Adam Schiff Gets Publicly Humiliated

Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

( – During the House Judiciary Committee hearing, Former Special Counsel John Durham firmly responded to the probing questions posed by Rep. Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California. Schiff specifically sought clarification on whether the meeting between Trump Jr. and Russian individuals prior to the 2016 presidential election in Trump Tower could be classified as a criminal act. Referring to the investigations conducted by Robert Mueller and Congress, Schiff highlighted the alleged offer made by Russian officials to provide the Trump campaign with highly sensitive information that could potentially incriminate Trump’s presidential opponent, Hillary Clinton.

In a measured response, Durham acknowledged that his team frequently received calls from individuals claiming to possess such damning information. Seeking to shed light on the broader context, he explained that such calls were not unique and could be encountered by anyone involved in the political sphere, including Schiff himself.

However, Schiff persisted, seeking further insight from Durham. He pressed the former Special Counsel, asking if he was implying that it was commonplace for the “son of a presidential candidate” to receive calls from foreign governments offering damaging information about their political adversaries. Durham tactfully emphasized that he was merely stating that such occurrences were not unheard of, hinting at the possibility that Schiff might have been privy to similar situations.

Despite Schiff’s unwavering line of questioning, Durham remained steadfast in addressing the significance of the Trump Tower meeting. He clarified that he did not intend to downplay its importance but rather sought to examine the complete narrative. Durham underscored that, contrary to popular belief, there were no discussions during the meeting regarding Hillary Clinton. While acknowledging that the decision to hold the meeting was ill-advised and characterized it as “stupid,” he firmly asserted that it did not cross the threshold of illegality.

Throughout the hearing, Durham’s responses indicated that his intention was to provide a comprehensive perspective on the matter at hand. He acknowledged the prevalence of individuals making claims about possessing incriminating information and stressed the need to consider the entire story surrounding the Trump Tower meeting. By highlighting the absence of discussions about Clinton and categorizing the meeting as unwise but not illegal, Durham sought to offer a nuanced understanding of the events under scrutiny.

Copyright 2023,