CommentsVOICES-From 1987 to 1993, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was an Assistant United States Attorney for the Central District of California.
In other words, Schiff was a federal prosecutor. While many Congressmen are attorneys, few have been prosecutors at this most prestigious level. Thus, as the main prosecutor in the House’s impeachment of President Donald Trump, Schiff knew how build a case.
Rule One: Don’t Hang Out Witnesses to Twist in the Wind
One need no more prosecutorial experience than watching “Law and Order” to know that prosecutors are not supposed to set up their own witnesses for retribution. The harm that follows a faithless prosecutor who betrays his own witnesses is overwhelming. Not only is retaliation against the witnesses likely, the witness’ sacrifice comes to naught when the prosecutor drops the evidence gathering so that the case will fail. It is worse for the nation. When a prosecutor betrays his own witnesses, what future witness will come forward? The damage from Adam Schiff’s treachery stretches beyond the legal horizon.
Prosecutors Know How to Build a Case
All legal cases from small claims to impeachment of a President have a common process – the case begins with a foundation and then it builds from that point. For example, in a street gang murder case, the prosecutor does not stop with the witness who says, “Oh yeah I saw the defendant enter the house with a gun” and then refuse to call the witnesses from inside the house who can testify, “We saw the defendant shoot the victim at point blank range while screaming, ‘Die, Die, you SOB.’”
All legal cases require connecting the defendant to the wrongful act. This principle was most famously phrased during Watergate by late Senator Howard Baker (R-Tenn): “What did the President know and when did he know it?”
After Laying a Brilliant Foundation, Adam Schiff Abandoned the Case
Because Rep. Schiff convinced men and women of integrity that their constitutional duty was paramount, the House Intel Committee laid the basis for the additional evidence to pin the foul deed on President Trump. But Schiff stopped after round one. Schiff’s betrayal of Lt. Col. Vindman is particularly illuminating since during the hearing Vindman expressed the concerns of his father who had been born in the Soviet Union. Vindman believed that America was different.
"Dad, [that] I'm sitting here today in the U.S. Capitol talking to our elected professionals is proof that you made the right decision 40 years ago to leave the Soviet Union and come here to the United States of America in search of a better life for our family," Vindman said in his House Intelligence Committee statement on Tuesday. "Do not worry. I will be fine for telling the truth."
When Did Schiff Know That He Was Setting up Vindman and the Others?
As the House Intel Committee Chairman, Schiff was in charge of the House Impeachment fact gathering. The U.S. Constitution granted the House “sole power” over this phase. Not only Vindman but other witnesses like former ambassador to the Ukraine Maria Yovanovitch pointed to the next round of witnesses. Ambassador Gordon Sondland also testified that everyone knew that Trump was orchestrating an investigation into the Bidens for Trump’s own personal benefit. They are similar to the witnesses outside the house who saw the shooter enter the house, but who did not personally see him fire the gun or hear him later admit to the murder.
Is there anyone in the world who does not know that Trump is an incessant blabber mouth? One could throw a handful of darts into a chart of the White House staff and hit oodles of people who heard Trump make horribly incriminating statements. Of course, calling some very high ranking persons like National Security Adviser John Bolton would be the apex of the evidence pyramid, but there were many people of an intermediate level to be called to broaden the foundation for any legal fight to call Bolton and other senior officials. That’s what Ambassador Sondland was signaling to Adam Schiff. There are tons of witnesses to build upon what we all have been telling you.
The Big Lie to Justify the Betrayal
The Big Lie, which Nancy Pelosi pushes upon the nation, is that Trump stopped the House investigation. Trump’s objecting to witnesses is not obstruction of justice. Almost every legal case has parties objecting to certain evidence. Besides, just look at all the people who were testifying against Trump’s wishes. We know how Pelosi’s personal career ambitions require that Trump remain President. If the Schiff had honored the U.S. Constitution, then he would have persisted to use the House’s sole power to call witnesses over Nancy Pelosi’s opposition. Schiff even had Sen. Elizabeth Warren as a role model. “Nevertheless, she persisted,” explained Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in 2017 in censuring Sen. Warren for objecting to Jeff Session as Attorney General. In contrast, Adam Schiff ran away like a scared bunny rabbit (no offense to real life bunny rabbits).
What Did Rep. Adam Schiff Know and When Did He Know It?
Exactly when did Schiff know that he was hanging out Lt. Col, Alexander Vindman, Ambassador Gordon Sondland, Maria Yovanovitch, David Holmes, etc., to twist in the wind? Let’s see all the communications between Schiff and Nancy Pelosi about prematurely stopping the gathering of evidence. Did Schiff even bother to fight for prosecutorial integrity or was he on board the betrayal train ab initio?
Show Us the Documents!
Adam Schiff is again running for Congress, and if re-elected, he will be my Congressman. I voted for him before, but now I want transparency concerning his part in this debacle. Everyone has the right to know his full role in the betrayal. Why does Schiff get to keep secret his role in this horrible fiasco which not only betrayed these men and women of integrity but the U.S. Constitution itself?
Show Us the Documents, NOW!
Will Adam Schiff further succumb to Nancy Pelosi by refusing to release all the documents about his failure to conduct a competent impeachment inquiry? Let’s be clear: as House Intel Committee Chairman, Schiff had the power to call more witnesses. “Nevertheless, he gave up.” Why?
(Richard Lee Abrams is a Los Angeles attorney and a CityWatch contributor. He can be reached at: [email protected]. Abrams views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of CityWatch.)Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.
