Congenital liar Adam Schiff made some fantastic claims in talk show interviews over the weekend leading Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) to call him “Adam in Wonderland,” an apt label for the truth-challenged Congressman. In an interview with Fox News’ Eric Shawn, Zeldin was asked to respond to Schiff’s remarks. Here are a few of Schiff’s most farcical moments.

When asked by NBC’s Chuck Todd why he won’t call the whistleblower to testify, Schiff responded, “We had a deep interest in having the whistleblower testify until two things happened. One, we were able to prove everything the whistleblower complaint said with witnesses that had first-hand information.” The truth is Schiff has no first-hand information. He is referring to testimony from U.S. Ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sondland. During questioning by Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), Sondland admitted his statement that there had been a quid pro quo was his presumption. This shows that the Democrats’ most important piece of evidence is not evidence at all. Presumptions are opinions, they cannot be considered first-hand information.

Adam Schiff is being totally disingenuous by using Gordon Sondland’s testimony to argue that there was a quid pro quo between President Trump and Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.

Sondland testified Trump “said I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo.” pic.twitter.com/10rFfXEPHh

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) November 24, 2019

Schiff continued. “And second, the president and his allies effectively put that whistleblower’s life in danger. The president said the whistleblower and others should be treated as a traitor or a spy and we ought to use the penalty we used to use for traitors and spies and that’s the death penalty. So here’s the thing, Chuck, we don’t need the whistleblower’s second-hand information anymore. It would only serve to endanger this person and to gratify the president’s desire for retribution.”

He’s referring to a September 26 New York Times article which reported on President Trump’s private speech to a small group of staff members at the United Nations which had been leaked. He had said, “I want to know who’s the person who gave the whistle-blower the information because that’s close to a spy. You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart with spies and treason, right? We used to handle it a little differently than we do now.”

According to the Times:

The comment stunned people in the audience, according to a person briefed on what took place and a partial audio recording of Mr. Trump’s remarks. Mr. Trump made the statement several minutes into his remarks before the group of about 50 mission employees and their families. Mr. Trump repeatedly referred to the whistle-blower and condemned the news media as “crooked” for reporting on an explosive complaint by the whistle-blower. The president then said the whistle-blower never heard the call in question.

First, the President was referring to Lt. Col. Vindman, who is believed to have provided information about the call to the alleged whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, not to Ciaramella himself.

Second, government officials such as Vindman are privy to a great deal of classified information and they are entrusted to keep it private. He was upset about the call and he voiced his concerns to the NSC lead counsel. He had no business telling Ciaramella about the call. Instead, Vindman is being celebrated for leaking.

Next, Schiff is putting words into the President’s mouth just as he did with his “parody” of the Trump/Zelensky call on the House floor early on in this saga. Trump did not say the words “death penalty.” He did not say we should execute Vindman. He may have inferred it, but he did not say it. Schiff is well aware of Trump’s propensity for hyperbole.

Schiff told CNN’s Jake Tapper that “public support for impeachment has grown fairly dramatically in the last two months…If there is not some deterrent, even if it doesn’t mean that the Republicans provide the kind of support for the Constitution that they should, if there isn’t some deterrent we can darn well be sure this president will commit even more egregious acts in the months ahead.”

There was a brief period of time, when Schiff was holding closed hearings and cherry-picking bits of information to be leaked to the public, that may have been true. However, more recent polls show that voter sentiment has moved in the opposite direction and he knows that.

Rep. Zeldin shot back. He calls on Schiff to release the transcript of Mark Sandy, the Deputy Associate Director for National Security Programs at the Office of Management and Budget which he has held back. Schiff refuses to release it, Zeldin said, because it explains precisely why there was a hold on funds to Ukraine. Zeldin added that if this transcript and others were to become public, Schiff’s case would fall apart.

Zeldin told Shawn, “We do have an overwhelming amount of evidence to why there was a hold on aide to Ukraine. I would call on Adam Schiff once again to release the deposition transcript of Mark Sandy. Mark is a dedicated career servant at the Office of Budget Management who came in to answer questions with regards to why there was a hold on funds to Ukraine.”

Zeldin said Schiff “really does think that many Americans are idiots” and that “he’s trying to pay off the people who put that gavel in his hand, who put that gavel in Nancy Pelosi’s hand. And it’s really infuriating a lot of us who want to see progress.”

Shawn pointed out that Republicans have the opportunity to present their case in a minority dissent report. Zeldin replied that they planned to do so, because Schiff is presenting 3% of the information, but “fortunately, we have the other 97% of the information to use for our report.” Here are Zeldin’s most relevant remarks:

If precedent means anything, back when Bill Clinton was being impeached, Ken Starr who was the independent counsel presented his case before the House Judiciary Committee and President Clinton’s attorney had the opportunity to cross examine Ken Starr.

In this case, if Adam Schiff considers himself the prosecutor, the judge, the jury, the witness coach, the chief strategist for lying and leaking and everything else that goes with his conduct over the course of these last few months in dealing with this, then that report that he’s drafting, he should present, in person, to the House Judiciary committee and then President Trump’s counsel should have the opportunity to cross examine him. Adam Schiff has some answers that he needs to provide. There are some questions that I certainly know some of my colleagues want to ask; the president’s counsel would like to as well. The problem is that his case is going to fall apart. It’s not just about protecting the whistleblower. He’s trying to protect his own hide. He’s trying to protect people like Lt. Col. Vindman who went to the whistleblower, obviously. And that’s where the case is going to continue to fall apart.

This Adam in Wonderland fairy tale relies on 3% of the story connecting dots that aren't actually connected, attempting to write the world's greatest parody ever. I'll keep doing my part to get out the other 97% of the story with facts. pic.twitter.com/poppJ7QQ2N

— Lee Zeldin (@RepLeeZeldin) November 24, 2019

There were several reports over the weekend that Schiff and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are considering not going through with a vote to impeach the President. Nobody can speak to the credibility of those claims. They’re in so far at this point, it might even hurt the party more if they backed out.

Regardless, unless Adam Schiff is lying to himself, he has to know how weak the Democrats’ case for impeachment is and how it continues to unravel by the day. He also knows that a trial in the Senate would become a trial of the Democrats and that all of his deceitful deeds leading up to and during the impeachment inquiry would be exposed. The first witness to be called would be Eric Ciaramella. The Republicans would call Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Lt. Col. Vindman, DOJ Inspector General Michael Atkinson, Nellie Ohr and the others who were on Rep. Devin Nunes’ list. Mark Sandy, whose transcript Schiff refuses to release, would also be called. Schiff, himself, would be called. He said he would refuse to appear.

He is keenly aware of how a Senate trial would end. He and Pelosi have abused their power egregiously and as a result, they are now faced with two terrible choices. Which one will they choose?