from
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/adam-schiff-steele-dossier-death-shame-jonathan-turley

Adam Schiff, Steele dossier and the death of shame in American politics
Schiff's 'Meet the Press' interview may be final proof of the death of
shame in American politics
Jonathan Turley By Jonathan Turley | Fox News

'The Five' blast Adam Schiff over bogus Trump-Russia dossier
Panel reacts to the congressman's credibility being challenged on
'The View'

NEW
You can now listen to Fox News articles!
Listen to this article
0:00 / 6:56
1X SpeechKit

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:

"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.

Morgan Ortagus talks 'The View' confrontation with Adam Schiff over
Steele dossier Video

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.

The Russian collusion scandal was not some harmless political ploy.
Lives were destroyed.

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.

Turley: Russia probe indictment gives new insight into what Durham knows
Video

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.

Fmr. Rep. Collins: Apology to Donald Trump will come in Durham
investigation Video

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.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JONATHAN TURLEY

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at
George Washington University and a practicing criminal defense attorney.
He is a Fox News contributor.