George Stephanopolous leveraged his War Room and Communications Director experience during Bill Clinton’s first term into his present gig on ABC’s Sunday morning news show, “This Week with George Stephanopolous.” Most people forget that the diminutive Stephanopolous has been a Democrat hack since working on Michael “Tanker” Dukakis’s 1988 dumpster fire (also known as a presidential campaign). And he’s been carrying water for Democrats ever since, especially now during his stint at ABC “News.” The notion that ABC fronts him as a “journalist” is patently absurd.
On Sunday, he set the table for his show by, among other things, asking a rhetorical question about whether Boris Johnson’s sweeping “conservative landslide was a warning for Democrats.” And there you have a perfect example of his inherent bias – everything is presented from the perspective of whether it is good or bad for Democrats. He just can’t help himself.
The man is insufferable, but I did manage to struggle through his interview with Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff (what a pair to draw to!). Some of the Q&A was ridiculous, other parts were humorous (after a fashion), and just about all of it was a continuation of the Democrats’ impeachment hoax that they are hell-bent on pursuing, enabled of course by Stephanopolous with his puffball questions. Here is some of the dialog:
Stephanopolous: when you first became Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, you set a very high bar for impeachment. [playing a video clip of a March interview in which Nadler talked about the need to persuade opposition party voters before moving forward with impeachment] Republican voters overwhelmingly oppose impeachment right now. Haven’t you failed your own test?
Nadler: well, I don’t think so. The polling shows that about 70% of the American people approve of this, but more importantly, this is a continuing threat to the integrity of our elections now. This is not a one-off; impeachment is not a punishment for past behavior. This president sought conspired to seek foreign interference in the 2016 election, he is openly seeking foreign interference in the 2020 election, and he poses a continuing threat to our national security, and to the integrity of our elections and to our democratic system itself. We cannot permit that continue.
[Me: amazing lies! Like that SOB cares one wit about the “integrity of our elections”! If that was so, he and other Democrats would be demanding the immediate passage of strict voter ID laws which would help remove voter fraud from the equation. But of course, Democrat COUNT ON voter fraud to win/steal close elections, as happened with their ballot harvesting tactic in California during the 2018 (they kept counting until they flipped 7 Republican House seats). In addition, it was Hillary Clinton, not President Trump, who not only “sought” but actually paid for foreign interference in the 2016 campaign by hiring the Brit Christopher Steele to compile an opposition research “dossier” sourced from at least one Russian, which was then used by her corrupt allies in the FBI and DoJ to illegally spy on the Trump campaign. Finally, President Trump asked for Ukrainian help in investigating what happened in 2016, which is well within his legal authority to do.]
Stephanopolous (turning to Schiff): …but right now you haven’t persuaded a majority of Republicans that it’s worthy of impeachment, and back in March, you also warned against it. You said “the only thing worse than putting the country through the trauma of impeachment is putting the country through the country of a failed impeachment.” If President Trump is overwhelmingly acquitted in the Senate, is that a failure?
Schiff: no, it isn’t a failure, at least it’s not a failure in the sense of our constitutional duty in the House. And I’ll tell you what changed my mind, George, because you’re right. I resisted going down this road towards impeachment But, it was two things. It was the discovery of the most egregious conduct to date. It was one thing when the President invited foreign interference as a candidate when he couldn’t use the power of his office to make it so. It was another when, as POTUS, he withheld hundreds of millions of dollars to coerce an ally, betray our national security, and try to cheat in the next election. That was not something we could turn away from. But there is one more fact that I think made it inexorable, and that is the fact that it was the day after Bob Mueller testified – the day after Donald Trump felt that he was beyond accountability for his first misconduct – that he was back on the phone this time with President Zelensky trying to get that country to help him cheat in the next election. That told me this president believes he is above the law and accountable to no one, and that this road was necessary, and I think it very much is.
[Me: amazing how this guy just keeps lying and lying! This is the guy whose 2018 “Schiff memo” has been completely debunked by the Horowitz report, who read out a parody version of the two presidents’ phone call before his own House committee, and who colluded with the fake Ukraine whistleblower and then lied about it. He alludes to President Trump’s joke asking the Russians to help find Hillary’s missing emails and claims that he “invited foreign interference” in 2016 while skipping over the fact that Mueller determined that NO AMERICAN CITIZENS were colluding with Russia at all. He further alludes to a quid pro quo that both presidents have publicly denied happened, including the supposedly “coerced” President Zelensky, as well as not a single shred of direct evidence was presented during his own tightly-controlled star chamber hearings that supported any of his allegations here. Schiff continues his false narrative that is unsupported by ANY prima facie evidence.]
Stephanopolous: … and I want to build on that point right there because I want to get your reaction to the fact that reports that Rudy Giuliani was actually at the White House reporting back to the President on his trip to Ukraine saying he was acting as the President’s lawyer collecting more information on the Bidens and Burisma, and he visited with the President on the day after the House vote on impeachment.
Schiff: well, this is exactly the problem, and that is the misconduct hasn’t stopped. That the President is out there on the White House lawn just a month ago saying that he still wants Ukraine to do this investigation, that he would like China to investigate the Bidens. The President’s emissary was in Ukraine just this past week once again trying to conduct the same sham investigation, trying to get Ukrainian help to cheat in the next election, so this misconduct goes on. The threat to our election integrity coming up goes on. It’s a clear and present danger I think to our democracy and not something that we can turn away from. Simply because the Republicans in the House refuse to do their duty and continue to put the person of the President above their constitutional obligation.
[Me: where to start? What “misconduct,” Shifty? Giuliani is the President’s PERSONAL LAWYER and is defending the President’s interests (he was the wronged party in 2016 as the result of Democrat collusion with Ukraine!). “Sham investigation”? That’s a laugh after Biden’s video exposed that he forced Ukraine to fire the prosecutor looking into Hunter Biden and Burisma. And then he repeats the Democrat focus group nonsense about “election integrity” and “cheat the next election.” Finally, the Republicans in the House actually DID THEIR DUTY by exposing the Democrats’ impeachment farce as the rigged star chamber that it was.]
Nadler (jumping in): This is a crime in progress against the Constitution and against American democracy. We cannot take the risk that the next election will be corrupted through foreign interference solicited by the President which he is clearly trying to do. It goes to the heart of our democracy. It is the heart of what the Constitution meant by “high crimes and misdemeanors” for the President to engage in self-dealing for his own benefit, to put himself above the country, and to threaten the integrity of our elections upon which everything else depends. It is a total threat, and we must meet that threat.
[Me: more complete nonsense. “Crime in progress.” Laughable since the Democrats’ articles of impeachment do not refer to a single crime allegedly committed by the President. Not one. I would further remind him that we live in a constitutional republic, not a “democracy.” The Democrats all regularly lie about that, too. Nadler tries to transfer Hillary’s foreign meddling to the President; she paid for the foreign-sourced dossier in 2016. And as for the “high crimes and misdemeanors” nonsense, Jonathan Turley completely destroyed that argument, as previously reported here. The rest repeats the false narrative of “election integrity” and “personal benefit.”]
Stephanopolous: we are seeing the first signs of a political backlash. Your Democrat colleague in the House Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey is now suggesting that he’s going to switch parties and likely to announce that before the vote in the House this week (he opposed the impeachment inquiry). Your reaction?
Nadler: well, first of all, what he’s reacting to is the public polling that shows he can’t get re-nominated in his own district (only 24% support his re-nomination). But more to the point, this is not political. We should not be looking at those things. This is the defense of our democracy. Do we stay a democratic republic, or do we turn into a tyranny? There are two questions that are implicated in all of this. One: is it okay to solicit foreign interference for your election campaign. Is it okay to use the power of the presidency to coerce a foreign government into helping you in the election, and to subvert the honesty of the election (sic). And secondly, is it okay to order everyone not to testify in order to cover it up? Those are the two articles of impeachment. If the answer to either of those questions is “okay,” we will not have a democracy any more.
[Me: now he’s gone completely off the deep end. This impeachment farce is ENTIRELY political! There is no direct evidence of any crime, and the two articles of impeachment don’t refer to any actual crimes being committed. The notion that not impeaching the President for these false charges means that the country will somehow descend into “tyranny” is simply insane. It is the Democrats who are abusing their power by pursuing a completely political impeachment – as warned against by James Madison – and as Jonathan Turley pointed out during his testimony to Nadler’s own committee.]
Stephanopolous: I know that Speaker Pelosi said that members are free to vote their consciences. We know that Republicans have targeted 31 Democrats from Trump districts. Are you confident that you have the majority to impeach the President?
Schiff: I am confident. I’m not looking to see this … this is a real vote of conscience. The real question is, why won’t the Republicans do their constitutional duty? What has really changed between now and Watergate isn’t the nature of the President’s conduct. If anything, this president’s conduct is far worse than anything Nixon did – far more sweeping in its obstruction of accountability, far more damaging to our national security than the cover-up that was Watergate. The question is, why are Republicans placing this president above their oath of office? I don’t think any of us have any question that, had Barack Obama engaged in the activity, the conduct which is subject of these articles of impeachment, every one of these Republicans would be voting to impeach him. And you know something, I have to hope to hell, George, if it were Barack Obama, I would vote to impeach him. This is I think the crux of the matter, which is something the Framers were also deeply concerned about, and that is an excess of what they called factionalism, but what we would call extreme partisanship, where it is more important to one party that the President of their party remain in office than what he does to the country. And that I think puts us deeply at risk.
Stephanopolous: the evil of Schiff knows no bounds. As usual he projects his own sins on his political enemies, the Republicans. His star chamber produced no direct evidence of presidential malfeasance, and his own party rushed ahead to concoct impeachment articles without crimes being cited. The Republicans during his committee hearings destroyed every single Democrat witness’s testimony, just as they should have. And then to insert the Obama strawman into his argument? Laughable! It was Obama who had the side conversation with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in 2012, promising him “more flexibility” after his reelection. Republicans should have impeached Obama for that (and other transgressions) but chose not to. And then he turns the Framers’ concern about factionalism completely on its head! The Framers were concerned that factionalism would result in one party pursuing impeachment of a president for political reasons, which is why they set a high bar for impeachment in the constitution. Schiff is a complete liar!]
Stephanopolous: let’s look ahead to the Senate trial. Sen. McConnell, the Republican leader, has been speaking out about how he’ll handle the trial [a FNC video was played in which McConnell stated he would be coordinating with the White House] It’s pretty clear that Republican leadership in the Senate are going to be in lockstep with the President on this. Is there anything you can do about that?
Nader: well, you know, the senators … the Constitution prescribed a special oath for senators when they sit as a trial on impeachment (sic) … they have to pledge to do impartial justice. And hear you have the majority leader of the Senate – in effect the foreman of the jury – saying he’s going to work hand in glove with the defense attorney, and that’s a violation of the oath that they’re about to take, and it’s a complete subversion of the constitutional scheme. We will have done our duty in the House to protect the national security of our country and the integrity of our democratic processes – what is really at stake here. I hope that, despite what you just heard, that they will do their duty, and will look into this and will see the uncontroverted facts. Remember that these facts are basically uncontroverted. The President solicited … he blackmailed a foreign government into giving aid to his election using funds that were appropriated for military aid to a country under invasion by Russia, and there’s virtually no controversy about that. And that he ordered everyone not to testify in order to cover it up. This is a subversion of the Constitution, a subversion of our democracy, and if he gets away with it, future presidents of either party will be able to … uh, uh … really change the nature of our government. This changes the nature of our government. Do we have a constitutional democracy, or do we have a monarchy where the president is unaccountable. That’s what’s at stake here.
[Me: Nadler is insufferable! The Democrats just turned the Houses’ historical procedures for impeaching a president on its head and conducted a show trial that denied the President and Republicans witnesses, and he’s complaining that Mitch McConnell isn’t just going to roll over for Democrats in the Senate? Give me a break! The Senate can set their own rules for the trial, including sidestepping a trial and immediately voting to acquit. And the baloney about “uncontroverted facts”? Maybe uncontroverted inside the Democrat bubble, but the rest of us who watch the impeachment farce in the House know that the Democrats produced nothing by hearsay and opinions while ignoring exonerating testimony from the only fact witness who had direct evidence (Sondland), as well as the public denials of pressure by both presidents on those two phone calls. And the baloney that we’ll somehow become a monarchy when President Trump is acquitted of the false articles by the Senate? Please. They tried that monarchy gambit with Pamela Karlan with her little “joke” about Barron Trump’s name, and that boomeranged on them. No one believes that nonsense, Nadler.]
Stephanopolous: … the Senate Republicans are coalescing behind a strategy for a short trial with no witnesses. Do you feel the need to call witnesses in a Senate trial?
Schiff: I think there are any number of witnesses that should be called in a Senate trial, and many witnesses the American people would like to hear from that the Administration has refused to make available, and perhaps of equal if not greater importance are the thousands and thousands of documents that the Administration refuses to turn over. I would hope that every senator of both parties would like to see the documentary evidence, would like to hear from these witnesses that haven’t testified, and I would urge Mitch McConnell to start negotiating with Chuck Schumer to make sure that those senators have a full record. But I think we see clearly what’s going on here with the comments of Lindsey Graham and others, and that is, they don’t want the American people to see the facts. They realize what’s been presented in the House is already overwhelming, but that there’s more damning evidence to be had. And they don’t want the American people to see that, and I think that’s disgraceful, but I hope that the senators will insist on getting the documents, on hearing from the witnesses, on making up their own minds even if there are some senators who have decided out of their blind allegiance to this president, that he can do nothing wrong, that he can shoot somebody in the middle of the street and they’d still support him. That there … these other senators will fulfill their constitutional obligation.
[Me: the projection and conflation of Shifty knows no bounds! After running a show trial in the House for three weeks during which he refused to allow Republican witnesses to testify, he has the unmitigated gall to demand that other witnesses be called during the Senate trial so that he can “go fishing” because his committee failed to produce any direct evidence of criminal conduct by the President. Sorry, Shifty; your committee failed to deliver the goods, and Mitch McConnell isn’t going to allow you to fish for ephemeral evidence that will lead to the President’s impeachment which always seems to be “just over the next hill.” By the way, it was YOU who didn’t want Americans to see the facts when you screened witness testimony in the House SCIF and refused to release that which was favorable to the President!] Finally, the senators’ constitutional obligation isn’t to impeach the President just because you say so. You don’t have a case, and you know it, and the Senate will fulfill its constitutional obligation by voting to acquit.]
Stephanopolous: do you have any evidence that any Republican senators are prepared to break ranks?
Nadler: well, I don’t know, and I’m not canvassing Republican senators, but I would agree with Chairman Schiff. It’s their duty to look at the evidence and to reach the appropriate conclusion in order to vindicate and to safeguard American democracy. It is disgraceful that the President refused to let people testify, refused to hand over any documents, and the Senate should certainly demand to see the documents that have been withheld, to get the witnesses. If they don’t think that there is sufficient evidence on the record … and I think the record is overwhelming … they should demand the testimony of, of, of, people Pompeo, Mulvaney and others … John Bolton … who on the President’s instructions have refused to testify.
[Me: when he says “vindicate and safeguard American democracy,” he is really saying “impeach President Trump regardless of the evidence.” The House Democrats refused Republican witnesses, and now he is crying that, because they’ve got no real case to present with real evidence, the Senate should simply open up to a Democrat witch hunt? Ain’t gonna happen, Jerry.]
Stephanopolous: … on the Horowitz investigation, they found that there were significant errors – 17 significant efforts and omissions in that FISA surveillance application for Carter Page. And you’ve received some criticism because of your past claims that there were no omissions. Quoting from the Wall Street Journal: “Mr. Schiff claimed DoJ ‘met the rigor, transparency, and evidentiary basis needed to meet’ FISA court standards. But Mr. Horowitz makes clear that FBI official didn’t even tell senior Justice officials about concerns and irregularities of its Page application. Would the court have granted warrants if it knew the whole story? We don’t know.” Do you accept that your original judgments were wrong, and what can you do about it?
Schiff: well, I certainly accept that two years later and 170 interviews later and 2 million documents later, the Inspector General found things that we didn’t know two years ago. And I certainly concur with the IG’s conclusions that there need to be significant changes to the FISA process. We just didn’t have that evidence available two years ago. But, I think equally important to those that have made the argument – including many that are fond of the Wall Street Journal editorial page – that somehow this (counter-intelligence) investigation was tainted from the start and improperly begun … driven by political bias … that is was all essentially Deep State conspiracy … that it was spying on the Trump campaign … all of that was debunked by the IG. The Wall Street Journal should spend a little more time talking about that in its editorial.
[Me: everything this clown says is bald-faced lie (not just here, but everywhere). Every single thing. The IG report completely supported the allegations made in the Nunes memo and completely debunked Schiff’s own memo written in response. Schiff had access to exactly the same information that Nunes did, yet lied in his “counter-memo” and knows he did! He knew about the FBI’s actions two years ago; he’s lying in claiming otherwise. He further insults our intelligence by claiming that the counter-intelligence investigation was not politically motivated and improperly begun. Horowitz himself stated during his testimony that NOBODY has been vindicated, and that while he didn’t find evidence of political motivation (because the witnesses he interviewed didn’t admit to that!), he doesn’t not rule out other evidence discovered in the future concluding differently (hello, US Attorney John Durham!). And the hubris of Schiff lecturing the WSJ on what they should include in their editorials. This clown has no business being in the US House of Representatives, except on a guided tour of the facilities.]
That concluded Stephanopolous’s “interview” of these two characters. You will note that all he did was tee them up with questions, and then let each filibuster without any push-back or tough questioning about their claims. Not a single question about classified witnesses during the Schiff show trial not being released, nothing about squaring the demand that the Senate call witnesses, nothing about the Democrats’ refusal to call witnesses requested by the Republicans, letting stand claims of “uncontroverted evidence” made by Nadler, nothing about Schiff’s totally discredited memo, etc., etc. This is how li’l George rolls – aiding and abetting Democrats and the Democrat narrative at every turn. It’s not worth a minute of your time watching this guy’s show, folks.