Senator Adam Schiff faces mounting criticism over his stance on Los Angeles anti-ICE riots, as his track record of unfulfilled claims about Trump-Russia collusion continues to undermine his credibility.
At a Glance
- Schiff opposed President Trump’s decision to federalize the National Guard to address violent anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles
- The California Senator inaccurately claimed federalizing the National Guard without governor approval was “unprecedented”
- Schiff recently clashed with FBI director nominee Kash Patel during a confirmation hearing over January 6 inmates
- Critics point to Schiff’s history of making unsubstantiated claims about Trump-Russia collusion
- Elon Musk suggested that if Schiff opposes something, it might be worth supporting
Schiff’s Controversial Defense of LA Rioters
Senator Adam Schiff has drawn sharp criticism for his defense of what many conservatives characterize as an insurrection against federal law enforcement in Los Angeles. As violent anti-ICE protests erupted in the city, with masked rioters engaging in vandalism and assaults on law enforcement officers, President Trump took decisive action by federalizing 2,000 California National Guard soldiers to restore order, despite opposition from Governor Gavin Newsom.
Schiff condemned the Trump administration’s decision, referring to the violent rioters merely as “protesters” and warning against invoking the Insurrection Act. In a statement that has since been scrutinized for historical accuracy, Schiff claimed, “The Trump Administration’s calling on the California National Guard without the authorization of the Governor is unprecedented.”
Historical Inaccuracies in Schiff’s Claims
Critics have been quick to point out that Schiff’s assertion about the unprecedented nature of federalizing the National Guard without gubernatorial consent is demonstrably false. Historical records show multiple instances where presidents have taken similar actions, including President Eisenhower during school integration in the Jim Crow South. This factual error has reinforced concerns about Schiff’s tendency to distort information to fit political narratives.
“The Trump Administration’s calling on the California National Guard without the authorization of the Governor is unprecedented.” – Adam Schiff.
The irony of Schiff’s position has not been lost on observers, who note that as a member of the January 6 Committee, he vigorously condemned the Capitol riot as an insurrection while now appearing to defend violent actions against federal immigration enforcement. Critics also highlight that Democrats, including Schiff, previously rejected Trump’s efforts to deploy the National Guard to protect federal buildings during the Capitol riot.
Contentious Hearing with Kash Patel
Schiff’s confrontational approach was on full display during a recent confirmation hearing for FBI director nominee Kash Patel. The senator engaged in what observers described as a “Clintonian” battle over the meaning of the word “we” regarding Patel’s alleged involvement in a recording with January 6 Capitol Riot inmates and former President Trump. Schiff questioned Patel about comments made on Steve Bannon’s podcast, suggesting personal involvement in the recording.
“That is interesting, because here’s what you told Steve Bannon on his podcast: ‘So, what we thought would be cool is if we captured that audio and then, of course, had the greatest president, President Donald J. Trump, recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Then we went to a studio and recorded it, mastered it, digitized it, and put it out as a song.'” – Adam Schiff.
Patel firmly denied personal involvement in the recording despite his use of “we” in his podcast statement, asserting his focus was on raising money for families in need. When Schiff pressed him, saying, “Yeah, and you’re part of that ‘we’ — right — when you say ‘we’ that includes you, Mr. Patel,” Patel responded, “Not unless you have a new definition for the word ‘we’.” The exchange highlighted the increasingly tense political environment surrounding January 6 investigations.
Pattern of Credibility Issues
Schiff’s comments on the LA riots have reignited discussion about his history of making unsubstantiated claims regarding Trump-Russia collusion. Despite repeatedly stating he had evidence of collusion, such evidence has never materialized, damaging his credibility among conservatives. Critics contend that Schiff’s approach to political discourse prioritizes media attention over factual accuracy.
“Hmm, few things could convince me to reconsider my position more than Adam Schiff agreeing with me!” – Elon Musk.
As violence against law enforcement continues in parts of Los Angeles, many conservatives are calling for accountability not just from rioters but from political figures like Schiff who they believe mischaracterize events and selectively apply principles of law and order. The ongoing situation underscores the deepening political divide regarding immigration enforcement and the roles of federal and state authorities in maintaining public safety.
