Adam Shifty Schiff Is Afraid He Will Be Prosecuted For His Crimes Against America While In Congress!

James Kaufman World News Report today, January 15th, 2025. God bless you and yours, no matter where you are in the world. Please subscribe, give us a thumbs up, ring that bell for critical future updates. Adam Shifty Schiff is so afraid to be prosecuted for his crimes, he wants guarantees. Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi delivered a one-two punch during a recent televised confirmation hearing dismantling Schiff's narrative on January 6th in his incessant praise for former Representative Liz Cheney. It is really Schiff's very own neck he is worried about, but he uses others as examples to see if Bondi would investigate him for his many crimes perpetrated. As a congressman, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Bondi, as you know, the Supreme Court in Trump versus the United States, how the president has absolute immunity to commit crimes in certain core areas of the president's responsibility. One of those core areas is the Justice Department. So in a breathtakingly dangerous and irresponsible decision, Justice Roberts and the majority held the president could commit crimes using the Department of Justice and be immune from prosecution. Justice Sotomayor correctly said, this new immunity lies about like a loaded weapon. So the fear and the concern we have is that the incoming president will use that loaded weapon, that immunity, to commit crimes through the Department of Justice. And for that reason, it is all the more important that we have an attorney general who has the independence, the strength, the intestinal fortitude to say no to the president when it is necessary. So my first set of questions has to do whether you have the independence to say no when you must say no. And you can say this is hypothetical, but it is not hypothetical. So let me start with one very specific non-hypothetical. The president has said Jack Smith should go to jail. Will you investigate Jack Smith? Senator, I haven't seen the file. I haven't seen the investigation. I haven't looked at anything. It would be irresponsible. Of me to make a commitment regarding anything without what you're you're a long practicing attorney without looking at a file. So you would need a factual you need a factual predicate to open an investigation of Jack Smith. Not a summary by you sitting here. Yes, sir. And not a summary by the president either. Right. Absolutely. So something by the president or his desire to investigate Jack Smith would not be enough for you to open an investigation of Jack Smith, is that right? I will look at the facts and evidence in any case. You know, 72% of Americans have lost faith in the Department of Justice. Sitting here today, are you aware of any factual predicate to investigate Jack Smith? Sitting here today, yes or no? Senator, I will look at the facts and the circumstances. You can't answer that question. You're not a part of the department yet. There's no worry about divulging law enforcement sensitive information. So just tell us, are you aware of a factual predicate to investigate Jack Smith? Yes or no? Senator, what I'm hearing on the news is that I know he's in the crime. You seem reluctant to answer a simple question. Let me ask you a different simple question. The President also wants to jail Liz Cheney. Sitting here today, are you aware of any factual basis to investigate Liz Cheney? Yes or no? Senator, that's a hypothetical, and I'm not going to answer that. No, it's not a hypothetical. I'm asking you, sitting here today, whether you are aware of a factual predicate to investigate Liz Cheney. Senator, no one has asked me to investigate Liz Cheney. That is a hypothetical. The President has called for it publicly. You are aware of that, aren't you? He's only worried about his own little pencil neck. That's the questions. They're all specific to him. But he uses others as examples, period. My question is this. Do you have the power to say no to the president? And what you're suggesting today by your non-answer is you don't have the independence to say no to the president. So let me ask you a different question. It also requires you, if you're going to be a good attorney general, to be able to tell hard truths to the president. So my questions now are can you tell hard truths to the president? So let me start with an easy truth that you can speak to the president. Can you tell us, can you tell him that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election? Can you say that? Do you have the independence to say that? Do you have the gravitas, the stature, the intestinal fortitude to say, Donald Trump, you lost the 2020 election. Can you tell us that here today? Senator, what I can tell you is I will never play politics. You're trying to engage me in a gotcha. I don't want to ask you a simple question. If you can speak truth, it's okay. So let me ask you another question. Like you did, you're probably the other newness. If you can't answer the question, let me ask you a different, what should be a simple truth, not a hard one. Was there massive fraud affecting the result of the 2020 election? Yes or no? Senator. I'm glad you asked that question, if you'll let me answer what I saw in Pennsylvania. No, I asked a simple question about massive fraud. I can only tell you what I saw in Pennsylvania. I know you want to answer a different question, but my question is, can you tell us whether there was massive fraud affecting the results of the 2020 election? Yes or no? Now, she's trying to answer, but he won't allow it, because he knows that there was tremendous fraud in Pennsylvania, And he knows exactly. Senator, as I said, the pardons... All right, the direction of the president, we will look and we will advise. I will look at every case on a case-by-case basis and I abhor violence to police officers. Follow up with that. So will it be your advice to the president, Mr. President? I know you said you want to issue hundreds of pardons on day one. Will it be your advice to the president? No, Mr. President, I need to go over them on a case-by-case basis. Do not issue blanket pardons. Will that be your advice to the president? Senator, I have not looked at any of those files. If confirmed, I will look at the files. And will you be able to do, will you be able to review hundreds of cases on day one? I will look at every file I am asked to look at. Of course you will. So will you advise the president? Can I answer the question? Well, my question is. I would have plenty of staff. You said, of course you are. You'll be able to review hundreds of cases on Wednesday. I'm not going to mislead this body, nor you. Let me ask another question. You don't want to ask that. Let me ask another question. You were censured by Congress. It's just like this. It will also be important for you to be able to preserve the records, the evidence of the department. Are you ready to commit that none of the evidence in the January 6th investigation will be destroyed under your watch? Senator, I will follow the law. I will consult with ethical officials in the department. Do you see any ethical basis to destroy evidence in the January 6th investigation? Then why can't you answer the question? Why can't you say, I commit to this committee, we will never destroy the evidence in the January 6th investigation. Why can't you give this committee and the American people that assurance? Are you frightened because evidence was destroyed against President Trump that was false? Is that why you're crying now? Why do you have difficulty answering that question? I can't believe you're asking such a question. Why do you have difficulty promising to preserve evidence at the Department of Justice? Why is that a difficult question? I will follow the law. It shouldn't be a difficult... So, there you have it. Adam Shifty-Shift is terrified that he might be indicted for his crimes against United States citizens and abuse of his power in Congress, period. And that was what those questions were really about. I think, as we all know. God bless. Share and subscribe. Always remember, anything's possible in the Bizarro World.