same in the Republican side of things.

SimulationCommander's avatar

It's hard because does "dumbest" mean "worst policies"? Because that's Lindsey Graham. But I don't think he's "dumb", he's just a warmonger.

Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

Some try to put off the rumors by having prop women on their arms. Others try acting like tough guys who want to bomb the shit out of everyone.

Neither strategy is particularly effective.

Patrick's avatar

More like dumb as a rotary telephone, like Maxine or AOC

Nathan Woodard's avatar

i'm sure i get measurably dumber every time i listen to either one of them...like i can feel my brain trying to commit suicide just to shut it off.

BD's avatar

If not the dumbest representative in congress.

BookWench's avatar

And didn't Dems leave him on the Intelligence Committee after this was revealed?

He should have been removed from office over this.

Feral Finster's avatar

Don't you know the "friend-enemy" distinction?

"For my friends, everything! For my enemies, the law!"

BookWench's avatar

"Solomon identified the other member as Eric Swalwell. . . "

Why am I not surprised?

I was, however, shocked to think of the possibility of Schiff being made director of the CIA.

Talk about dodging a bullet!

Matt Taibbi's avatar

It wouldn’t have been him. It would have been Michael Morell I think

SimulationCommander's avatar

I wonder if he would have leaked info that made Hillary look bad in retaliation for being looked-over......

Doohmax's avatar

Wolfe’s attorneys threatened to subpoena members of the Senate Intelligence Committee and just like that Judge Boasberg(yes, that judge) allowed a plea down to lying to FBI and a few months confinement. The more serious charge of obtaining and passing classified documents was dropped. Hmmmm. Why do the same Democrats keep popping up in every case detrimental to Trump?

DarkSkyBest's avatar

Exactly. BTW, is Leticia up for re-election in ‘26? The NY appellate courts may never rule on Trump’s appeals.

Lois Lassiter's avatar

Poppin popcorn right now.

I think there are some decent Democrats in Congress, I also think there are some lying ass Republicans to go along with the likes of Schiff.

I just want it all out in the open. They can go to jail or not, just need to be exposed and out of power.

rtj's avatar
Aug 12Edited

I just saw that Sherrod Brown is going to run to get his old Senate seat back. He's one of the good ones and I hope he wins.

Matt Taibbi's avatar

I liked him… serious baseball fan

rtj's avatar

Not a lot of friends of the working classes in office these days. He's one who is.

TeamOfRivals's avatar

Then why is he a Democrat? Can't abide any of them. They all line up behind Pelosi and Jeffries, puppets aiding and abetting the crimes, throwing women under the abortion bus.

rob Wright's avatar

Sorry, Matt. If you are a Democrat these days. You are showing a complete and total lack of judgment.

Jack Frost's avatar

Schiff was said to be “particularly upset, as he believed he would have been appointed as the Director of the CIA” had Clinton won.

And yet here he is as a sitting US Senator. The system is not acceptable until we bring back tar and feathering politicians in the village square.

BD's avatar

Well you will need to start the tar and feathering in California,,,home of the moron voter.