![]() If Schiff is a snake, Grenell is a mongoose. He secretly subpoenaed 1000s of phone records (Effectively granting himself the powers of a FISA judge, under dubious authority) and released private phone records of… among other people… journalists, political rival congressmen, and lawyers. (We would argue BECAUSE it was exculpatory.) And he forbade any witnesses in the defense of the President that were not ALSO on the Democrats’ wish list of witnesses. His secret hearings and selective leaks, while refusing to release transcripts for the hearings, even when they reportedly held testimony exculpatory to the President. In particular, his ‘parody’ phone call fiction, his whistleblower connections with a plan to reveal him, until his own connections to him became apparent. His role as ringmaster in the Impeachment Circus will be fodder for historians generations from now. And yet he refused to release transcripts of many of these interviews. He demanded hearing after hearing in the Russia case, putting people on the stand (and then leaking closed meeting info to the press even before they were over. He was smack-dab in the center of the alleged ‘whistleblower’ conspiracy that leaked THE Ukraine Phone Call to the public, his staff flew to Ukraine before the news became public, and met with people connected to Burisma. Schiff assured us that he had evidence of Russian collusion - which never materialized. He opposed Nunes releasing the truth about what was really happening in the Russia investigation, trying to block it, trying to demonize him in the public eye, releasing a counter-narrative memo that - eventually - was shown to be as entirely worthless as the man who wrote it, while the Nunes Memo was vindicated when investigations had run their course. He was almost certainly the source of leaks of classified information. He has quite contentedly used his party’s majority to shield him as he weaponized his power against his enemies. He’s become ubiquitous on cable news and Sunday morning political shows, sought out for his measured yet pointed critiques of the Trump administration.Schiff has enjoyed feasting on a ridiculous amount of power in his tight little fists. He’s become a party darling for his dogged pursuit of allegations that Trump campaign officials colluded with Russian operatives to meddle in last year’s presidential elections. One of them was Schiff, a soft-spoken, once obscure congressman who is now the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. Adam Schiff of Burbank told the Chronicle - prefaced by a long disclaimer saying he hoped Feinstein would run - that he would consider running for her seat if she didn’t.īut others, usually more progressive, grassroots Democrats, say she should retire, because she too often she sides with corporate interests and hasn’t been vocal enough in opposing President It’s hard finding a name Democrat willing to take her on. She should, her supporters say, because she offers gravitas at a time when the Trump administration is threatening to deconstruct government and social programs dear to Democrats. Should Feinstein, who turns 84 next month and was first elected in 1992, run? Dianne Feinstein running for re-election next year?Īnd only the bravest officeholders and party operatives dare to tackle - publicly, at least - the thornier question that’s rife with ageist implications and the potential for disrespecting a longtime senator: ![]() ![]() SACRAMENTO - There are two questions that California Democrats whisper incessantly, yet no one can answer definitively.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |