Talk:Adam Schiff/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Adam Schiff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Trump Investigation

His role in the investigation is lacking. There is a great deal of information missing. On a side note; "His role in the Attorney's Office in Los Angeles for prosecuting the first FBI agent ever to be indicted for espionage."Shall I add the section?--Wikipietime (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Which law firm did Schiff work for coming out of Law School, NHS member?, scholarships? Is this page damaged from Impeachment hearings? This is a former US Attorney not lacking a mandate! Harddrive12 (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your point. O3000 (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Are you a bot? Are there any past pages identifying any law firms he was hired at coming out of law school? He didn't just show up to the US Attorneys office with the clothes on his back? He has a three year span before he started with the US Attorneys office to be accounted for!

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Adam Schiff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Height?

How tall is little Adam Schiff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.15.81.6 (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

5 feet 10 1/2 inches, according to Schiff himself.
Billmckern (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

"Celebrity Status" and cable news appearances

@Objective3000: I see you have removed the material sourced to the partisan The Washington Times, but also removed the material sourced to the partisan CNN. I have restored the CNN material as you did not mention that in your edit summary. For the Washington Times piece, are you insinuating that the findings of the study were falsified in any way? I looked for any rebuttal or correction from the Schiff camp and found none. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

To add: USAToday cited a piece published by the Free Beacon last year,[1] reporting that Schiff appeared on television 123 times between Jan 2017 and Jul 2017. USAToday is generally considered fairly centrist. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
The WT article is a pure political smear, which they are known for, based on another pure political smear. It repeats stats from an anonymous researcher from the opposing party with no context. The USAToday article is about an attack from the WH which includes the moniker: "Sleazy Adam Schiff”. But the paper says about the data: “The story does not specify the origin of the report.” That is, data from another anonymous source used by the White House is a churlish personal attack. What purpose does this serve in an encyclopedia BLP? I also don’t think the “has been described” comment is DUE. It’s just a comment from a talking head. O3000 (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I admit that it's strange that nobody was able to track down the origin of the tracking report, but USAToday (undoubtedly a RS) found it fit for reprinting, unlike studies from conspiracy theory websites such as InfoWars or Democratic Underground. The reason I find this notable enough for inclusion is Adam Schiff's distinction of appearing on television more than any United States congressperson. That's notable in itself, but the fact that he has spent 52 times as much time appearing on CNN and MSNBC than on the Capitol Hill floor is simply too significant to ignore. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
First, I see no reason to believe those stats. And, I have no idea how they match against other Congressmen. I do know that Schiff is the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence which is very heavily in the news at this point in time, and that the Chairman has attempted to blunt the voices of the Democrats on that panel. So, it’s hardly surprising that he would be on news programs speaking for the Democratic members. As I said, the articles mention NO context. I have also changed the heading in this section to improve neutrality. O3000 (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I really hate to be a stickler but I would prefer it if you could please revert that edit and not edit my talk page comments in the future, in accordance with WP:TPO. I also think it would be helpful to provide a source if you're going to make a non-content related claim ("attempted to blunt the voices of Democrats") that could be perceived to reflect negatively on a living person. I'm not sure if it's our role as editors to make the call if reliable sources have sufficiently contextualized their news articles. USAToday printed it as Schiff's time on television is noteworthy in itself. It's also irrelevant whether his time spent on CNN and MSNBC is surprising, at least in the context of improving the article. Spending 52x the amount of time on CNN and MSNBC than debating in Congress is very significant for a congressperson, wouldn't you agree? Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Spending 52x the amount of time on CNN and MSNBC than debating…. Please don’t repeat claims from anonymous sources quoted by opponents of the subject of the BLP. USAToday did not print that this was true. It printed it was claimed by opponents along with calling the subject of the article a schoolyard insult. The sourcing is not acceptable, particularly for a BLP, and it’s not DUE. It’s just a personal attack. O3000 (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Incidentally, I did not change your comments. Section headings are not owned by the OP. O3000 (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
We're having a content discussion, based on two reliable sources. It also doesn't particularly matter who USAToday's source is. If we're going to outlaw anonymous sources on Wikipedia, we'll need to comb articles for any material sourced to the Washington Post, New York Times, NBC News, CBS News, etc. for any claims sourced to "anonymous sources familiar with the matter" or "an unnamed White House official." It's been established that anonymous sources are acceptable. We can get an RfC going since it's just the two of us right now, and this could benefit from input from other editors. Re: editing my comment, I did not know that about section headings! Thank you. Learn something new every day. In light of this, I have returned it to a more accurate summary of the topic. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but I’m afraid that you misunderstand anonymous. WaPo, NYTimes, etc. never use sources unknown to them or that they feel are unreliable. They simply do not reveal the sources when asked not to. USAToday specifically said that it did not know the source of the report. They were simply reporting claims made by the White House which included personal attacks. O3000 (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
No misunderstanding! Just a different interpretation. I'm with you in that I'd like to know the source of the report, as it would be better for this article to know who counted Adam Schiff's CNN interviews. I certainly don't think it's a personal attack to state the amount of times a congressman appeared on CNN and MSNBC. There is nothing inherently negative or otherwise shameful about being on television. Did you manage to find a source for your criticism of Schiff for what you called his attempted "blunt[ing]" of Democratic voices? I think you should provide it or perhaps remove that comment in keeping with BLP standards, while we're faffing about with this addition. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
This is a biography of a living person. I’m not certain why you want an out of context smear based on anonymous sources with some sort of suggested motivation by an opponent added to the article. Particularly since the major news sources haven’t bothered with it. Sounds like something Breitbart or Infowars would do, not an encyclopedia. O3000 (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
We've talked about this already. Reporters use anonymous sources all the time. We don't get to make judgements as to the validity of the RS reporting. That's not how Wikipedia policy works. If a RS reports it, it's verifiable. Stating the amount of times and total duration a congressman appeared on television is not a smear. It's not sourced to Bretibart or InfoWars. It's USAToday and the Free Beacon (both of which do excellent work), which you know, so please don't use straw men to distract from the issue. The fact that Schiff has spent 52 times as much time on television than debating on the congressional floor is notable and encyclopedic. I am also growing increasingly uncomfortable with your unsourced criticism of Schiff's behavior (here) that you still have not removed. I am hoping you will take action on this before commenting further. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
You still aren’t understanding “anonymous”. No, RS do NOT use sources that are anonymous to them. If they do, they aren’t RS. USAToday said it did not know the source. Why would we use data that the paper says isn’t verified? Why would you keep repeating unverified data? O3000 (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree with O3000 here; I am a big believer in "don't fisk the reliable sources," but where such a source (as here) explicitly points to outside verification, we should not reprint the claim citing that source. Thus I think the claim about TV time would have to properly be cited to the Free Beacon. Cheers all, and happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Note Mr. Daniel Plainview has been blocked as a sock puppet of a community banned editor. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Hill article about Schiff

Despite the light tone, it incorporates lots of interesting material. I don't regularly edit here, but this might be a good resource for others who do: [2] HouseOfChange (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Trivia/undue personal detail, don't you think? SPECIFICO talks k 17:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I thought it was interesting that his mother was a Republican and his father a Democrat. Aside from that, I mostly agree that the article already has most relevant stuff. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
That's likely true of 50+ million Americans. SPECIFICO talk 18:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

leave?

Why is Schiff "on leave" from the Appropriations Committee? 98.10.165.90 (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

House members usually serve on two committees, and one or two subcommittees of each committee. In the case of a major committee like Appropriations, senior members serve on one committee and multiple subcommittees. Sometimes, if a House member is selected to serve temporarily on a select committee, such as Intelligence, or is chosen for a primary leadership role on a primary committee, he or she can take leave from a committee assignment. That way, the House member can continue to accrue committee seniority and work his or her way up to subcommittee or committee chairperson or ranking member, in effect ensuring that there is no penalty for a temporary absence.
Billmckern (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Prank Call

There is a widely available conversation between Congressman Schiff, and an individual he believed to be a prominent Ukrainian politician in which the congressman accepts an offer of compromising information regarding than candidate Trump. This turned out to be a hoax call from what appears to be a Russian troll, however, it is quite clear from the audio that the congressman was not aware of this at the time. Considering his position as one of the most prominent voices concerning the Trump-Russia-Collusion investigation, why is the fact that he himself engaged in this behavior included in the article? Unless other editors can offer a justification for this absence, I move to include it.

This has been discussed elsewhere. It’s a nothingburger, which is why it got no mainstream press coverage. According to the recording, he listened and repeatedly asked for details and evidence to provide to the FBI, saying “I’ll be in touch with the FBI about this.” His spokesman later said he had a feeling all along that the call was bogus but “as with any investigation that is global in scale, we have to chase any number of leads, many of which turn out to be duds”. [3] -- MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course it should be included. Adam Schiff tried to collude with the Russians to get dirt on Trump. That's a fact. Luckily for America, it was just radio hosts and not the Kremlin operatives that he thought he was dealing with. This is Wikipedia though, and this is deep blue territory. I was going to add the fact that he has faced calls for his resignation and for him to step down from his committee chairmanship after it was discovered that his collusion conspiracy theory was just that, but he has friends here that are protecting his page.Galathadael (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Galathadael, Schiff did not try to collude with Russians. The psychological projection in that statement is impressive. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Allegations of lying.

The article should include a discussion of the allegations that Schiff has lied publicly in connection with the investigations in which he is involved. ---Dagme (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Dagme, no, it shouldn't. We do not exist to regurgitate Fox News talking points that have no merit. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Links to non-Fox News articles discussing how Schiff lied. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/oct/04/adam-schiff/adam-schiffs-false-claim-we-have-not-spoken-direct/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/13/factcheck-adam-schiff-wrong-whistleblower-contact/4180342002/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/04/schiffs-false-claim-his-committee-had-not-spoken-whistleblower/ --50.27.9.97 (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't see the word "lied" in there. He said "we" instead of "I" and later clarified that he had no personal contact but an intelligence committee aide had contact and advised the whistle blower to get a lawyer. This is a non-story. O3000 (talk) 13:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

How about now, with the unmasking? Did he lie now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.110.3 (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Not anywhere that I have seen. Provide reliable sources to be taken seriously. O3000 (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Adam Schiff#Armenian genocide resolution

This section should be updated, because House Passes Resolution Recognizing Armenian Genocide - [4]. And Schiff had an important role in it, see the source (And so Ms. Pelosi moved to put the measure, led by Representative Adam B. Schiff of California). 76.21.97.234 (talk) 05:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Ehud Barak was not the prime minister of Israel in 2014

The caption of the picture states "Schiff with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak in November 2014", but Barak was not even a member of the government during this year. He served as prime minister between July 1999 and March 2001. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehud_Barak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scatophaga (talk • contribs) 22:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

It never states that he was prime minister at the time. It just states that it was a former Israeli Prime Minister. Cheers. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Propose adding statements Schiff made regarding impeachment whistleblower

Per Politifact[1], and NYT[2]we should include the false and misleading statements regarding his contacts with the whistleblower, which was the catalyst for the impeachment investigation.

Proposed Changes: On October 2, 2019, the New York Times revealed Adam Schiff had known about some details pertaining to the whistleblower complaint prior to the whistleblower complaint becoming public, writing "By the time the whistle-blower filed his complaint, Mr. Schiff and his staff knew at least vaguely what it contained."

My words: Plus more, feel free to add.

Schiff has not discussed this information under penalty of perjury, but has disseminated this claim in public and at the impeachment hearings.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Curivity (talk • contribs) Curivity (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ McCarthy, Bill. "Schiff falsely said he had not heard from the whistleblower". politifact. Politifact. Retrieved 25 January 2020.
  2. ^ Barnes, Julian E.; Schmidt, Michael S.; Rosenberg, Matthew (2 October 2019). "Schiff Got Early Account of Accusations as Whistle-Blower's Concerns Grew". The New York Times. New York Times. Retrieved 25 January 2020.

I am unable to find the word perjury in these cites and suggest that you strike that claim as per WP:BLP. O3000 (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done : there's no evidence that Schiff knew anything more than the whistleblower asking for guidance on how to file the complaint. NYT: "The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and meet with an inspector general...Like other whistle-blowers have done before and since under Republican and Democratic-controlled committees, the whistle-blower contacted the committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community." No need to implicate any knowledge of substance by Schiff. --Zefr (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
How does this square with the fact that he has publicly said he had no contact with the whistleblower whatsoever? Also, to O3000, clarified and edited.Curivity (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The HPSCI staff member took the question from the whistleblower, as was standard HPSCI procedure. Schiff didn't meet that person, and there is no reliable source saying Schiff talked with the whistleblower or knew the person's identity. --Zefr (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Curivity, the fact checkers say the whistleblower talked to committee staff, not Schiff, and that Schiff had no contact with the whistleblower and doesn't know who the whistleblower is.[5] – Muboshgu (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I feel it is due to mention, in some part, that he OR his staff knew about the whistleblower complaint before the complaint became public. Also, articles have referenced the staff giving the whistleblower guidance, afterwhich all public statements of Schiff regarding the whistleblower testifying "unfiltered" were dropped and the narrative changed. If you go back you can see this change. I don't know, I'd think this is a pretty relevant point. Curivity (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
You are going to have to explain your claim of "perjury" along with reliable sources to back it up. Or, if you are changing what you believe should be included, you'll need to make a new suggested text change, along with reliable sources to back it up. O3000 (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Curivity: Are you suggesting Schiff/staff coached the whistleblower in what to tell the ICIG? I'm not aware of that. Do you mean to suggest Schiff rigged the complaint? soibangla (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The inspector general referring the whistleblower to the Intelligence Committee is standard operating procedure. Dems said they didn't need the whistleblower to testify because all of the witnesses who testified provided all the information (and more) that the whistleblower could, making his testimony moot. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
O3000, I'm not suggesting anything. I edited my personal statement to clarify the words. I do not mention under penalty of perjury in my proposed changes, those were my words as I specified. soibangla, I'm not suggesting anything but what has occurred and been widely reported. My mentioning of the narrative changing could also be mentioned, because it's also been reported here[1] and here[2]. Curivity (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

These requests need to be closed once they are marked done or not done. Its wasting time to respond to baseless complaints afterward. SPECIFICO talk 03:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Robertson, Lori. "Factcheck: Adam Schiff wrong on whistleblower contact". USA TODAY. USA Today. Retrieved 26 January 2020.
  2. ^ Hemmingway, Mollie (18 October 2019). "Schiff Flipped On Whistleblower Testimony After Reports Of Coordination". The Federalist. The Federalist. Retrieved 26 January 2020.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 January 2020

There is a mispelling of California as Californiai

After law school, Schiff served as a law clerk for Judge William Matthew Byrne Jr. of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. From 1987 to 1993, he was an Assistant United States Attorney in the Office of the United States Attorney for the Central District of Californiai. 73.17.62.51 (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

  •  Done

No Mention of the Steele Dosier

No Mention of the Steele Dossier? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loopbackdude (talk • contribs) 12:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

List of people declared personae non gratae in Azerbaijan

The "See also" section includes a link to "List of people declared personae non gratae in Azerbaijan". But Schiff doesn't appear on that page, and there is no discussion here (in Schiff's biography) of his having been declared persona non grata in Azerbaijan. The biography does mention Schiff taking a pro-Armenia, anti-Azerbaijan position with respect to the disputed territory of Artsakh (a.k.a. Nagorno-Karabakh), but that's not sufficient to draw a conclusion that he is persona non grata in Azerbaijan. Can anyone supply a reliable source for this claim? If so, the fact should be added to Schiff's biography, and he should also be added to the list page; but if not, then the "See also" link should be removed. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Political Positions

If one goes to other Wikipedia websites on politicians in the House of Representatives, such as Congressman Jerry Nadler, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Congressman Brad Sherman, or Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one finds a great details regarding their "Political Positions." Congressman Adam Schiff is one of the most Partisan Democrats in Washington, and there is not any mention of his position on any Social Values.Easeltine (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Easeltine He's a Democrat so I would expect him to be a partisan Democrat, just as I would expect Liz Cheney or Elise Stefanik(who was moderate until in a position of power and then got on the Trump train) to be partisan Republicans. In any event, most of his political positions seem to be listed under "Tenure", which may be why there is not a separate "political positions" section. If you want to restructure this article to have a "political positions" section, in which you can include his positions on social issues, as documented in independent reliable sources, you may do so. 331dot (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

False and unverified statements

Adam Schiff has made a number of false statements over the last several years on matters of national import and those statements should be noted as they speak to not only his character but also to the veracity of these comments. Specifically Schiff’s false claim his committee had not spoken to the whistleblower, may have mischaracterized Parnas evidence, documents show, Fact check: Breaking down Adam Schiff’s account of Trump’s Ukraine call, Horowitz report finally unmasks Adam Schiff. Who’s going to call him out on his lies? there is not a single notation here of any of this but there certainly should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

First, these pages contain information that is not notable. See WP:N. Second, "as they speak to not only his character"...this article isn't trying to attack a person's character. It lists notable truth. Nythar (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I disagree, the information is TOTALLY notable. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#False_statements, it’s called balance and to that end there should be a corresponding entry Adam_Schiff#False_statements. These are notable events in the nation’s history where a political leader spread falsehoods. Without question they should be included here. They are significant. It is notable truth even would prefer to gloss over it. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
What you call "balance" sounds like WP:FALSEBALANCE to me. What falsehoods have Schiff uttered? What text are you proposing to add to this article? An opinion piece from John Kass is not a reliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Even if you want to point to the Kass piece, Politico, CNN and the Washington Post are all WP:RSP. The John Kass piece cites the Horowitz report. The Wall Street Journal another WP:RSP also cites all the ways Schiff made purposeful distortions of the truth [6]https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ig-nunes-and-schiff-11576022741. It is not false balance as claimed in your rebuttal but underlines the article is in need of updating to present WP:IMPARTIAL. Further Congress has issued its own report citing the same incidents. https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110281/documents/HHRG-116-JU00-20191204-SD1284.pdf a report which also shows major media outlets erred as well in their reporting (which at the time, were in large part opinion pieces being presented as fact). A double standard is at play here. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adam_Schiff/Archive_1&oldid=1094622833"