Schiff Under Fire — What He’s Hiding Now

Adam Schiff caught red-handed defending an actual insurrection while having spent years falsely accusing others of the same crime.

Senator Adam Schiff, the man who spent years claiming to have “direct evidence” of Trump-Russia collusion that never materialized, is now defending violent anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles while simultaneously attacking those who attempt to restore order. His latest controversy stems from his opposition to President Trump federalizing the National Guard to quell violence, with Schiff making demonstrably false claims about presidential authority. This pattern of behavior reflects Schiff’s consistent prioritization of partisan narratives over factual accuracy, raising serious questions about his credibility as a public official.

The LA Anti-ICE Riots and Schiff’s Shameless Double Standard

While masked rioters were violently attacking federal law enforcement officers and vandalizing property in Los Angeles during anti-ICE protests, Senator Adam Schiff took to defending what could legitimately be called an insurrection against federal authorities. The irony couldn’t be more glaring from the man who sat on the January 6 Committee and has spent years accusing others of insurrection. When President Trump moved to federalize 2,000 California National Guard troops to restore order after Governor Gavin Newsom refused to act, Schiff’s response was not to condemn the violence but to attack the president’s authority to protect federal officers.

“The Trump Administration’s calling on the California National Guard without the authorization of the Governor is unprecedented.” – Adam Schiff

This statement isn’t just misleading – it’s completely false. Presidents have federalized National Guard units without gubernatorial consent multiple times throughout American history, including President Eisenhower during school integration in the Jim Crow South. But Schiff isn’t concerned with historical accuracy or legal precedent – he’s concerned with crafting a narrative that suits his political purposes. The same man who demanded National Guard protection after January 6 is now arguing against using the same measures to protect federal officers being attacked by violent mobs.

Schiff’s History of Questionable Claims and Semantic Games

This latest controversy follows a pattern that has defined Schiff’s political career. Just recently, during FBI director nominee Kash Patel’s confirmation hearing, Schiff engaged in what can only be described as linguistic gymnastics, attempting to twist Patel’s use of the word “we” in a podcast interview to imply personal involvement in a recording with January 6 inmates. When Patel clarified that his use of “we” didn’t imply personal involvement, Schiff compared him to President Clinton’s infamous testimony about Monica Lewinsky, attempting to create a “gotcha” moment for media headlines rather than seeking genuine clarification.

“Yeah, and you’re part of that ‘we’ — right — when you say ‘we’ that includes you, Mr. Patel” – Adam Schiff

This obsession with semantic games seems ironic coming from a man who has repeatedly claimed to possess “direct evidence” of Trump-Russia collusion, evidence that despite years of investigations, Special Counsel reports, and congressional inquiries, has never been produced. The Russia collusion narrative that Schiff championed for years has been thoroughly debunked, yet he’s never been held accountable for these false claims that damaged our national discourse and eroded public trust. Instead, he’s rewarded with a Senate seat and media platforms to continue making unchallenged assertions.

A Credibility Crisis That Demands Accountability

The American people deserve better than politicians who twist facts and manipulate language to score political points. Schiff’s repeated pattern of making dramatic claims without evidence, from Russia collusion to his false statements about the president’s authority over the National Guard, reveals a political figure more concerned with media attention than truthful discourse. When faced with actual violence against federal officers in Los Angeles, Schiff chose to defend the rioters and attack legitimate law enforcement efforts, exposing his situational ethics regarding what constitutes an “insurrection.”

“Hmm, few things could convince me to reconsider my position more than Adam Schiff agreeing with me!” – Elon Musk

As Elon Musk aptly pointed out, Schiff’s position on an issue has become a reliable indicator that the opposite stance might be worth considering. The consistency with which Schiff has been wrong about major issues should give pause to anyone who takes his claims at face value. Whether it’s his years-long insistence on possessing evidence that never materialized or his blatantly false statements about presidential authority, Schiff has demonstrated a troubling disregard for factual accuracy in favor of partisan storytelling. It’s time for voters and media to demand the evidence behind his claims or acknowledge that Schiff’s credibility crisis is of his own making.