We’re starting to understand even more about why Adam Schiffs-A-Lot is working so hard to pretend last week was some sort of a ‘win’ for Democrats. He must know when IG Horowitz finally makes known his findings it won’t look so hot for the pencil-necked representative from California.
Yeah, that’s sorta mean but to be honest, this editor feels sorta mean when it comes to Schiff.
Undercover Huber put together a thread about how even the New York Times is admitting IG Horowitz is likely to find some not so-great-stuff about Schiff and his merry gang of schmucks.
You wouldn’t know it from headlines, but even the @nytimes is admitting that IG Horowitz is likely to find that @RepAdamSchiff memo was wrong on Steele’s prior credibility
Because FBI/DOJ “exaggerated” and Schiff just regurgitated their claims, aided by Collusion media
THREAD
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) November 23, 2019
Schiff’s memo was wrong on Steele’s prior credibility.
You know Steele, right? The dossier dude?
Gosh, that seems kinda sorta important.
Here’s Schiff’s memo on Steele’s prior credibility, saying that DOJ used some of Steele’s prior reporting in “criminal proceedings”.
There was no direct evidence for this other than the FISA warrant saying so & what “officials” said, so Schiff was acting as FBI/DOJ stenographer pic.twitter.com/UV3lPMfR2E
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) November 23, 2019
Ruh-roh.
In other words, he just took THEIR word for it.
Sloppy.
NYT (even while still spinning for FBI/DOJ) says Horowitz “likely to conclude” the FISA applications “exaggerated” because Steele’s material “was never part of an affidavit, search warrant or courtroom evidence” ? pic.twitter.com/xcEYZQcdcV
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) November 23, 2019
When even the New York Times is reporting this? Not good, Schiffty.
So that’s yet another thing wrong in Schiff’s memo
In addition to:
—falsely stating the FBI didn’t receive Steele’s reporting until mid-Sep
—that Bruce Ohr’s role was “exaggerated”
—claiming @GeorgePapa19 met multiple “Russian agents”
Etc. https://t.co/2HvE3MshK0— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) November 23, 2019
Perhaps we should look for things Schiff was actually right about, sounds like it would be a far shorter list.
Predictions:
—This will have no impact on the “narrative” that Schiff’s memo was a perfect rebuttal to @DevinNunes memo (which the media says was full of unspecified falsehoods)
—Schiff won’t be asked a question about this by the NYT reporters that created this narrative
/ENDS
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) November 23, 2019
They’ve all gotten so damn predictable.
Related:
Join the conversation as a VIP Member