For those who have wondered how Dems maintain loyalty in the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi just gave us a partial answer, at least.
In a March 1 WAPO piece, Mike DiBonis wrote that in a closed caucus, Speaker Pelosi spread her wrath amongst straying moderate members, and she demanded they stop voting with Republicans, and she hinted darkly about the availability of campaign financing down the road, commenting further about some choice committee assignments the strays held. Said WAPO, it was all about, “twenty-six moderate Democrats (who) joined Republicans in … adding a provision requiring that ICE be notified if an illegal immigrant seeks to purchase a gun.”
Note for the record: Pelosi was threatening these two dozen moderate members for having voted the way their constituents would have wanted. Would Dems have preferred illegals successfully buying guns? The answer appears to be, “Yes!” In the same WAPO piece, it was reported AOC threatened to put the strays “on a list.”
Someone Pelosi and AOC need not worry about is Adam Schiff, a member of Congress since 2001, and Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee since January 2019, and a man who has made it his business to wage jihad against President Trump any way he can. In a February 14th USA Today article, Erin Kelly reported that, “Schiff said there is evidence — heard by the committee behind closed doors —that he can't talk about publicly because it remains classified.” Then, he listed unsubstantiated teases about “meetings” possibly incriminating any number of Trump people.
Three days later, in The Hill, Michael Burke wrote:
“… Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is pushing back against Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr’s (R-N.C.) assertion that the Senate panel has not found evidence of collusion between President Trump’s campaign and Russia.
Schiff said Sunday on CNN's ‘State of the Union’ that there is ‘pretty compelling evidence’ of collusion during the 2016 election.
‘You can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion, pretty compelling evidence. Now, there's a difference between seeing evidence of collusion and being able to prove a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt,’ Schiff said.”
See what happens next, as reported by The Boston Herald on February 24th:
“Adam Schiff is so desperate to find any shred of evidence to validate Democrats ‘red scare’ conspiracy theories that his 2016 campaign colluded with Russia during the last presidential election that he is now threatening legal action against special counsel Bob Mueller.”
All along, Schiff had been saying he had the evidence. Where is it?
All of this was repeated within days by Real Clear Politics, and probably, countless others. What’s “compelling,” and “in plain sight,” is NOT what Schiff alleges, but what Schiff himself is doing. He is using one of the dirtiest, most vicious tactics possible: Because he knows—from the classified information he personally heard—there is no probative, hard evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russians, he will endlessly repeat scattered pieces of suggestive but inconclusive information knowing full well the mud will stick. Evidence matters not. It’s how much mud he can throw.
Schiff’s despicable behavior is nothing new. Some with an eye to history might easily be reminded of U.S. Senator Joe McCarthy (R-WI), who took advantage of Cold War tensions to heighten fear about Communists in the federal government and its defense plants. In my mind’s eye there’s an iconic photograph of him is holding aloft a sheaf of pages alleged to contain a list of all the Communists working in the State Department. He never produced that list, but used it as a club.
On June 9, 1954, in the Army-McCarthy hearings, Joseph Welch, U.S. Army counsel, spoke plainly to McCarthy: “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?” It was a turning point. Eventually, McCarthy was censured by the U.S. Senate.
A line from Wikipedia is most apt: “Today, the term is used in reference to what are considered demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents.” This is not to address the question of whether Joe McCarthy was right, or whether his methods were questionable. But liberals love to sling accusations of “McCarthyism.” That being the case, Adam Schiff fits the very label they like to apply.
And so, history does repeat itself. Adam Schiff, partisan mudslinger that he is, isn’t at all interested in Hillary Clinton’s miscreant behavior, covered up by willing USG co-conspirators—and in fact, his deflective, phony accusations against Trump continue that cover-up, and the misdirection serves to further the party goal of bringing down a duly elected President of the United States.
In that regard, Schiff is in lockstep with nearly all the rest of the so-called Democratic Party, erstwhile Progressives, but now, unabashedly Socialist. They will risk everything, including America and its people, in pursuit of their objective.
Welch’s question is one for Adam Schiff, to be sure. Yet, pity him as but a pawn in the grand game of socialist zealots seeking power any way they can get it. Shouldn’t the question be better asked of Pelosi and Schumer now force-marching their members in a movement so destructive it can only grind them into the very mud they choose to sling?