Rep. Adam Schiff, in his closing arguments to the U.S. Senate today, said that if President Trump is not convicted on the charges brought by the House Democrats, the president could give Alaska to the Russians in exchange for helping him win the next election.
The passage is in this 41-second clip from CSPAN:
It’s essentially an idea lifted from New York Times partisan columnist Nicholas Kristof, offered in a January 22 column, in which Kristof asked, rhetorically perhaps:
“Note to Alaska senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan: Your thoughts, comrades?”
“Do we really think that there should be no checks on a rogue president as he handed Alaska over to Putin — or Florida to Spain, while we’re at it — or even as he pardoned streams of Republican bank robbers? Must we tolerate an out-of control ruler who engages, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, in ‘a long train of abuses and usurpations‘?”
Not sure is that moron is coming unwound or is simply sound too tight!
Has Schiff-for-brains admitted that the so-called whistle blower is his daughter’s boyfriend?
OK, settle down. I’m pretty sure Schiff does not think Trump will sell AK to RUS. Too many GOP votes up here. Electoral College, ya’know.
Still, to make such an idiotic and moronic statement….
I wonder if this is an attempt to persuade/scare Murkowski.
He is a habitual liar. Needs to be jailed. He might very well be since he lied to Congress on the whistleblower.
I’d like to give Adam Schiff to the Russians.
The Russians will not take him, even if we paid them big bucks – they’re smarter than that.
Like too many, this **** is enjoying the attention. In the meantime, so many are upset with their circus that they are turning many R that otherwise would vote for the D
You’re talking about Trump, right?
Representative Schiff seems hellbent on illustrating the fact that he has no understanding of how our nation functions.
I think you are mistaking the Pres. for Mr. Schiff. Schiff has been in Congress for a while. Trump was never in office until he became POTUS, which explains a lot, though not the complete knuckling under of the Senate GOP, and Mr. Trump does not appear to understand the comcept of Separation of Powers. He wants to be All Powerful Ruler.
That explains his bug-eyes, and maybe your spelling and lack of understanding of President Trump’s success (likely unwilling to understand?). Sorry Suzanne, I’m just severely irritated by the ignorance of some of these trolls – convinces me that I will never ever again vote for a D (not that I have in more than 30 years…) Yeah, I know they have free speech rights – but that doesn’t make falsehood right.
It would only be fair, Obama gave Putin Crimea.
So much BS. Over my dead body.
Russia sold the US Alaska, because England kicked Russia’s ass in the Crimean War. Russia was so broke, and owed so much she had to sell it. Wouldn’t allow their enemies to own it, so sold it to the US,…and for that we are grateful. The US doesn’t give back till we kick your ass and own you.
Russia couldn’t “sell” Alaska to America. Russia hadn’t established any colonies in Alaska, and neither had any other nation recognized any of Russia’s claims to Alaska. Therefore Russia could give America only a quit-claim deed.
America then established a colonial presence in Alaska, by making Alaska an legally recognized territory. That territory status was recognized by the majority of nations, even Russia, which made it legally possible for Alaska to eventually become a state in the union.
Yeah they had many colonies here. The first one where is founded by Shelikof and they had lots of other trapping and trading forts around. Directions had more of a presence here than we ever had in Oregon.
Russia had a sizable colonial presence in Alaska for the time and it lasted for over 130 years. They actually had a capital in what is now called Sitka but was then called Novo-Arkhangelsk. It isn’t hard to find the mark left on Alaska by the Russian colonization, just look at a map, or the number of Russian Orthodox churches spread all over the State, or the native Alaskans with Russian names and faces.
“Direct annexation, the acquisition of territory by way of force, was historically recognised as a lawful method for acquiring sovereignty over newly acquired territory before the mid-1700s. By the end of the Napoleonic period, however, invasion and annexation ceased to be recognized by international law and were no longer accepted as a means of territorial acquisition.”
“The title of discovery, would, under the most favourable and most extensive interpretation, exist only as an inchoate title,”
“…there was no justification under international law for China’s claim to sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands … China had failed to protest against the incorporation of the islands into Japanese territory on the basis of a Cabinet decision of 1895 and suddenly started to claim sovereignty three-quarters of a century later in the 1970s … this belated protest had no significance under international law, and that the protracted absence of protest now precludes China from claiming sovereignty, based on the principle of estoppel.”
‘Turning to relatively recent cases, in the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case of 1951, the UK agent argued that governments protest “in order to make it quite clear that they have not acquiesced and to prevent a prescriptive case being built up against them.”
Settlement of Alaska’s Native land claims were based in part by the Natives having long voiced their relationship to the land, which superceeded any claims of Russia’s having delivered title to Alaska to the US.
“ANCSA extinguished aboriginal title to lands in Alaska. As usual in cases of extinguishment of aboriginal title, Alaska Natives received fee simple absolute title, or traditional western title, to a smaller area of land and the sum of $962.5 million as compensation for this extinguishment.”
“Direct annexation, the acquisition of territory by way of force, was historically recognised as a lawful method for acquiring sovereignty over newly acquired territory before the mid-1700s. By the end of the Napoleonic period, however, invasion and annexation ceased to be recognized by international law and were no longer accepted as a means of territorial acquisition.”
“The title of discovery, would, under the most favourable and most extensive interpretation, exist only as an inchoate title,”
“…there was no justification under international law for China’s claim to sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands … China had failed to protest against the incorporation of the islands into Japanese territory on the basis of a Cabinet decision of 1895 and suddenly started to claim sovereignty three-quarters of a century later in the 1970s … this belated protest had no significance under international law, and that the protracted absence of protest now precludes China from claiming sovereignty, based on the principle of estoppel.”
‘Turning to relatively recent cases, in the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case of 1951, the UK agent argued that governments protest “in order to make it quite clear that they have not acquiesced and to prevent a prescriptive case being built up against them.”
Settlement of Alaska’s Native land claims were based in part by the Natives having long voiced their relationship to the land, which superceeded any claims of Russia’s having delivered title to Alaska to the US.
Schiff is a gold mine of voice actualities for Trump’s second term campaign. A true godsend. His looks, his comments, and his name will reverberate as to why Americans will vote for Trump.
What should really scare you is that a large number of people actually believe this fellow’s line of Bravo Sierra!
Schiff-for is so obsessed with Russia that he and Bernie should be packaged up and given to Putin!
If Schiff. Bernie or Polosi are elected, we Alaskans would like to be transferred to Russia !
Schiff’s line of examples of what “could happen” is called a “straw-man” argument – so let’s add the offense of logical fallacy to his lies when we impeach him.
Comments are closed.