Let’s start with two ingoing facts: Michael Goodwin is an excellent political commentator and he understands that adam schiff is a not-very-competent lying snake.
So when Michael Goodwin writes about adam schiff, it’s a pretty good bet that a very well-written take-down of schiff is going to happen…
…which brings us to Mr. Goodwin’s latest commentary.
Here are a few excerpts (but they don’t do Mr. Goodwin’s take-down justice, you have to use the link and read every word:
Say this for Rep. Adam Schiff: His imagination is vivid and he has a flair for the dramatic. If only he had more respect for facts and a tighter tether to reality.
While the vast majority of Americans found something other to do than watch the mind-numbing hours of public testimony, Schiff depicts the hearings he orchestrated as pivotal events in modern history. While Trump is in Europe dealing with crucial national security issues and is a growing favorite to win re-election, Schiff insists he’s doing “potentially irrevocable” damage to the system of checks and balances and is a threat to the Constitution.
“The President and his allies are making a comprehensive attack on the very idea of fact and truth,” he writes. “How can a democracy survive without acceptance of a common set of experiences?”
Fortunately, most Americans have more respect for facts than Schiff does and realize that impeachment should be reserved for egregious misconduct. To the fair-minded, the burden falls on the impeachers to build such a strong case that the appeal will be compelling and automatically cut across party lines.
Schiff failed to do that, and it’s not Republicans’ fault. He tortured the investigation process just as he now tortures language, but no amount of distortion and spin can turn Trump’s dealings with Ukraine into an impeachable offense.
Indeed, the proof that the hearings failed is that most polls showed support for removing the president actually falling after the Schiff show. That’s a flop by the only measure that counts.
Say, isn’t adam schiff the guy who told us he had “ample evidence” of Trump colluding with Russia – which, three years later, he has yet to produce?
Isn’t schiff the same guy who got in front of the cameras (his favorite place in the world) and told us his committee had uncovered “insurmountable” and “conclusive” evidence of Trump demanding a quid pro quo – i.e. threatening the loss of aid to the Ukraine unless there was an investigation of the Bidens….despite the fact that, when asked directly, not one witness had first-hand knowledge that any such thing occurred?
I’ll say it again: Michael Goodwin is an excellent political commentator and adam schiff is a not-very-competent lying snake.
If you didn’t know it before, Mr. Goodwin’s commentary should make you aware of it now.