190 Comments
User's avatar
Ruth H's avatar

Couldn’t happen to a bigger jerk. Would love to see Shifty Schiff in a perp walk, leg irons & handcuffs.

Expand full comment
Fred Richmond's avatar

Yes, do pay per view!!

Expand full comment
Texyz's avatar

RushLimbaugh would enjoy this news about 'PENCIL NECK'.

Expand full comment
Kidbuck's avatar

Yep. And Thank you, Sasha.

But we won't hold our breath that justice will ever be served. If so, we'd have been dead years ago.🤢

Expand full comment
PapayaSF's avatar

I think you are underestimating Trump. He wants vindication and a legacy, and taking down Schiff is part of that. He’ll offer him a reduced sentence in exchange for testimony against Obama.

Expand full comment
Carl L. McWilliams's avatar

Interesting posit you have, that Adam Schiff was an Obama confidant.

Ya think? I think BHO is far-smarter than trusting the feckless Adam Schiff on anything. Let alone a grand treasonous conspiracy to circumvent the US Constitution and the will of We the People in electing Donald J. Trump twice.

Given all of the "smoking gun documents" Tulsi Gabbard has released on the "Russiangate/Obama conspiracy; if Barack Hussein Obama does not spend the rest of his natural life behind bars in a federal prison for treason and conspiracy to commit treason, then there is no such thing as the "rule of law" in the United States and Ayn Rand was correct:

“When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing—when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors—when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you—when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice—you may know that your society is doomed.”

Ayn Rand; Atlas Shrugged, 1957

Expand full comment
Oakley's avatar

Love the quote. That's where we seem to be ...

Expand full comment
Kurt's avatar

I came to the comments with the same phrase in mind. You beat me to it.

Expand full comment
Danimal28's avatar

We have to honor El Rushbo here with his nicknames: Schiff = Pencilneck.

Expand full comment
R H's avatar

Please let this demonically possessed liar serve jail time.

Expand full comment
James Roberts's avatar

Wasn't he pardoned?

Expand full comment
Paul Scofield's avatar

Yes, but not for mortgage fraud. Also, some question as to the legitimacy of auto-pen pardons.

Expand full comment
James Roberts's avatar

Ok, I see he was pardoned specifically for his work on Jan 6 committee.

Also, somewhat interesting, it seems no one (aka Google AI) knows if he accepted his pardon, which legally required per Supreme Court precedent. Though Biden (giving benefit of if the doubt here) also specified regarding his previous pardons that they "should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment that any individual engaged in any wrongdoing, nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense."

Expand full comment
Paul Scofield's avatar

I see that Presidential pardons apply to federal crimes only. There is some question on the legitimacy of pre-emptive pardons or these granted for offenses committed in futuro.

Expand full comment
James Roberts's avatar

I personally find it preposterous that pardons be issued preemptively. That's not a pardon, that's immunity

Expand full comment
Paul Scofield's avatar

Agreed. Common sense and Article II, as noted below, seem to indicate the [Executive] Power to grant Pardons for Offences would be for those which have already happened:

SECTION 2. Clause 1. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Office, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States,

Expand full comment
Candis's avatar

Pretty sure they could nail just about everyone in DC for some kind of financial fraud.

Expand full comment
Matthew J Florio's avatar

Equivocation will not save anyone, especially Schiff.

Have you ever gotten out of a speeding ticket with the, "Everybody speeds!", argument? No. Nobody has, regardless of the fact that everybody does, indeed, speed.

Expand full comment
Candis's avatar

Oh, I agree. Just sayin..

Expand full comment
Matthew J Florio's avatar

Schiff has a piece of paper written on by a machine. Whether that machine's writing legally represents the signature of the President using the legitimate pardon power of his office, in this instance, has not been adjudicated.

Expand full comment
Ruth H's avatar

I doubt his pardon included RICO charges, conspiracy to commit the act of sabotaging a newly elected president, but I think it was ref the J6 committee protection.

Expand full comment
Dave F's avatar

If there is one thing a pardon should not do is wipe away TREASON!!!

All traitors must be executed

Expand full comment
Paul Scofield's avatar

Agreed.

Expand full comment
Ruth H's avatar

Not for RICO charges or mortgage fraud

Expand full comment
An independent observer's avatar

You are a dreamer.

Expand full comment
Ruth H's avatar

It’s my hope and yes my dream. Perp walk that POS

Expand full comment
shannon's avatar

Sasha, you’re correct in saying this is much larger than watergate. It is because it’s an actual conspiracy at literally the highest levels of government conspiring against an incoming president. In fact, watergate doesn’t even compare.

Expand full comment
Texyz's avatar

...and at least 5 Republicans got prison time for Watergate. I believe this is an important point to note as even greater justification to toss Schiff and others into jail. Since the MSM will lie to Americans that prosecution of all this stuff is a travesty, we simply point to Watergate and the fact that Russiagate is SO MUCH WORSE.

Expand full comment
JudyC's avatar

Over, and over, and over, this must be said. Especially since not a single MSM is going to do anything but twist this into Trumps Revenge War. Doesn’t matter if it’s treason, they will never acknowledge that. This is why the Court of Public Opinion is so important!

Expand full comment
Rebecca Reinhardt's avatar

I literally JUST finished listening to the John Solomon bombshell interview w Megyn Kelly and feel exactly the same way. Although it's hard for me, as w many of us who have heard John Solomon since 2016-2017 and Molly Hemingway and Catherine Herridge and Sara Carter for nearly a decade, we know the details of this story, every year more details get etched in, like some macabre political painting.

I hope there is justice soon. A decade is a long time to maintain hope for Lady Justice.

Expand full comment
Matt L.'s avatar

Jeff Childers speculates that [perhaps] Trump federalizing DC policing is in advance of some upcoming high profile arrests and potential for protest unrest.

Expand full comment
Candis's avatar

Thousands of sealed federal indictments over the past 7 years or so. There was a hacking attempt to get at those indictments just a few days ago. Somebody's concerned.

One can only hope..

Expand full comment
Libertarian's avatar

I heard that C&C stack and I hope he’s correct about why all the extra security will be needed. But I do worry that the reason might have more to do with something that will upset all Americans greatly; eg how savings are handled, how 401Ks are handled, etc. Note FDR outlawed private gold ownership in 1933. Hedge accordingly as they say on Zerohedge.

Expand full comment
Matt L.'s avatar
6dEdited

Jeff has become my go to for what Trump is really doing, since MSM will barely cover it. The new rule that the Administration’s political appointees must in-person or Zoom review federal grants is very interesting. If codified later into law, it’s a dismantling of the grant-industrial-complex. So is Trump returning meritocracy (testing) to new federal jobs, wiping away Carter era DEI hiring allowances. And then this week, Trump administration threat of Harvard - for government to audit their patents to ensure benefits were going to Americans (and not offshore), or else government would take ownership of those patents. This had Harvard sitting up straight in a hurry and now ‘fully cooperating’ so as not to risk losing those ‘family jewels’. Message sent to many other Universities as well of what’s in store if you F around further. These are not subjects I’m not seeing covered in MSM. But they appear to be truly game-changing.

Expand full comment
PhDBiologistMom's avatar

I know a bit about the university patent business. Can anyone give an example of a situation where the benefits of university-held patents went “offshore” rather than to Americans?

And the reason universities now get to own patents arising from federally funded research on their campuses is that prior to the (bipartisan!) Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, the government DID retain ownership of those patents and did absolutely nothing with them — they sat “on the shelf” benefiting no one. Universities have actually done a much better job helping get those patented technologies to market than the government ever did.

Expand full comment
Matt L.'s avatar

I’d have to research this but I would venture to say there is ‘a lot’ of US university patent benefits that have gone offshore, and did so via lucrative $ licensing arrangements. Probably pharmaceutical, defense, and other industries. I bet a government today with Trump business background could easily license patents just as well as a university. Harvard must have figured this out on their own when Trump threatened audits under Bayh-Doyle Act. I bet University of Washington, Cal, Yale, etc. also got a big wake up call today, as well. If Trump can successfully levy tariffs and bring foreign investment into USA, then I’m fairly sure the same government could ‘take over’ and collect on patent licenses to foreign companies. But this may be moot point now that Harvard bent the knee. Government may now drop the threat. But the threat is always there if University wants to FAFO.

Expand full comment
Libertarian's avatar

Hi. This seems to address your question.

“Exclusive: US government funding yielded hundreds of patents for China-based researchers

By Michael Martina

August 29, 20246:00 PM EDTUpdated August 29, 2024”

“Summary

Data shows U.S. government funding behind 1,020 patents for China-based inventors

Critics argue China unfairly benefits in fields like biotechnology and semiconductors

Data fans controversy around US-China science pact”

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-government-funding-yielded-hundreds-patents-china-based-researchers-2024-08-29/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20patent%20office,respond%20to%20requests%20for%20comment.

Expand full comment
PhDBiologistMom's avatar

Thanks for the link! Let's see what that story tells us. I'm not sure it does address my question; certainly, I didn't see any examples of any university-held patent whose benefits went offshore, just an implication that this may have happened.

Key facts from the story:

"According to the [US] patent office, the agency granted 1,020 patents from 2010 through the first quarter of 2024 that were both funded at least in part by the U.S. government and involved at least one China-residing inventor. The data does not detail whether U.S. entities or individuals share the patents."

But what does this actually mean?

The article does not say who OWNS these patents, only that they name (I assume that's what they mean by "involved") at least one inventor whose listed residence is in China. Note that most patents aren't owned or controlled by their inventors; they're generally owned by whoever employed the inventors at the time of invention. The article doesn't say whether any of these patents are owned by universities (though it's likely at least some are).

How might a US patent end up both covering research "funded at least in part by the U.S. government" and involving "at least one China-residing inventor"? Here are a couple of possibilities:

1. A US university or corporate research lab received funding from a US federal agency (e.g., NSF, NASA, DOD, NIH), and collaborated with a Chinese entity (university or corporate research lab), and an invention arose from the collaboration that involved inventors from both the US and the Chinese labs. A patent covering this invention would be jointly owned by the US and the Chinese entities in question, one or both of which may be a university.

2. A Chinese student worked on a federally-funded research project at a university (likely, but not necessarily, in the US; some US federal agency research funding does go to foreign organizations), and his or her permanent address in China (rather than his/her local address) was listed in a patent application covering an invention that came from the project. A patent covering this invention would be owned by the university in question (which may be in the US or abroad, including possibly China).

So, just having a "Chinese-residing inventor" does not necessarily imply that any "Chinese entity" has ownership or control of the patent in question. Note that in the second case, it's quite possible that the patent is entirely owned and controlled by a US university.

Now, for any given such patent, who "benefits" from it?

Many (most?) patents don't end up "benefiting" anyone, and in fact cost their owners more than they return. The point of a patent is to give its owner (or a licensee) a period of exclusivity where the patented invention can be commercialized without competition from others. But there are plenty of patents out there that no one ever profits from. The article says the USPTO data does not "disclose specific projects or patents," so there's no way to know if any particularly valuable patents are in that list, or who may have benefited from them, in China or elsewhere.

As helpful context, this NSF report (https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20241/invention-indicators-protecting-useful-ideas) has a nice graph showing issued patents and their ownership from 2002 through 2022. From 2010 through 2022, the USPTO issued 200k-350k patents/year. Let's assume that averages out to about 275k/year, in which case, 2010 through 2024Q1 would be almost 4M issued US patents. It looks like 4k-8k/year went to "US academic" entities, so about 80k over the period in the article. Now, I'm not a big fan of the argument that just because something happens only rarely it shouldn't be a concern. So I'm not going to belabor the point that this issue (if it even is an issue, as argued above) apparently affects only about 0.01% of US patents.

Now, might it be the case that "Chinese entities" are benefiting from US federally-funded research? Almost certainly. But I don't think it's by way of Chinese inventors being named on the occasional US federally-funded patent. Industrial espionage (e.g., theft of trade secrets), patent infringement, or just the leveraging of published but unpatented federally-funded research can all create benefits for Chinese entities, illegitimately or legitimately. Also: it's not necessarily a zero sum game. If federal funding results in a useful invention, and it happens to be a Chinese company that turns it into an actual product and brings it to market, that may still be a net benefit to US taxpayers.

Expand full comment
Libertarian's avatar

Btw. I think Trump now fears MAGA more than Leftists. I notice also that Israel approves Trump’s deployment of military to DC.

“Israel Approves Gaza City Takeover, and Trump to Deploy Federal Agents in D.C.”. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/08/podcasts/the-headlines/israel-gaza-trump-federal-agents-dc.html

Note the way it’s worded; NYT sending out the message to the elite Jewish community; something big will happen and most average Americans, especially MAGA, are going to be outraged; but Israel has approved it.

Expand full comment
GabeReal's avatar

I have wondered about that exact thing…

Expand full comment
Libertarian's avatar

Gabe, when you worry, I worry.

Expand full comment
Joni Lang's avatar

"every year more details get etched in, like some macabre political painting."

Dorian Gray?

Expand full comment
Doug's avatar

Every time I think about how disgusted I am with the Democrat party, I think about how much more disgusted I am with the media and the “Intelligence” services. Total and complete clowns.

Expand full comment
Texyz's avatar
6dEdited

YESSS Doug, thank you. I've long said 'Its the MEDIA stupid.'. The DemParty only exists today cuz it is propped up by the MSM. MSM is seemingly more powerful than DemParty. While conservative media is starting to win the battle, we need to figure out how to drive a stake in the heart of the lyin' commie propaganda media......busy deceiving Americans AT ALL TIMES.

Expand full comment
Dave F's avatar

Here’s a serious and reasonable question: are members of media accepting classified leaks also guilty of treason? If the answer is yes— if found guilty— execution must be their fate

Expand full comment
Texyz's avatar

Good point Dave.

I got no problem wth execution for treason.

(Julius /Ethel Rosenberg)

Expand full comment
dave's avatar

The really dangerous American fascists are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power.

NYT, 1944

Expand full comment
Brian DeLeon's avatar

It’s been clear for years that Schiff is a pathological liar. He is sick and venal. If he isn’t convicted of any crime, I would be happy if he was removed from the Senate and was barred from running for public office forever. What a scumbag. And the idiots in Burbank and nearby cities voted him into office for years. California voters are useless.

Expand full comment
Terry Tucker's avatar

The California voters of the Democratic Party are a cult. They vote that way because they are all brainwashed. It’s useless to even try and have a discussion with any of them - they are intractable.

Expand full comment
Carol Tentinger's avatar

I feel sorry for his, lied to, kids, who ask him constantly, if things in the press are true. He denies, denies and denies!

Expand full comment
AncientViking's avatar

Oh enough CA voters are very useful. They do as they are told--like the lemmings they are.

Expand full comment
David White's avatar

Are the Mexicans who are the base of the Demo Party in CA on board with "electric cars or nothing"? I don't think so. It's a matter of time till the Mexicans do the math ...

Expand full comment
William Skelley's avatar

It is a very explosive allegation and you can bet the MSM will do everything in their power to discredit it. The fact that he is a registered Democrat and work for them should be enough for Congress to do a deep dive into this report

Expand full comment
AncientViking's avatar

Many of the rats will start to turn on each other now--and cut plea deals. The ones way up the food-chain, may look at taking a vacation in Ecuador. A very long vacation....

Expand full comment
Carol Tentinger's avatar

Maybe that's why they needed to try to break in to visit the prison in NJ, to see the amenities so they know how to pack!

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar
6dEdited

What is the ultimate penalty for a Senator who is caught lying to Congress (felony perjury like Steve Bannon), who divulges classified information to the public, who commits fraud on his mortgage, who lies to the public and slanders the President of America? Can that person keep their seat in the Senate? Or should they be ejected as has happened to others who broke the law? Article I, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution gives the Senate the power to expel a member, provided that a two-thirds majority approves the resolution. Do enough Democrats side with justice and truth and agree with the GOP to expel Schiff the same way they all agreed to expel George Santos and Bob Menendez (actually resigned)?

Expand full comment
Frumious Bandersnatch's avatar

Turn him over to Hamas.

Expand full comment
Art Eckstein's avatar

Answer: No.

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar
6dEdited

Why not? I don't see anything different between habitual liar Menendez (who is now serving jail time) and Schiff

Expand full comment
Fleecer's avatar

Live in CA and have watched how easily voters can be manipulated. Schiff is one of the biggest liars and con men to come around in my lifetime. A sad commentary on the 'democracy' he and his peers want to save. Shocking isn't it?

Expand full comment
Candis's avatar

Californians must be a different species, then. How can anyone even look at that guy, let alone listen to him and not get the ick?

Expand full comment
Roberta L's avatar

I lived in So Cal most of my life. Election manipulation has been rife for years.

As a side note, my husband received a letter from the California Voter Registration Board last January. It was to inform him he was being removed from the rolls, as he had not voted in any California election since 2022. We moved to NC in 2017, and notified the state at that time.

Interesting? It was to us.

Expand full comment
Sam McGowan's avatar

One can only hope, but he's a shifty little creep.

Expand full comment
Linda wallack's avatar

Some of us knew Schiff was lying off the get go. It's who he is, and his hatred permeated into the air waves. I hope that serpent-ette goes down

Expand full comment
Nate Hartley's avatar

Bring back public hangings. Traitor. Scum.

Expand full comment
AncientViking's avatar

Naw--I say they get tossed into a featureless concrete cube and forced to listen to Trump rallies 24/7....

Expand full comment
Joni Lang's avatar

🤣😂

Expand full comment
Paul Scofield's avatar

The third of many sons of bitches in the Biden regime which deserve Old Testament justice, as both an object lesson and as a warning to others, who would try to overthrow our Constitutional Republic. The first, of course, being John Brennan and the second, Alejandro Mayorkas.

Expand full comment
James Roberts's avatar

Oh, Mayorkas, not many people give me slime vibes like he does.

Brennan was Obama era, was he not?

Expand full comment
Paul Scofield's avatar

Yes. I am well rebuked. How about we add "Obama and" and correct regime to regimes?

Expand full comment
James Roberts's avatar

Fair enough! And while we're being revisionist, I'm going to amend "not many people“ to "no one".

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

When does Mayorkas face the music? So far his name is not mentioned by Tulsi Gabbard or Pam Bondi

Expand full comment
James Roberts's avatar

I guess he wasn't particularly complicit in the Russiagate affair. His offences were dereliction of duty under the so-called Biden administration.

Expand full comment
Karen Louise's avatar

Sasha, I love seeing you in my inbox!! Thank you

Expand full comment
Susan Vonder Heide's avatar

I am old enough to have been a young adult during Watergate and it now looks like child's play compared with recent scandals perpetrated by Democrat political hacks and their enablers.

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

Same....I was still 16 when the news broke. I did not know what to make of it but it seemed like a shark attack. Now that I know the details, years later, Nixon was a big nothing, guilty only of lying to the people, the coverup, something that today's Congress does constantly.

Expand full comment
Steenroid's avatar

His Dem buddies will throw him to the lions in a NY minute. Or Epstein him.

Expand full comment
Frumious Bandersnatch's avatar

From your keyboard to God's ears.

Expand full comment
Michael Arturo's avatar

The tide is shifting, so I don’t know how well the press at large will protect Schiff, of course, the Times and the Post, but what’s in it for them anymore? Also, I disagree that they’ve covered their tracks entirely on the two assassination attempts. The Ryan Routh one leads directly back to Ukraine, and they’ll get him to talk. He might even spill who arranged the first one that killed Max Yearick.

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar
6dEdited

Agreed.... there were too many coincidences in PA. The fact that the FBI quickly hid / destroyed the evidence is beyond suspicious. The fact that Crooks was spotted on the roof by many people and left there by the SS with two sharp-shooters ready to kill him is an indication the assassination was planned by the SS / CIA and the sharpshooters were there to eliminate the evidence, Crooks.

Expand full comment
Michael Arturo's avatar

My theory is that Routh knew Maxwell Yearick, a sniper who fought in Ukraine and whose body was disposed of to frame Crooks. If it had come out that the dead sniper was earning his living in Ukraine, far more people would have seen what was really happening in Butler.

Routh openly recruited conscripts, both foreign and domestic, and made no secret of his hatred for Trump. I believe he felt personally responsible for Yearick’s failed attempt and set out to finish the job himself. In short, they tried to kill Trump to stop him from ending the Ukraine–Russia conflict—a core campaign promise. Convenient or not, it remains a credible motive.

Everyone in Trump’s circle is aware of this, and the information will be released for maximum effect before the midterms.

PS. I see the failed attempts and those involved and the reason behind it, and the result and consequences as symbolic of the failure of the liberals in being able to execute or strategize on how to maintain their power. As if recruiting Kamala Harris itself wasn’t a significant enough symbolic failure. The real news is far too dark for anyone to consume and sleep well at night.

Expand full comment