NOT EVERYTHING IS FREE SPEECH
The first sentence alone should see any number of high-ranking government officials held to account for their nefarious activities in conspiring to interfere in a presidential election and actively undermining foreign and domestic policies executed by a lawfully elected President of the United States.
|
The Russia collusion hoax is the single dirtiest political trick in the history of American politics. We now know that it was entirely concocted by the Hillary Clinton campaign and ruthlessly used by partisans in the FBI to affect the 2016 election and then to undermine the legitimately elected president of the United States. [OCS: I would not characterize the Russian collusion hoax as a dirty trick, but a concerted conspiracy to violate 18 U.S. Code § 595 - Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments.] Mr. Schiff’s active role in promoting this hoax is disgraceful and damning. But that is not the question before us. The question before us is whether a member of Congress should be censored and fined for speech, even outlandish speech, during the public policy debate. We have gone much too far down this road and it is time we turned back. [OCS: Representative Adam Schiff’s actions go far beyond the protections afforded by the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1).] The entire purpose of this Capitol is for the people’s representatives to freely debate the issues that affect the nation’s welfare. Except for the simple rules that promote civility in that debate, no one should be censored for errors of opinion or fact. The sole arbiters of these issues should be the constituents of the representatives, through the votes they cast in an election. The Founders reserved all legislative powers to the Congress because they wanted the issues of the day held up to every conceivable light and for every voice in the nation to be heard through their elected representatives. Unfettered freedom of speech is central to this process. We need not fear false statements as long as freedom of speech allows them to be contested by the truth. How else are we to separate truth from falsehood but to expose one to the other? How else are we to separate folly from wisdom but to expose one to the other? How else are we to separate malice from the better angels of our nature but to expose one to the other? [OCS: Members of the Obama/Biden Administration clearly engaged media propagandists to spread political disinformation, censoring legitimate news stories, and canceling platform access of dissidents, many of whom were speaking truth to power.] There are only two ways to resolve the differences between us. There is reason and there is force. Americans have built a republic of reason and the central organ in that republic is the institution that we are entrusted to preserving. As Thomas Jefferson said long ago, “error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is free to combat it.” Our oaths of office obligate us to defend this institution and to preserve the freedom to challenge each other in open debate. The elements in this resolution rely on coercion to punish egregious errors of opinion and fact. If we continue down this road, we will destroy this institution and the freedom of debate that is the most important tool we have to guide our way in an uncertain world. [OCS: No! Your oath of office demands you support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. This does not mean protecting a corrupt institution or corrupt members within that institution. It means acting in a fair, impartial, and ethical manner. It means calling out lies, defamation, libel, and slander wherever it is found.] We have already done so on too many occasions, and it needs to stop. My opposition to this resolution in no way condones so many of Mr. Schiff’s statements and representations in this matter. On the contrary, I condemn them strongly. It is precisely because of the freedom of Congress -- and indeed of every American -- to debate without fear of persecution or punishment, that his veracity and judgment can be weighed in the balance and found wanting. There is no greater disgrace than that. We can only disgrace ourselves by denying to Mr. Schiff the freedom of speech and debate that protect us from the damage such people as he can do. [OCS: It is time to stop playing by rules the opposition clearly does not respect. The time to take the fight to our ideological enemies is upon us.] <Source> |
What’s wrong with the opposition to censuring Adam Schiff?
Adam Schiff’s activities appear to go beyond the free speech and freedom from prosecution afforded by the Speech or Debate Clause to the realm of a conspiracy to interfere with a presidential election and participating in an attempt to bring about regime change by subverting the Executive Branch President of the United States. These are not “egregious errors of opinion and fact” but treasonous activities involving an attempt at regime change by attacking a lawfully elected president.
While the Speech or Debate Clause provides broad protections for legislative activities, it is not absolute and does not protect against the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors.
-
Handling of the Trump-Russia investigation: Schiff's involvement in the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election was neither impartial nor objective -- with hyper-partisan zeal and exaggerated or misrepresented evidence to support his position, Schiff often made unsubstantiated claims about collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Undoubtedly, the Schiff memo on FISA matters was riddled with proven lies and false statements. He did not grant the minority members of the Committee full access to the documentation gathered by the majority. He prevented minority members from revealing alternative scenarios and information due to the inappropriate classification of materials.
-
Impeachment Manager: As the lead impeachment manager during the impeachment proceedings against former President Donald Trump in 2019 and 2020, he led an unfair and hyper-partisan impeachment process, making misleading statements and selectively presenting evidence during the House impeachment hearings. Schiff's role in orchestrating the initial whistleblower complaint has never been thoroughly investigated. He lied about his staff’s involvement with the whistleblower, drafting the initial complaint, and the relaxation of complaint standards that allowed third-party hearsay testimony instead of first-hand knowledge. It can be demonstrated that Schiff made false statements regarding his knowledge of contacts between his staff and the whistleblower who raised concerns about Trump's phone call with the President of Ukraine.
-
Disclosure of privileged information: There is little doubt that Schiff leaked confidential or classified information related to the Russia investigation or impeachment proceedings to the media to shape public perception. The Speech and Debate Clause does not protect against the unauthorized disclosure of privileged or classified information.
-
Partisan obstruction and grandstanding: Schiff used his time in committee hearings to make inflammatory statements and obstructed minority members from conducting an impartial or meaningful investigation.
-
Defamation or slander: While Schiff has broad freedom of speech on the House floor, making false statements about individuals with malicious intent or knowingly spreading defamatory information may exceed the Speech or Debate Clause protections.
-
Actions unrelated to legislative functions: Schiff engaged in activities and made statements that were not directly connected to his official duties as a legislator and may be deemed to have exceeded the protections of the Speech or Debate Clause, especially in surreptitiously obtaining personal records of minority Committee members or other non-involved individuals.
-
Criminal activities: The Speech or Debate Clause does not shield members of Congress from criminal prosecution for acts that are illegal or unrelated to their legislative responsibilities. A member committing a crime can still be subject to legal consequences. Suppose Schiff knew about credible allegations of Bribery lodged against Joe Biden and participated in a cover-up or political distraction effort. In that case, he is clearly guilty of conspiring to interfere with a presidential election.
Bottom line…
Representative Tom McClintock is an example of what is wrong with Congress as the members on both sides of the aisle refuse to hold each other accountable for what appears to be treasonous activities and a silent coup.
I believe that Representative Adam Schiff acted inappropriately and unlawfully and that his actions rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors for which he deserves to be expelled from Congress, prosecuted as a criminal, disbarred, and stripped of all government perks, privileges, and pensions. All money collected by, or on behalf of, Schiff should be surrendered to the U.S. Treasury as compensation for costs incurred by Schiff’s Committees.
He is a slimeball that needs to be primaried and prosecuted.
As for the House Resolution, the fine must be omitted, and the resolution reintroduced. The fine is inappropriate because it could be used to drain opposition campaign war chests and further interfere with elections.
-- Steve
“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw
“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell “Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar “Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS