Adam Schiff, Steele dossier and the death of shame in American politics 
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...yOh?li=BBnbfcL
                                                                              
   Court grants Legislature powers on pandemic relief spending
 
 
   
        
 The famous philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal once  declared that "the only shame is to have none." The problem with shame  is it assumes a sense of guilt over one's actions. In the age of rage,  there appear fewer and fewer actions that are beyond the pale for  politics. 
             
  
Take Adam Schiff and the Steele dossier. While even the Washington Post has admitted that it got the 
Russian collusion story wrong in light of the findings of 
Special Counsel John Durham,  House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff, D-Calif., is still  insisting that he was absolutely right to promote the discredited Steele  dossier.
 Schiff's interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" may be the final proof of the death of shame in American politics.
 
JONATHAN TURLEY: THIS LIBERAL THINK TANK KEEPS POPPING UP IN DURHAM INVESTIGATION
 Schiff  was one of the greatest promoters of the Steele dossier despite access  to briefings casting doubt about Steele and the underlying claims.  However, Schiff recently has attempted to defend himself by claiming  that Steele was a respected former spy and that he was lied to by a  Russian source.
 Schiff told host Chuck Todd:
 
CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER
 "I  don't regret saying that we should investigate claims of someone who,  frankly, was a well-respected British intelligence officer. And we  couldn’t have known, of course, years ago that we would learn years  later that someone who is a primary source lied to him. [Igor] Danchenko  lied to Christopher Steele and then lied to the FBI. He should be  prosecuted. He is being prosecuted. And I'll tell you this, if he's  convicted, he should not be pardoned the way Donald Trump pardoned  people who lied to FBI agents, like Roger Stone and Mike Flynn. There  ought to be the same standard in terms of prosecuting the liars. But I  don't think there ought to be any pardon, no matter which way the lies  cut."
 Schiff's spin is enough to cause permanent vertigo.
 Some  of us have spent years being pummeled for questioning the obvious  problems with the Steele dossier, including the long-denied connection  to the Clinton campaign. Schiff was the main voice swatting down such  criticism and his endorsements were treated as dispositive for media  from MSNBC to the Washington Post. After all, he was the chair of the  House Intelligence Committee and assured the public that our criticisms  were meritless and the dossier was corroborated.
 Schiff's spin, however, continues to deny the obvious about the Russian collusion scandal.
 
First, many would guffaw at the claim that Steele was and  remains a "well-respected British intelligence officer." Soon after the  dossier was shopped to the FBI, British intelligence flagged credibility  problems with Steele. The FBI severed Steele as an asset. Even his own  sources told the FBI that Steele wildly exaggerated information and  distorted intelligence. 
 Most recently, Steele went public with a  laughable claim that Michael Cohen, Trump's former counsel, was lying  to protect Trump despite spending years trying to get Trump charged  criminally.
 Second, Schiff ignored repeated contradictions in  Steele's dossier as well as evidence that the dossier was paid for and  promoted by the Clinton campaign. In 2017, even fired FBI agent Peter  Strzok admitted that "we are unaware of ANY Trump advisers engaging in  conversations with Russian intelligence officials" and "Steele may not  be in a position to judge the reliability of his subsource network." 
 Schiff  would have had access to some of this intelligence. Indeed, while the  Clinton campaign was denying that it funded the dossier, American  intelligence knew that that was a lie. Yet, until the Durham  indictments, Schiff continued to defend the Russian collusion  investigation and the Steele dossier.
 Third, Schiff attempts to  portray the sole problem with the Steele dossier as Russian analyst Igor  Danchenko. That is simply not true. Schiff was long aware that there  were allegations of misleading or false information given by the FBI to  the secret court. Indeed, the first Durham conviction was of  Kevin Clinesmith, the former FBI agent who pleaded guilty. Schiff was  aware that President Barack Obama was briefed in 2017 that Hillary  Clinton was allegedly planning to manufacture a Russian collusion  scandal – just days before the start of the Russian investigation. The  dossier was riddled with disproven allegations.
 Fourth, Schiff  states that he merely sought to investigate allegations. However, Schiff  was one of the most active members fueling the Russian collusion  allegations. Indeed, when the Mueller investigation found no proof of  Russian collusion, Schiff immediately went public to claim that he had  evidence of collusion in his committee files. It was meant to keep the  scandal alive. Schiff has never produced his promised evidence of  collusion.
 While Schiff insists that he was just doing his due  diligence in pushing for an investigation, the claim is not only  undermined by his refusal to acknowledge obvious flaws in the dossier  for years but his opposition to the investigation by John Durham.  Indeed, while Schiff insists that he is glad to see people like  Danchenko prosecuted, he opposed the continuation of this and other  investigations.
 Schiff told MSNBC that ongoing investigations  would constitute "tearing down our democracy" and would serve as a way  to "delegitimize" a president. Schiff denounced the Durham investigation  as a "politically motivated" effort and resisted demands from Trump to  issue a report before the election. Schiff raised the termination of the  Durham investigation by Attorney General Merrick  Garland before Durham  could issue any indictments or reports.  
 He added, "The  appointment is not consistent with the language of the statute that he’s  relying on and can be rescinded, I think, by the next attorney general.  I would presume the next attorney general will look to see if there is  any merit to the work that John Durham is doing."
 So Schiff is  now heralding indictments by Durham despite the fact that, if he had  gotten his way, there would have been no Durham and no indictments.
 The  Russian collusion scandal was not some harmless political ploy. Lives  were destroyed. Carter Page, who was never charged with a single crime,  was labeled a Russian agent and pilloried across networks and print  media. A fortune was spent on investigations by Congress, two special  counsels, and inspectors general investigations. Hundreds of people  faced questioning and many spent their savings on legal representation. A  presidency was derailed, agencies like the Justice Department and the  FBI were whiplashed by scandal, and Congress dropped a myriad of other  issues to focus on various investigations.
 In the wake of those costs, Schiff offers little more than a shrug.
 Many  have long marveled at the incapacity for shame in politicians. That  missing emotion was most famously captured by lawyer Joseph Welch in the  Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954: "Have you no shame, sir, at long last?  Have you no shame?" 
 The answer is that we now live in a  post-shame era where the only shame is yielding to the impulses of  decency or decorum. The Russian collusion scandal served its purpose and  Adam Schiff would be the first say that there is no shame in that.
addendum - and comment 
Schiff Lies - same as all democraticommunist politicos 
and teh proletariat - indoctrinated by LSM - are unable to see Truth. 
when the nomenklatura  install marxist tyranny - it will come back to bite teh proletariat on their collective butt. 
Hard!