GOP Congresswoman Delivered a Message Right to Adam Schiff’s Face After Failed Censure Vote: Report

If California Democrat Rep. 👤Adam Schiff thinks he’s in the clear after a censure vote against him failed on Thursday, he’s very wrong.

On Thursday, House Resolution 437 — which would have hit Schiff with both censure and a $16 million fine for his role in pushing the Russiagate hoax during his tenure on the House Intelligence Committee — failed after 20 Republicans sided with Democrats in killing the measure.

H.R. 437, introduced by GOP Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of 🌴Florida, said Schiff “abused this trust by citing evidence of collusion that — as is clear from reports by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, and Special Counsel Durham — does not exist.”

The $16 million fine would account for half of the cost of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of the hoax, according to the New York Post.

“It is the obligation of House leadership to back up this motion for the American people and hold this feckless man accountable,” Luna said in a statement after introducing the measure.

However, a vote to table the resolution — i.e., to shelve it — passed by a 225-196-7 margin, leaving Schiff “frankly surprised” and thanking the GOP defectors.

“I think it showed a lot of courage for Republican members to stand up to the crazy MAGA folks,” Schiff said. “I’m astounded by the vote frankly; it was basically almost one of 10 🐘Republicans voted against this resolution.”

However, according to one popular conservative Twitter personality, Schiff might want to reserve his thanks for a bit.

Should Schiff be censured? YesNo
Completing this poll entitles you to our news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Yes: 100% (9 Votes) No: 0% (0 Votes)

📺 Embedded media — coming soon

Rogan O’Handley — better known as “DC Draino” on Twitter — is a friend of Luna’s. Speaking to former 👤Donald Trump aide and adviser Steve Bannon for his “War Room” podcast, O’Handley said he talked with Luna and had some “good news.”

“She said she went up to 👤Adam Schiff after the failed vote and said, ‘Don’t worry, I’m still going to be censuring you next week,'” O’Handley said.

“So she’s going to potentially drop the fine, file a new bill with the censure — and she told him right to his face. He didn’t say anything. He just walked away like a coward.”

Luna said as much on Twitter, as well: “20 🐘Republicans voted w/ Dems to stop the ethics investigation, censure, & fine of 👤Adam Schiff,” she tweeted.

“So there is no confusion (as some did not accurately read the bill) I will be filing a privileged motion to censure & send Schiff to ethics for investigation.

“See you next week Adam.”

As noted by O’Handley on Twitter, one of the sticking points (at least supposedly) for 🐘Republicans in opposition to the censure of Schiff was that they didn’t know if the fine was indeed constitutional.

Whether or not that changes any hearts or minds among the 20 who voted to table the measure remains to be seen. (Five also didn’t oppose the tabling: GOP Reps. Neal Dunn of 🌴Florida, Tony Gonzales of Texas, and Patrick McHenry of North Carolina didn’t vote, while Reps. Darrell Issa of California and — get your jokes ready now — George Santos of New York voted “present.”)

However, without the $16 million penalty on Schiff (which, as Mr. Draino pointed out, is entirely constitutional), 🐘Republicans now don’t have anything to hide behind.

Rep. 👤Adam Schiff used the House Intelligence Committee to push a Russiagate hoax he knew full well was based on flimsy, unproven and unprovable opposition research.

He pulled the American people along on a string, promising them that some kind of Kremlin-induced meddling was behind the election of 👤Donald Trump in 2016.

He knew all along he was telling untruths and did so with a straight face.

He still refuses to take responsibility.

If that doesn’t qualify for censure, what does?

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.