Adam Schiff (D-CA) appears to have doctored evidence that he cited in Monday evening’s hearing at the January 6 committee, just as Schiff infamously did during the impeachment investigation into President Donald Trump in 2019. Isn't tampering with evidence against the law?

submitted by Chipit from breitbart.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Trajan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

The problem is the punctuation was added to prematurely end that sentence. There was a clause removed from the sentence. There are also two paragraphs missing. Schiff is the David Barton of TDS.

Someone with his education knows that flooded should be used to indicate the removal of the final clause. Further, and honest person would know that removing context, presenting this as if it the message, is dishonest.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

dores it change the meaning? he was just reading it aloud.

[–]Trajan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

It was a presentation in which there was a mock-up of the supposed message. And yes, it does change the message. Removing the remainder of the message, or not even making it clear there was more to it, removes the basis under which the assertion was made. This'd be called out in an undergraduate essay.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

do you know what was said

[–]Trajan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Yes. It's in the original source and quite a few sites reporting on this.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

how is it different then

I read this breitbart and they don't want to say

[–]Trajan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It's literally in the article.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

ok yeah I know but from my reading it didn't change the meaning of this so I wanted to see how you interpreted it

[–]Trajan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It provides some rationale. Whether the context adds anything to to claim I'd certainly up for debate, but removing the clause from the final sentence was at best incredibly sloppy and perhaps the worst part of this. Omitting the paragraphs was also bad, albeit to a lesser extent if he would summarise them.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I feel it's not really doctoring evidence to just not say the entire thing, repubs can and should just read the entire thing if they feel that makes them look better.