Why Does the Media Still Quote Adam Schiff? Why Do They Not Acknowledge That He's a Proven Liar?

It seems to me they are quick to brand Trump a "liar."

Why doesn't Adam Schiff get the similar treatment?

For two and a half years, Known Liar Adam Schiff has been making claim after claim, accusation after accusation. The media has never branded his statements as being made "without evidence."

But the Mueller report now proves those claims and accusations were made "without evidence" -- because if there were evidence of collusion, Mueller obviously would not have said there was no evidence of collusion.

But the media never gave the "without evidence" editorial insertion to reports about Schiff's claims.

It does, however, slap a "without evidence" on Trump's claim that Adam Schiff has mislead and lied to us -- which the Mueller report actually does provide evidence for (by necessary and unavoidable implication).

Click on each individual picture to see Politico's headline -- which does not include the "without evidence" warning about Schiff's various bald-faced lies.

In the Wall Street Journal, Jason Freeman wants to know why the media is still quoting a guy who has lied to them for two years.

Is it because they always knew he was lying but were in on the lie themselves? (That's me asking, not him. And here's me answering: Yes, it was that.)

One might expect any reasonable person, journalist or not, to stop providing a platform to someone who had gone two full years without backing up a sensational claim. One might also expect a journalist to get especially angry about a gap of 24-months--and counting--between publication and corroboration. But Mr. Schiff is still enjoying generally respectful coverage, despite peddling a message which has become both discredited and incoherent in the wake of special counsel Robert Mueller's finding that there was no evidence of collusion.

...

He quotes the Washington Post, still treating Schiff as a credible source, saying that he's gung-ho to really get this investigation going now. Then he asks:

What's to investigate and why is he still posing the question, if he already has direct evidence showing--without a doubt--that the Trump team colluded with Russia?

He quotes the Post again, reporting that Schiff is ready to find evidence that Trump is compromised with All The Kompromat, and then rebuts:

What could be more deeply compromising than the direct evidence Mr. Schiff claims to have discovered of a conspiracy with a hostile foreign power to rig an American election? And if Mr. Schiff actually has such evidence that our republic is a sham and a foreign agent is in the Oval Office, why on earth has he been sitting on it for two years and why would he now agree to delay disclosure even further?

And then he questions giving an award to Tapper, Schiutto, Perez and the other one about their "in depth" reporting on the "dossier."

Which is even more laughable now than it was at the time -- and it was laughable at the time, too.

But I can't quote the whole thing.

It's one thing for the media to claim We wuz fooled by the Russia Hoaxers.

But now that you know they're Hoaxers -- you're still quoting them without alerting your readers to their prior history of lying and delusions?

The "We Wuz Fooled" Defense is now foreclosed. From now on, it's only We Wuz Complicit.

posted by Ace of Spades at 03:26 PM

| Access Comments