THIS ARTICLE STOLEN FROM WELOVETRUMP.COM. Your IP address has been recorded and a DMCA claim has been filed based on your actions. You should immediately cease and desist copying articles from WeLoveTrump.com
Newt Gingrich just came out and said it: Adam Schiff is a pathological liar.
He went further and said for the sake of the security of our country he should be removed from the Intelligence Committee.
I think this is probably true on two levels….
One, isn’t it an oxymoron to have Schiff on an “intelligence” committee?
That doesn’t seem right!
But on a much more serious level, Gingrich makes the point that how can the President and other members of our intelligence committee feel comfortable sharing information with Schiff after he has proven to lie compulsively?
I think Newt is right.
Our friends at the MAGA Daily Report had more:
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich ripped into Adam Schiff on Fox News last night as the Dems impeachment case crumbled.
Newt called the Democratic California Rep. Adam Schiff a “pathological liar” who should be removed from the intelligence committee.
“I think it also incumbent on Schiff, personally, he is a deranged human being. This is about Schiff. Schiff is a guy who is a pathological liar.”
“He seems to have no ability to distinguish between the truth and falsehood. He lied for two and a half years about the Russian collusion.”
“It all disintegrated. He looked like a fool. He learned nothing. He came back in lied again and again.”
“Here we are at the end of the cycle, he goes back, and the guy is still lying again.”
“I think somehow, people have to decide that Adam Schiff is a compulsive, uncontrollable liar,” said Gingrich.
Newt then said Schiff should be removed from the intelligence committee “a healthy House would strip him of the intelligence committee. How can you expect the president and the CIA and others to share secrets with a person who is this profoundly, publicly dishonest?”
On what comes next Newt said,
“The burden is going to be on the Democrats, having done everything they could for three years to destroy President Trump, and having failed: do they continue for the next eight or 10 months to try and investigate, attack, smear, whatever?”
“Or, do they say, let’s get a couple of things done before the election, to prove that we are a party that can be positive?”