#and Adam is abusive because he loves people too much and has a distorted view of the world around him
Text
Case file #101: Adam Taurus
Race: Faunus
Nationality: Atlas
Ethnicity: Mantlecean
Weapon: Wilt & Blush (note: resembles a SDC weapon prototype that was stolen about 5 years ago. The blade stores kinetic energy that is then released in the form of harsh destruction rays.)
Gender: Man
Sexuality: Gynephiliac (This information was obtained from a double agent in Menagiere)
Current Age: 21
Aura Color: Red
Handedness: Right
Complexion: Pale
Eye Color: Pale blue
Faunus trait: Bull horns (Adam has both the strength and Endurance of a Bull, according to reports.)
Occupation: White Fang Vale branch leader
Previous Occuppation: White Fang Black ops commander (Classified)
13 years ago, Adam Taurus (note: last name constructed) became the subject of a world known, yet private court case against the SDC where a brand over his left eye was used as evidence of several claims of Faunus workplace abuse. The accusers in the court case were the two leaders of the White Fang, Ghira Bête & Sienna Khan. The White Fang won the court case and an anti neo-slavery bill was passed throughout Atlas-Mantle as a result. Adam, who had recently lost his mother at the time and was a still a minor, was adopted by Sienna Khan who took him to Menagiere.
... unfortunately, 5 years ago Ghira and his wife Kali Bête were assasinated at a Faunus rally somewhere in rural Sanus. They survive by their only daughter, Blake Bête. Since then, the White Fang has cultivated a [CLASSIFIED] organization under the leadership of Sienna Khan. The leaders of the White Fang under Sienna include Adam (Vale branch leader) and Fennec & Corsac Albain (Religous leaders). Attempts by the White Fang to establish an Atlas branch have been stopped by the council (note: countinue to stop them. watch all WF gatherings in Atlas).
WARNING: ONLY MEMBERS WITH LV.5 CLARENCE ARE ALLOWED TO READ BELOW
The White Fang has a Black Ops organization being used to carry out robberies and assasinations in all of Renment. The leader of the Black Ops is Adam Taurus, with Illia Amitola (note: needs a case file) and Blake Bête (has carried out 8 known assasinations on Faunus hate groups, currently missing, needs a case file) as sub commanders. All three serve as de-facto leaders of the White Fang in the event Sienna Khan is killed (note: Do NOT assasinate Sienna Khan, it will lead to race riots. Limit anti White Fang activity to covert operations).
Adam is wanted for the murders of 64 individuals in Atlas, all of whom are connected to the SDC (note: at least 20 were family members). If spotted, do NOT kill him, he is to be captured alive under all circumstances. Allow him to flee if he cannot be captured.
[The writing below is a transcript from a page recovered from a mansion attacked by the White Fang. It is believed to come from Adam Taurus, written by him and then stabbed to the wall.]
"...your father is a white demon. He told me he loved me and would take me to Atlas, but after I gave him what he wanted he left me down here in his mines. Adam, I need you to find your father. And when you do, I want you to kill him. And his wife. And their children. Kill every human on this earth so I can forgive giving birth to a half-"
"I WILL DO IT MOM"
[End of paper dialouge]
#rwby fix it fic#rwby rewrite#rwby au#rwby#rwde#adam taurus#ghira belladonna#sienna khan#omg I am totally doing something#illia amitola#blake belladonna#writers: Adam is a branded former slave#me: but how can I make his backstory more dramatic/traumatic?#devil on my shoulder#“Adam's mom got tricked by Jacques Schnee to give him a cookie from the nookie jar so she raised her son to eant to kill all white people#i mean faunus“#me: GOLD#I didn't get to touch on Adam's relationship with Blake tho#;_;#I wanted to touch on how Adam and Jacques are like yin & yang#where Jacques is abusive because he only loves himself#and Adam is abusive because he loves people too much and has a distorted view of the world around him#how Jacques keeps belitttling Weiss cuz he just dont like her#while Adam keeps belittling Blake cuz she reminds him of his dead mom that he wanted to “save”#when really Blake just had depression after her parents died and when she finnaly starts to feel like herself again she realizes that Adam#is batshit and crazy about her but in a bad way#and he keeps talking over her concerns about how the WF keeps getting more violent because he thinks he knows better than her#so when Blake leaves the White Fang Adam just thinks she lost it like his mom did before she died#when really she was overcome with guilt and wanted to try walking a different path#OMG I RAN OUT OF TAGS TO RANT IN!!!
10 notes
·
View notes
Text
Gaslighting as a Form of Abuse in RWBY
With another comic focussing on an abuse victim having just been released today in the form of Weiss’ issue of the DC comic series, I want to tackle another analysis post in the hopes of bringing some more understanding surrounding emotional abuse to this fandom because in some parts it seems to be sorely needed.
There are a couple of points I’d like to address in this post, the first being the identity of the person speaking to Weiss during the sections set post-V3 in the comic. Most people assume it to be Jacques, but some also think it might be Willow. I can understand both arguments, and I’m not totally decided myself yet on which I think it is.
On the one hand, the type of abuse seems more subtle and manipulative compared to Jacques’ usual direct and aggressive approach, and we’re never actually shown who’s talking, which could suggest Weiss’ mother. But on the other hand the only thing we know about Willow is that she drinks to excess and fights with Jacques a lot so there isn’t really any basis to assume she would be manipulative towards Weiss, and the tone of the dialogue does fit Jacques’ sleazy and condescendingly pleasant demeanour that he assumes when he’s pretending to be nice to Weiss like in V4, so it would also make a lot of sense for it to be him.
For the purposes of this article I’m simply going to refer to them as Weiss’ parent to avoid any confusion and prevent me having to change it later if we get more information or I form a concrete stance on who it is. Their identity doesn’t impact the content of the post at all so it seemed the most logical solution.
With that covered, let’s move on to the main thing I want to talk about, which is the parallels between the way that Weiss’ parent gaslights her in the comic and the way that Adam gaslights Blake multiple times throughout the show but primarily in his Character Short.
“You are not the first Schnee in history to suffer disappointment, and this behaviour is really rather excessive…”
“Blake, I'm sorry. I told you it was an accident.”
This first part is representative of the main principle of gaslighting, which is to undermine the other person’s judgement and make them doubt their own ability to think rationally so that they’ll act the way you want them to.
Weiss’ parent diminishes her suffering by claiming it’s no worse than what other people have been through before—an interesting reference to the quote in the White Trailer which directly contradicts it by stating that “everyone is entitled to their own sorrow, for the heart has no metrics or forms of measure”—to invalidate Weiss’ pain.
Adam downplays the importance of innocents being killed on his missions by framing them as mere “accidents” to make Blake seem paranoid and foolish for being concerned by them and prefaces it with an insincere apology so that she’ll immediately feel bad because she thinks she’s hurt his feelings.
These both show the abuser using the way they talk to make it seem like the victim is totally detached from reality and as though their point of view on the situation must be false, leaving the abuser’s way of seeing things as the only correct option.
“Weiss, I just… don’t understand why you’re behaving this way. You act as though you’ve been kidnapped or imprisoned, and that is simply not what happened.”
“I don't know. I'm out there fighting for us, and when you fight, people get hurt.”
This is a continuation of the first part, further cementing the supposed “irrational” nature of the victim’s behaviour and showcasing the abuser moulding the scenario so that they’re never the one in the wrong.
Weiss’ parent feigns confusion and disbelief at the fact that Weiss is upset at being dragged away from her school and friends against her will, insisting that she isn’t being forced to stay and outright denying the validity of Weiss’ perception of what happened.
Adam dismisses Blake’s concerns at the deaths he’s caused by shifting the blame away from himself, falsely presenting the loss of life as an inevitability of fighting, and placing himself as the victim who’s having his heroism questioned.
In both cases the abuser warps reality to make themself seem as though they’re in the right so that the victim will stop trusting their own perception of events and come to believe that their abuser is right.
“It is natural to be unhappy to leave Beacon Academy, but friends come and go, and go more often as they get older… but family is forever.” / “And if you did have to leave those radicals, those ‘friends’ behind, well… all the better.”
“What, do you want me to just abandon our cause? Like your parents?”
This part ties into another major aspect of emotional abuse which is isolating the victim from their support network of friends and/or family so that they have nowhere else to go and no one else to rely on. However, it is also another example of gaslighting as it involves making those close to the victim appear like the bad guys in order to push the victim away from the people who might try to help them and further into the abuser’s control.
Weiss’ parent describes Weiss’ friends as “radicals” and mocks her bond with them, saying that it was good for Weiss to leave them and reminding her that she’s alone now without them, even spinning it to sound like they never cared about Weiss at all in the first place and as though her family—a.k.a. them—are the only people she can trust.
Adam deliberately brings up Blake’s parents, which he knows is a vulnerable topic for her, to remind her that they’re “traitors” and brand her a traitor too by association, reinforcing the idea that he is the only one she has left.
I suspect that this is the aspect of gaslighting that most people have the least trouble identifying since it basically amounts to guilt-tripping and even the majority of people without much knowledge of emotional abuse are aware of how that works.
“Weiss, sweetheart, please, don’t sulk!” / “Weiss, I love you, but you are really quite overreacting to the whole thing.”
“I'm sorry. I shouldn't have brought them up. I just get scared when it feels like you don't believe in me anymore.”
This part I think is what blinds a lot of people to the fact that emotional abuse and manipulation is happening. And that’s because the abuser offers what might appear to be a sincere expression of affection or a genuine apology, when in reality it’s simply a way of convincing the victim that everything that they’re going through is for their own good and that their abuser has their best interests at heart.
Weiss’ parent calls her “sweetheart” and tells Weiss they love her, while in the same breath solidifying the idea that her behaviour is unwarranted and undermining her grievances.
Adam apologises for mentioning Blake’s parents after the damage is already done, while in the same breath making Blake feel guilty for being worried that he’s killing people and making it her job to reassure him instead of the other way around. He deliberately blows what she says out of proportion so that he can pretend to feel hurt in order to illicit sympathy from her.
The veneer of niceness that the abuser uses to hide the way they double down on their manipulation is what makes this facet of abuse hard to spot and can lead other people as well as the victim into thinking that the abuser is right because they seem to be being honest, when in reality it’s all part of how they manage to deceive their victim as well as sometimes serving the added purpose of further isolating the victim from their support network as the people close to them will often side with the abuser here.
“At a certain point, you have to take responsibility for your role in all of this. If you choose to continue in this way, Weiss, then we will have no choice but to keep you here. And you’ll have only yourself to answer to.”
“Why did you have to come into my life and ruin everything?!” / “… but not before you’ve suffered for your betrayal, my love.” / “I wouldn’t have to be doing this if you’d just behave.”
And this final part is a clear example of the end goal of emotional abuse, which is to make the victim think that everything bad that happens is their fault. This is achieved by distorting their perception of reality via gaslighting, as we’ve already covered, so that they trust their abuser’s judgement before their own and will believe it when they’re told that they’re the one to blame for the harm that the abuser causes.
Weiss’ parent makes it Weiss’ fault that she’s not okay with being confined within her own house in a relentlessly unpleasant environment and puts the blame for it on Weiss while claiming to have “no choice” but to inflict pain on her.
Adam places responsibility for the results of his own actions—a.k.a. Blake leaving him, his losing power in the White Fang, etc.—on Blake instead of himself and insists that if she doesn’t “behave” then he has no option but to punish her.
When people in this fandom blame Weiss and Blake to any extent whatsoever for the actions of their abusers, they’re doing the same thing as Weiss’ parent and Adam do here. It’s victim blaming pure and simple, and y’all who are still saying that Weiss deserved to be “disciplined” by Jacques and denying Adam’s abuse of Blake need to just stop.
If you’re interested in reading some of my sources, then here’s a list:
How to Recognize Gaslighting and Get Help
11 Warning Signs of Gaslighting
What is gaslighting? And how do you know if it's happening to you?
You’re Not Going Crazy: 15 Signs You’re a Victim of Gaslighting
#rwby#weiss schnee#blake belladonna#adam taurus#rwby analysis#my analysis#rwby meta#my meta#tw abuse#abuse tw#tw gaslighting#gaslighting tw
229 notes
·
View notes
Text
Hungry Hearts - a Study in Codependency
Hungry Hearts is a film that confused me on first view. I watched it a few days ago, mostly because I am a fan of the Star Wars sequel saga but had never seen the protagonist, Adam Driver, in another role.
The funny thing is that on awakening the day after watching the film, I came to a conclusion quite different from most comments I had read online.
Watching “Hungry Hearts” was difficult for me because it contained a lot of triggers on a personal basis; but more about that below.
The story is essentially a thriller, about a man despairing when he has to find out that his wife has a distorted personality which threatens the life of their son.
The film concentrates very much on Mina, the female protagonist: she is the first person we see and she dominates most scenes, so she is who seems to be at the center of the story. But the conclusion I came to was that this is not Mina’s story, but Jude’s.
Jude’s characterization is that of a somewhat awkward and insecure person to say the least. He meets Mina in the bathroom of a restaurant where they both accidentally get stuck due to a jammed door; Jude suffers from diarrhea right then and this is the very first experience they share.
Honestly, who hooks up after an experience like that? I suppose anybody would be terribly embarrassed, not turned on. But in the very next scene we already see Jude and Mina in bed, asleep after a sexual encounter and gracelessly apart from one another.
Mina, who comes from Italy, then learns that her job requires her to travel back home. Jude, unwilling to let her go, seduces her and comes inside of her although she begs him not to. When Mina learns that she is pregnant, he proposes to her.
At the marriage party Jude sings an Italian love song for Mina, which is endearing to everybody but the bride, who looks embarrassed. Despite the fact that Jude learned the Italian text of the song for her (he had previously confessed that he does not speak the language), this scene foreshadows that Jude knows next to nothing about Mina: the song he sings is in Neapolitan, while her Italian accent indicates that her origins are elsewhere. (Alba Rohrwachter, the actress, is from Florence.)
During the marriage party Mina also gets to know Jude’s mother, whom, as she tells Mina, he purposely avoids, which is odd since she seems a nice enough person.
Mina, we learn as the story goes on, is not only a vegan but has very distinct ideas about physical and spiritual health. A psychic tells her that she is carrying an “indigo child”, i.e. a child that will have extraordinary paranormal capacities. The young woman is adamant to give birth at home, and when she does not manage, she has to be brought to the hospital where the child is born through Cesarean section.
In the following months, Mina obsesses about her seemingly “special” child. She hardly leaves the house, ignores the many calls from friends and acquaintances, stuffs every angle of the house with cloth and cushions, and feeds the baby (whose name, ironically, we never learn) with special food made from vegetables she grows herself, additionally to a special “cleansing oil” which is supposed to be particularly nourishing.
Jude grows increasingly frustrated and worried, and at the first occasion when Mina is not in the house, he takes his son to a pediatrist who confirms him that the child is not growing properly. Jude starts to feed the baby with a more nourishing diet. As Mina finds out about this, the conflicts between him and his wife intensify; Mina accuses her husband of not “trusting her”, while she is adamant that being the mother, she knows best what is good for the baby. Jude then starts to feed the baby secretly.
After a while, Jude’s mother Anne learns about the situation. We learn she was not present during pregnancy and birth, that she saw her grandchild only when he is already a few months old, and that her son does not want her to enter his house. He says to her that things are normal, that Mina is just going through a “phase” and that he and he alone will take care of his family. But as things deteriorate, he has to spirit the baby away to Anne to save him from Mina. His wife, distrusting both husband and mother-in-law, gets the child back by force and takes legal action to get the child’s father off her back.
The story ends in tragedy: Jude learns that Mina is dead. His mother shot her in her sleep, convinced that it was the only possibility to save her grandson. Jude is left alone and traumatized, but at least he has his son back in his care.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As odd as the story may seem, I am by now convinced that it’s not about crazy alternative health methods, bad motherhood or an unhappy marriage, but the story of a man with strong codependency issues.
The critical look in the mirror already suggests that Jude is not exactly happy with himself. He looks somewhat odd, and he is a timid, oversensitive man. He hooks up with a young woman he hardly knows only because a ridiculous circumstance forced him to share a conversation with her. When he learns she has to leave him, it does not occur to him to simply propose to her: he impregnates her first to raise the stakes that she will say yes.
The sad thing is that we see repeatedly that Jude is, at heart, an affectionate and caring person. He wishes for someone he can love and take care of; he denies Mina’s mental condition as long as he can, until the danger for their son becomes too obvious.
As he brings his child to the doctor, he carries it on his chest the way a woman would, visibly taking over the role Mina is unable to cope with; the child obviously brings out his caring and nurturing side, while Mina makes her motherhood all about herself.
It is difficult to say what Mina’s problem is; her mother is dead and she has no connection to her father. At their wedding, she is practically alone among Jude’s friends. The thought that her child is or will be something special becomes obsessive with her. And Jude is not strong enough to accept how weird and even insane the whole situation has become; he believes they will manage together and does not realize that he and Mina have nothing in common but their baby.
That his mother Anne in the end simply kills of his wife seems absurd, but I believe it to be the key scene: Jude’s own mother is, in my eyes, a disturbed person. Jude obviously does not know about personality disorders, but he must have had a reason for not wanting to include his own mother into their lives.
To me, Jude is obviously a codependent person; insecure, naïve, but essentially harmless. He wants nothing but a normal, healthy life with a family of his own, but his history with his mother made him choose (as is often the case) a partner with similar issues. Mina is not a drunkard or junkie, but codependency mostly bonds the dependent person to someone like that; it is possible that Anne is an ex alcoholic, which would explain her son’s rejection of her. Mina does not eat meat, which may have made him suppose that she avoids all kinds of toxic substances; but an avoiding attitude, too, can border on insanity if the person pursues this course at all costs.
Hungry Hearts was triggering for me because I know what it means to grow up and be forced to live with a person with a personality disorder and developing copedendency: the denial, the lack of self-esteem, the strong attachment to someone even after only a short personal contact, the pretense that “everything is normal, this is just a phase”, the hope that the other will “recover”, the desperate desire for normalcy are things I know all too well. Personality disorder is a subject by far too little known publicly, disturbing and hard to diagnose.
Social assumptions go like this: a mother loves her child and knows what’s best for it. A man is inclined to violence and never “gets” his own children. Love will see it through.
Hungry Hearts takes these prejudices and turns them upside down: we see a mother who almost lets her child starve, a father desperate for its safety and yet willing to be patient and let her have her own way as far as possible; and as for love, how much can these two have loved one another when they hardly were acquainted? Jude wanted a family of his own, perhaps he was scared (or had enough) of being alone, so he grasped his first opportunity. He might have learned to love his wife truly during marriage, but with a disturbed person, he hardly had a chance. Jude remains torn between wife and child until his own mother, ironically, relieves him from his torment, but replacing it with another: he is now a young widower whose mother is convicted for murder.
This is my own interpretation and of course it’s hugely personal due to my own story. Most people do not know about personality disorders, and they may grow up with or know such people for years, maybe decades, never understanding what is going on, putting up with “compromises”, making excuses for them and bearing their abusive behavior with patience, only making things get worse and worse. Indulgence and forbearance from others are the last things disturbed persons need, having no understanding of their own self and no healthy social skills, basically living only in their own heads. I never found whether there is a possibility to cure them, but from own experience I can only say that trusting them even to the least degree leads nowhere except to further abuse by them.
Jude is right when he says to his mother that he and his child are all Mina has, but still that does not justify her toxic behavior. Anne, too, plays with fire: she knows she has her highly disturbed, vegan-living, nourishment-obsessed daughter-in-law in the house, and she cooks meat right before her eyes; she calls Mina insane only a few days before killing the young woman. We learn then that Anne is aware that she was not a good mother to her son and that freeing him of his mind-sick wife is, for her, a desperate measure trying to make amends, additionally to the only way she saw to save her grandson. She hints that she had hoped her son had “forgiven her”, which could further emphasize her awareness of her failure as a mother - as I already assumed, perhaps due to an addiction.
A personality disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis which is much more serious and dangerous than PSTD, a personal crisis, a bout of depression or something similar; it roots deep in the person’s psyche and poisons their own life as well as that of the people around them. An incisive experience like married life and or motherhood can trigger this personal weakness additionally, because the disturbed person is additionally stressed and, having the personal maturity of a child, is subconsciously aware of not being capable to handle the situation. Disturbed persons can seem normal and even quite nice in everyday life, but the more stressful and extreme a situation, the more their weakness and detachment from reality become evident. Childishly determined not only to make the best of their lives but to live them to some extreme, in a way that is wholly their own, they are the least likely to accept that something is wrong with them. Hence my interpretation of Mina’s, and also Anne’s, idea of what they believed was “the best” for the child.
On first view, Jude seems the bad guy, the perpetrator: he seduces Mina, practically pushes her into becoming his wife, lets his child be brought into the world through section against her will, yells at her and beats her once during a quarrel; in the end he separates mother from child, which from the point of view of any devoted mother would seem like the cruelest thing anyone could do. But he does so in bright daylight, on his own, and he speaks to his wife telling her that it is only a temporary arrangement. Mina takes the boy away from his father with the aid of the police, in the middle of the night and never wasting a thought or a look for him: the officer shows him an official statement claiming he hit her and is thus unfitting to be a father. The physical evidence of the child’s small, starving body is obviously never officially checked: being the man, Jude is automatically seen as the bad guy and he has no chance to put up a fight.
But this is, essentially, the crux of the matter: a codependent person is not to be afraid of. Codependents are weak, insecure, and often come over as needy, but they are not treacherous or irresponsible. They sometimes seem angry without reason but the truth is that they are patient (or better: they were groomed by their abusers to bear their extreme behavior in patience) and people from the outside usually get to see their outbursts only when the last drop falls. Hardly anybody is aware of what went on before, because codependents are so used to denying the abuse and hiding it away. Jude is essentially a passive person, reacting instead of acting, surviving instead of living. His illusions of being a normal husband and father shatter before his eyes one by one.
One of the scenes I found most disturbing was Jude’s desperate attempt to get help from a social worker, who could only offer him that a mother must be exposed publicly to gain proof for her behavior, so that the child can be separated from her; but Jude knew well that he had little time and that his son’s life was at stake. The helplessness of an official social worker in such a situation is frightening, based on the social conviction that a mother should not be separated from her child unless in a very critical case, and even then, only with ample given proof. Again, the underlying assumption is that a mother “loves” her child and that a father pretending that she is harming it cannot be trusted. The social worker then suggests to Jude to bring the baby to his grandmother for his safety, but she also warns him that technically, this course of action would be kidnap. She does not even dare to speak about it to him in his office but does so in private, running after him in the street at the end of their interview. That Jude risks being called a kidnapper and entrusts his child to his estranged mother only accentuates his despair.
Now some may see me as a cruel person who cannot enter a mother’s sentiments, but I watched the film from the point of view of the child, and I can confirm to you from my experience that a disturbed mother can be threatening health, sanity and the very life of the creature for which she is responsible. The way Mina “lives for her child” may appear heart-wrenching, but it flat-out denies anybody else’s feelings - the father’s, the grandmother’s, even the child’s. Disturbed mothers “love” their children with a clinginess that is suffocating for them, reason being that they believe that at least of their own children they will never have to be afraid, since these are their “own”. They will painstakingly watch, suppress and fear any and every sign of independence from their children’s side as they grow; they mistake their children’s dependence on them for trust and, thus, love. Mina is dependent from her husband at the beginning of their marriage; making their relationship about the child’s dependence from her is perhaps her attempt to shift the dynamics, proving that she does not know love without dependence herself.
In this case, the baby mercifully at least never experiences psychical abuse because his mother dies before he is capable to think. Jude, too, due to his short acquaintance with Mina is spared the usual brainwashing and endless cycle of guilt-trips and condescension disturbed people usually torment their victims with, often gloating at their pain.
Superficially seen, “Hungry Hearts” may seem a drama, or thriller, working with bizarre elements. But from the point of view of an ex codependent (at least I hope I will never go there again!), who has known coexistence with personality disorder first-hand, it’s shockingly accurate and deeply disturbing in its intensity and realism.
The hearts of these four people are hungry for different things: Mina and Anne strive for control, while Jude and his son hunger for the chance to love and be loved. The child becomes the symbol of this, not needing the “special” food his mother gives him but what his father gives him, food that is plain but nurturing.
It is typical for a disturbed person to believe that “real love” must be something special, particularly fine and pure and above everything else, the answer to all questions and the balm to every wound (like the “pure” oil Mina insists on feeding her baby with); but love is everyday bread, necessary for life but also simple and common. With an almost brutal realism, we are confronted with the fact that Mina will never learn this truth, and possibly neither will Anne. Only Jude, who at times seemed to be the bad guy, and his innocent son have, in the end, a chance to learn together what normal life and love are.
Year of production: 2014
Country of production: Italy
Director: Saverio Costanzo
Starring: Adam Driver (Jude)
Alba Rohrwachter (Mina)
Roberta Maxwell (Anne)
#hungry hearts#adam driver#saverio costanzo#film analysis#codependency#mental issues#the indigo child#alba rohrwachter#personality disorder#narcissism
73 notes
·
View notes
Text
1 Frequent Liars Belong to Satan
Ke Nan Pingdingshan City, Henan Province
In the man’s fellowship attached to Christ’s Talks with Church Leaders and Workers, it is said: “All people, after being corrupted by satan, have become the ones who are full of lies. Corrupt human beings lie about everything, and even none of their words is not mixed with a lie.
They have all become experts in telling lies and master-hands in making up lies. It is very difficult to decide which of their words is true and which is false.” After reading these words, doctrinally we admit that there are too many lies in us, but in our heart we treat this matter as of no account. We are neither concerned nor worried about it but ignore it; and even though we lie, we have no fear, and much less do we pay attention to repentance and change. We can manifest such a state mainly because we do not realize that in essence frequent liars belong to satan, and also because we do not know God’s attitude toward frequent liars and their outcomes.
In the following paragraphs we will first talk about why we say that frequent liars belong to satan.
In the man’s fellowship, it says: “They can cheat God unscrupulously and unbridledly even before God…. How can such people be the ones who are of God? Only satan the devil dares to cheat God brazenly before God.” From these words we see that only satan the devil tells lies, and only it dares to cheat God. Now we can often tell lies and practice deceit; this proves that we have the same substance as satan and we are the ones who resist and betray God and the ones who belong to satan, which is a true fact that no one can deny. We all know that in the beginning when the ancestors of mankind were in the Garden of Eden, satan used the serpent to deceive and cheat them by its lies. At that time, God commanded Adam and Eve, saying that they were free to eat from any tree in the garden, but they must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when they ate of it they would surely die. But the serpent deceived Eve, saying that when she ate of it she would not surely die but instead her eyes would be opened and she would be like God, knowing good and evil. Thus, it beguiled mankind into betraying God. From then on, with the passage of time, satan’s various lies, evil teachings, and fallacies arose in increasing numbers, and they influenced and poisoned people, causing them to become more and more corrupt that they have all become devils and the embodiments of satan and had the same attributes as satan.
As mankind lived and multiplied from generation to generation, satan the devil invented numberless overt evil teachings and fallacies to deceive and corrupt them in order to permanently rule over and control them. These teachings and fallacies include the theories of evolution, atheism, and materialism, and all kinds of other doctrines and philosophical theories formulated by the giants and the famous people of the nations through the ages; the traditional cultures of every nation; the thoughts and teachings of Taoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism; etc. All these are distortions of the facts, are lies, and are foul means by which satan deceives, cheats, and corrupts people. It is by using these evil teachings and fallacies that satan has fooled people so much that they have all become fox-headed and horse-faced demons in Hades, and become its puppets, spokesmen, and expressers. Particularly in the dwelling place of the great red dragon, the country where the great dragon rules, lying and cheating and disguising even more prevail; no one dares to face reality or wants to speak honestly and truthfully, but everyone practices falsehood and disguise habitually; and darkness and evil lurk in every corner. In this land, where evil spirits run amuck, it is obvious that the devil spares no efforts to suppress God’s arrival, people will be arrested and persecuted if they believe in the true God, and they are all living under the dictatorial rule, being enslaved, oppressed, and deprived of their human rights and liberties. However, the great red dragon shamelessly claims that China is a liberal and democratic country, and that its citizens enjoy their legal rights and interests for freedom of religious beliefs. It is obvious that the standards of social conduct have become worse and worse, morals have decayed, and its people are extremely evil. However, the great red dragon says that China is a land of courtesy and propriety, which stresses on morals and decorum. It is obvious that the great red dragon plays the tyrant and sits on the backs of the people domineering over them. However, it asserts loudly that the people are the masters of their own country and that the position of the people in this socialist country is high. It is obvious that every official of the great red dragon abuses his power for personal gains, grabs and plunders by cajolery and coercion, embezzles money and accepts bribes, and is reckless with greed. However, they have the cheek to declare and claim that they are the servants of the people, honest in performing their official duties and free from corruption and bribery. It is obvious that the country of the great red dragon is poor and backward, and its people in most areas have no means of livelihood and their voices of grievances are heard everywhere. However, the great red dragon says that its country is rich, strong, and prosperous, and that its people live happy and enjoy good health. It is obvious that the great red dragon’s regime is crisis-ridden, strong in appearance but weak in reality, and like a ramshackle air castle. However, it claims that the whole social situation is stable, its country is in the heyday of peace, and its international position has been markedly improved. It is obvious that in the country of the great red dragon the social morals are lost, every social stratum is in a state of chaos, and the people intrigue and fight against one another. However, the great red dragon asserts that the society is harmonious and all the people are of one mind. … From these facts we can see that in essence the great red dragon is evil and sordid and most good at lying and cheating, and that it deceives, hoodwinks, and corrupts people by all kinds of lies and fallacies in order to make them all follow and worship it but resist and reject the true God.
During several thousand years of being corrupted by satan, mankind have been continuously influenced and harmed by the poisons of the great red dragon, and they have unconsciously believed and accepted satan’s various kinds of fallacies and lies. As a result, their thoughts and viewpoints, lifestyles, and principles of living have all become absurd and backward. Lying and cheating have become the foundation for their existence, falsehood and disguise have become their most effective methods for getting profits from others while getting along with them, and they have completely become the ones who live on lies and deceits like satan. Although we, who are experiencing God’s end-time work, have seen the truth and known that we should speak honestly, nevertheless, driven by our satanic nature, we still lie to God without scruple in his presence. For example, we, while believing in God, leave our families, give up our careers, and offer up our youth or life obviously in order to gain blessings, avoid disasters, and rise head and shoulders above others; but we say repeatedly that we expend ourselves for God and dedicate our youth or life to God. It is obvious that we believe in God in order to seek our personal interests and we suffer in order to achieve our own intents and purposes, but we brag unblushingly that we suffer for the sake of carrying out God’s will and loving God. It is obvious that in doing the work we are exalting ourselves and testifying ourselves, contending with God for his chosen people, but we always say that we are serving God and testifying God. Clearly, it is because of the revelation and leading of the Holy Spirit that we have achieved some results in our work, but we unreasonably claim all the credit for ourselves. In doing the work committed by God’s family, it is obvious that we are too concerned for our flesh and do not want to suffer and pay a price to do them properly, but we say repeatedly that God’s requirements are too high and God is too demanding of us. Clearly, all the works God does are for the purpose of saving us and perfecting us, but against our conscience we say that God is tormenting and cheating us, and exposing and eliminating us. It is obvious that all our sufferings are brought about by satan and it is satan that has afflicted us to this day, but we unfairly impute all satan’s wickedness to God and say that all our sufferings result from believing in God. And so on. When we perform our duties or have contact with others, we are also full of lies and deceit. For example, during our coordination with others, sometimes we have prejudices against them and dislike them so that we cannot get along with them. But when they perceive it and ask us whether we have any critical view of them, we answer dishonestly, “No, I do not have.” When others point out our defects, we contradict them in our heart and do not want to admit them, but we say with our mouth insincerely, “I truly thank God for this. If you did not point them out, I would not realize them.” After having been dismissed from our positions as leaders, we are full of complaints and resistance inwardly, living by right and wrong and in a wrong state. However, to others’ faces, we pretend that we have known ourselves, saying, “God is righteous. Everything God does is good, and he can never do anything wrong. I was dismissed because I was too rebellious.” In receiving the commissions given by God’s family, we always have our own choice. When the commission is not to our liking, we think that God’s family stifles such talents as us, and that we are wasted in this commission. But, in order to conceal our arrogance and unreasonableness, we pretend to be obedient, saying, “I am with poor qualities, and it is God’s uplifting that God’s family assigns me to perform any duty. I am willing to obey.” When we are put in charge of the church life, we do not pay attention to leading and teaching the brothers and sisters to eat and drink God’s word in the meetings, but always lead the meetings perfunctorily and deceitfully, going through the motions. As a result, most of the brothers and sisters do not know how to eat and drink God’s word, even less know how to check themselves with God’s word. The meetings have become rituals, and we have them in a way of observing regulations and cannot achieve the desired results at all. But when our leaders come to check up on our work and find out this problem, we justify ourselves, saying that we have fellowshipped about what we ought to and said what we should, and that the problem results from the brothers’ and sisters’ being with poor qualities and not pursuing. When our leaders ask us about some person’s state, we actually know it, but we say we do not know much about it for fear that we may offend that person or that we will be held accountable for whatever may happen later on. When reporting on our work, we only talk about the good part of it and even exaggerate it, but cover up the bad part as far as possible; if we fail to cover it up in spite of our great efforts, we just mention it in passing, like a dragonfly skimming the water surface. And so on. All in all, whether in God’s presence or in our contact with others, in our performing duties or in our daily life, we are always unconsciously lying and cheating, even to the extent that we lie about anything, lie at any time and in any situation, and lie the minute we open our mouth. We may say that telling lies has become our natural expression and our basic principle of living. We do not need to be taught or forced by anyone, but we can very naturally tell different lies under different circumstances the minute we open our mouth, and we can also very naturally tell different lies when meeting different people; if our lies are exposed, we will even try to conceal them and deny them, and concoct higher-sounding excuses to disguise and smarten up ourselves. This is why we say that we have become the devil’s people who belong to satan, and become experts in telling lies and master-hands in making up lies.
From the above examples, we can see that as satan cheats and deceives people, so also do we cheat God and cheat people. As satan disguises itself and gives people a misguided impression of it, so also do we disguise ourselves and conceal the true facts. As the great red dragon makes up lies to blow its own trumpet shamelessly, so also do we exaggerate and boast of ourselves shamelessly. The great red dragon often distorts the facts and calls white black and black white; likewise, we always confound right and wrong and confuse truth and falsehood. The great red dragon does its utmost to cover up the true facts, being very much afraid that its dark side will be laid bare; likewise, we try our best to cover up the true facts for fear that our disgraceful, ignominious, and discreditable ugly deeds will be exposed. The great red dragon reports only the good news but not the bad, and it gives wide publicity to the things that can be put as feathers in its cap, but does not say a single word about the things to its disadvantage or tarnishing its image. Likewise, in order to preserve our fame, interests, positions, vanity, and faces, we report only what is good while withholding what is unpleasant. The most despicable characteristic of the great red dragon is that it itself does not speak truthfully, nor does it allow others to do so. Likewise, our most noticeable characteristic is that we do not want to speak truthfully, nor do we like others to do so, and even less do we like to accept God’s words of judging and exposing our real condition. Obviously, we have already been assimilated and occupied by satan; our substance is exactly the same as that of satan the devil, and there is no difference between them. So it is no exaggeration to say that we are the ones belonging to satan.
The main reason why we can often lie and cheat is that we have been corrupted by satan so deeply that crookedness and craftiness have become our second nature and we have altogether become the ones who belong to satan. And another reason is that we do not know God’s attitude toward liars and the outcome of liars. Actually, God hates frequent liars to the utmost, and he has long since determined the outcome of such people. Let us read some words of God concerning this respect.
God says: “He lies blatantly. I tell you! This kind of person will be driven out from my family from now on. He is unworthy to serve me in my family. I loathe him because what he does is blasphemy against me! ‘Blasphemy against me is an unforgivable sin.’ Whom is this word directed at? Are you clear about it? This person has committed such a sin, but he still does not think that the matter is so serious. He is really a stupid person, who is blind and ignorant and whose spirit is blocked!”
“The things people cannot discern are all laid bare before me, and they cannot be kept hidden at all. Maybe you can hoodwink a few people and win many people’s trust, but it is not so easy for you to do so before me, and you cannot escape my judgment eventually.Who dare be unfaithful and unfilial to me! Who dare not tell me the truth but a pack of lies! None of them can escape from my hand of wrath.”
“I won’t allow any created being to deceive me. Do you think you can make demands of me as you wish and tell lies to me at will? Do you think I have never heard or seen your words and deeds? How can your words and deeds not be seen by my eyes? How can I allow you to deceive me like this?”
“Those crafty people who act one way to others’ faces and another behind their backs are all ones who are not willing to be perfected and are all sons of perdition or sons of destruction, and they belong to satan, not to God. The ones chosen by God are not such people!”
From God’s majestic and wrathful words, we can see that God extremely dislikes and loathes liars, even to the point that he cannot tolerate them. Frequent lairs belong to satan, and they are the ones who do not have themselves searched by God and who dare to tempt God and blaspheme God. Such ones are definitely the sons of perdition and the objects to be punished and cursed by God! Through the ages, there were so many people who lied to God and were thus punished by God. Judas was one among them. Before the Lord Jesus came, Judas often lied to the brothers and sisters. After the Lord Jesus came, he still did not repent. He always stole the money of the Lord and often lied to people and to God. Finally, he betrayed the Lord Jesus because of this, and he was thus cursed by God—He died with his body bursting open. Take Ananias and his wife for another example. This couple kept for themselves some of the money they received for the land, but they lied and told the apostles that they brought all the money to them. As a result, they were struck down by God because of lying to the Holy Spirit—they fell down and died then and there. Besides the many cases in the past ages, today there are also many people around us who have been punished and disciplined by God because of lying to God. Take a sister for example. She took an oath before God, saying that she would never again plan to get married, and that if she did, may God curse her and send upon her the disasters that had seldom been seen for six thousand years. But after that, she cast her oath aside and again planed in her heart: “If the gospel work doesn’t end this year, I will get married next year.” And secretly, she even started to look for a boyfriend to marry. Because of this, she performed her duty absent-mindedly, perfunctorily, and deceitfully. Finally, she was arrested by the great red dragon while performing her duty. She was beaten up in a police station for nearly four hours, and later, she escaped from there while the police were off guard. However, on the way back, she fell into a ditch, and she was seized with unbearable abdominal pain. After she was sent to hospital, due to the doctor’s wrong diagnosis, they performed an operation on her, only to find that her bladder ruptured; but a very long cut had already been mistakenly made in her abdomen.She lived in great torment in the hospital, feeling that it was better to die than to live. She really regretted having lied to God. For another example, someone, in order not to fall behind others and lose his place in his leader’s heart, lied about the number of the people who newly accepted the gospel, and he even trusted to luck and thought that it was not a serious matter to lie about that. However, the Holy Spirit does not let off anyone who cheats God. So, he unconsciously lost the working of the Holy Spirit and lived in darkness, and his work results declined sharply. We ourselves also have more or less tasted the bitterness of being chastened and disciplined by God for lying to God. After we lied to God for the sake of our vanity and faces, or fame and positions, we had no word to pray before God, could not receive enlightenment when eating and drinking God’s word, felt depressed in our spirit, had no peace in our heart, and felt doubly condemned and rebuked in our conscience. We lived in God’s chastisement, and besides, in our work we not only achieved no results but also ran into snags and were foiled everywhere. From this we can clearly see that if we lie to God, there will be God’s majesty and wrath coming upon us, and there will be severe smiting and discipline accompanying us. If we refuse to repent and change, eventually we will end up like Judas.
If we want to put away lying, above all, we need to pursue the truth. We need to spend more effort on the words through which God judges and exposes man’s crafty nature, know from the words our crafty nature of lying and its various kinds of displays, and see through and hate them. Secondly, we need to know God’s attitude toward liars and the outcome of liars. Knowing these can impel us to forsake our flesh and enter into the truths concerning being an honest person. Thirdly, we need to have ourselves searched by God in everything. Whether it be our daily living, our praying, our fellow shipping in the meetings, our reporting on our work, or our reporting on the situations, we should present them all before God. By practicing this, we will be able to restrain ourselves, and will not dare to follow our own will and say whatever we want to say, even less dare to make up lies in order to achieve our own ends. Fourthly, we need to consciously exercise to speak truthfully and honestly at ordinary times—call one one, two two, and not speak exaggeratedly or under statedly or with mixtures. And we also need to treat our every untrue word seriously and need to declare and correct it without delay. If we can persistently pursue to enter in and be strict with ourselves according to the above ways, our conduct of lying will be gradually changed.
May God lead us on, so that we can know that frequent liars are essentially Satan the devil and see clearly the consequence and seriousness of lying frequently, and so that we can enter in according to the ways to be an honest person, stop telling lies soon, and become the honest people whom God is pleased with.
0 notes
Link
LOS ANGELES -- The crowd was buzzing with Hollywood types -- actress Patricia Arquette, producer Norman Lear -- at a private film screening on Sunset Boulevard one recent Sunday afternoon. But here in liberal America, the biggest celebrity in the room was not someone who makes a living in what people call "the industry."It was Rep. Adam Schiff, the straight-laced former federal prosecutor who was on the brink of prosecuting his biggest defendant yet: President Donald Trump.These are heady but perilous days for Schiff, the inscrutable and slightly nerdy chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who is leading the impeachment inquiry into Trump. Adored by the left, reviled by the right, he has become a Rorschach test for U.S. politics. Depending on one's point of view, he is either going to save the republic or destroy it.Here in his home district, at the screening of "The Great Hack," a film about misinformation in the 2016 election, Lear introduced Schiff as a "current American hero." As the audience leapt to its feet in a standing ovation, the congressman emerged from backstage in standard Washington uniform -- navy blazer, white shirt, light blue tie -- his manner as inoffensive as his attire."We thank them for their patriotism," Schiff said somberly, praising whistleblowers, including the anonymous one whose complaint against Trump prompted the impeachment inquiry, "and we hope others will follow their courageous example."Now Schiff, 59, is poised to take a much bigger stage as his inquiry moves from a secure office suite in a Capitol Hill basement into nationally televised public hearings. He will make the case against Trump to a divided nation, in what amounts to an epic courtroom drama meant to unveil evidence of the president's pressure campaign to enlist Ukraine to smear his political rivals -- a moment that is bound to be must-watch TV.At home in his district, which stretches from West Hollywood to Pasadena and north to the San Gabriel Mountains, Schiff is well acquainted with the celebrity lifestyle.He lives with his wife, Eve (yes, Adam and Eve), and their two children in suburban Maryland, but they also have an apartment in Burbank, home to Walt Disney Studios. He favors vegan Chinese food and drives an Audi whose license plate frame bears a line from the movie "The Big Lebowski" ("I don't roll on Shabbos"), from which he can quote at length. He has dabbled at screenwriting, once drafting a script that featured a prosecutor as the hero. He tried stand-up comedy, too, during a fundraiser at the Improv in Hollywood."He did a whole riff on being a nihilist," said one of his best friends, former congressman Steve Israel, who joined him onstage. "Basically, we got told to stick to our day jobs."But if Schiff has a sense of humor (his friends insist he does have a dry one), he rarely shows it in Washington, where he has carefully cultivated his image as the stylistic and substantive opposite of Trump: calm, measured, reserved and brainy.He makes no secret of his disdain for the president, who refers to him as "Little Pencil Neck" or "Shifty Schiff" when he is not replacing the congressman's surname with a similar-sounding expletive. In an interview, Schiff called Trump a "grave risk to our democracy" who is conducting an "amoral presidency" and has debased his office with "infantile" insults."What comes through in the president's comments and his tweets and his outrage and his anger toward me in particular is, this president feels he has a God-given right to abuse his office in any way he sees fit," Schiff said.Trump and his allies, sensing the threat posed by Schiff's inquiry and divided over how to defend the president against damning testimony, have united in trying to undermine the congressman's credibility. They sought unsuccessfully to have the House censure him and have accused him of running a "Soviet-style impeachment inquiry."On Saturday, Trump proclaimed him "a corrupt politician" on Twitter and claimed that if Schiff "is allowed to release transcripts of the Never Trumpers & others that are & were interviewed, he will change the words that were said to suit the Dems purposes."Republicans who work side by side with him on the Intelligence Committee contend that he has changed as his star has risen alongside Trump's. A figure they once saw as a serious and studious policy wonk they now describe in viscerally negative terms, as a liar and a hypocrite who will stop at nothing to oust a duly elected president.Schiff has an "absolute maniacal focus on Donald Trump" said one committee Republican, Rep. Michael Turner of Ohio, who accused Schiff of routinely lying to the press and the public about what happened in private interviews and conducting the inquiry's initial hearings out of public view so he and other Democrats could distort the findings.And Schiff has let the publicity go to his head, Turner said: "Schiff finds the media intoxicating. And he is pretty much willing to do whatever it takes to get to the top of the media cycle."Schiff has made some missteps. His dramatized description of the president's phone call with the leader of Ukraine drew attacks from the president and Republican lawmakers, who said he was fabricating evidence -- and surprised even a close friend, Alice Hill, who knows the congressman from their days as young prosecutors in Los Angeles."I was a bit surprised because he is reserved and not prone to overstatement, very careful with his words, very careful with the facts and keeping to the facts," she said, adding, "It felt out of character."And Schiff's assertion that he had not had any contact with the whistleblower who incited the inquiry drew a "false" rating from The Washington Post; the whistleblower had approached his panel for guidance before filing his complaint. Schiff conceded he "should have been much more clear" about that.Democrats, who are united behind Schiff, counter that the attacks are opportunistic; Republicans, they said, are attacking Schiff over process because they cannot defend the president on the merits of his behavior.There is little room for error as Schiff pushes the inquiry forward in the coming months. His performance could determine not only Trump's future but also his own. Schiff is a close ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and viewed by some as her possible successor. At a recent news conference, Pelosi -- not ordinarily one to cede control -- took the rare step of sitting with reporters to watch admiringly as the congressman spoke."He's a full package," Pelosi said in an interview, praising Schiff as "always gracious, always lovely." She added, "He knows his purpose, and his purpose is not to engage in that silliness that the president is engaged in."A lawyer educated at Stanford University and Harvard Law School, Schiff tried his first big case three decades ago when, as a young federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, he secured the conviction of an FBI agent who was seduced by a Soviet spy and traded secrets for gold and cash. In 1996, he won a seat in the California Senate; in 2000, he was elected to the House by beating a Republican who had been a manager in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.In Washington, Schiff joined the Blue Dogs, a group of conservative Democrats, and made a name for himself as a national security expert. He joined the Intelligence Committee in 2008 -- drawn to it, Israel said, because he viewed it as "a quiet place for bipartisanship."His breakout moment came in 2014, when the Republican-led House established a committee to investigate attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. Schiff had argued that Democrats should not participate in what he viewed as a partisan exercise, but Pelosi put him on the committee.But it was the election of Trump that elevated Schiff's profile and made him a sought-after speaker and fundraiser in Democratic circles. As the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee last term, when Republicans still had the majority, he vigorously investigated Russian election interference and questions around whether the Trump campaign had conspired with hostile foreign actors, becoming the most recognizable public face explaining the biggest story in Washington on national TV. When Democrats won the majority in the House, he helped Pelosi draft an investigative strategy.Schiff was a late convert to the impeachment push; like Pelosi, he held back until revelations about Ukraine emerged. For the last five weeks, he has spent much of his time in a secure room four floors below the Capitol, overseeing the closed-door questioning of witnesses. He opens each witness interview and sometimes steps in to conduct questioning himself."The American people have a right to know -- they have a need to know -- how deep this misconduct goes," he said, adding, "There's no hiding the president's hand in any of this."These days, Schiff has tried to tightly control his public profile. He goes on television less than he used to and zips wordlessly through the Capitol, trailed by a phalanx of aides and a scrum of journalists, smiling wanly as they pepper him with questions.It has all given him "a new appreciation" of the struggles his celebrity constituents face in maintaining their privacy, he said. And he is well aware that, out there in the rest of the U.S., he has become a polarizing figure."I feel I've become kind of a human focus group," he said during a panel discussion after the screening here. "People will stop me in the airport in close succession. One will come up to me and say, 'Are you Adam Schiff? I just want to shake your hand -- you're my hero,' immediately to be followed by someone else who says, 'Why are you destroying our democracy?' "The congressman paused and concluded that both couldn't be right "because last time I checked, I'm the same person."This article originally appeared in The New York Times.(C) 2019 The New York Times Company
from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/34zFMD4
0 notes
Link
LOS ANGELES -- The crowd was buzzing with Hollywood types -- actress Patricia Arquette, producer Norman Lear -- at a private film screening on Sunset Boulevard one recent Sunday afternoon. But here in liberal America, the biggest celebrity in the room was not someone who makes a living in what people call "the industry."It was Rep. Adam Schiff, the straight-laced former federal prosecutor who was on the brink of prosecuting his biggest defendant yet: President Donald Trump.These are heady but perilous days for Schiff, the inscrutable and slightly nerdy chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who is leading the impeachment inquiry into Trump. Adored by the left, reviled by the right, he has become a Rorschach test for U.S. politics. Depending on one's point of view, he is either going to save the republic or destroy it.Here in his home district, at the screening of "The Great Hack," a film about misinformation in the 2016 election, Lear introduced Schiff as a "current American hero." As the audience leapt to its feet in a standing ovation, the congressman emerged from backstage in standard Washington uniform -- navy blazer, white shirt, light blue tie -- his manner as inoffensive as his attire."We thank them for their patriotism," Schiff said somberly, praising whistleblowers, including the anonymous one whose complaint against Trump prompted the impeachment inquiry, "and we hope others will follow their courageous example."Now Schiff, 59, is poised to take a much bigger stage as his inquiry moves from a secure office suite in a Capitol Hill basement into nationally televised public hearings. He will make the case against Trump to a divided nation, in what amounts to an epic courtroom drama meant to unveil evidence of the president's pressure campaign to enlist Ukraine to smear his political rivals -- a moment that is bound to be must-watch TV.At home in his district, which stretches from West Hollywood to Pasadena and north to the San Gabriel Mountains, Schiff is well acquainted with the celebrity lifestyle.He lives with his wife, Eve (yes, Adam and Eve), and their two children in suburban Maryland, but they also have an apartment in Burbank, home to Walt Disney Studios. He favors vegan Chinese food and drives an Audi whose license plate frame bears a line from the movie "The Big Lebowski" ("I don't roll on Shabbos"), from which he can quote at length. He has dabbled at screenwriting, once drafting a script that featured a prosecutor as the hero. He tried stand-up comedy, too, during a fundraiser at the Improv in Hollywood."He did a whole riff on being a nihilist," said one of his best friends, former congressman Steve Israel, who joined him onstage. "Basically, we got told to stick to our day jobs."But if Schiff has a sense of humor (his friends insist he does have a dry one), he rarely shows it in Washington, where he has carefully cultivated his image as the stylistic and substantive opposite of Trump: calm, measured, reserved and brainy.He makes no secret of his disdain for the president, who refers to him as "Little Pencil Neck" or "Shifty Schiff" when he is not replacing the congressman's surname with a similar-sounding expletive. In an interview, Schiff called Trump a "grave risk to our democracy" who is conducting an "amoral presidency" and has debased his office with "infantile" insults."What comes through in the president's comments and his tweets and his outrage and his anger toward me in particular is, this president feels he has a God-given right to abuse his office in any way he sees fit," Schiff said.Trump and his allies, sensing the threat posed by Schiff's inquiry and divided over how to defend the president against damning testimony, have united in trying to undermine the congressman's credibility. They sought unsuccessfully to have the House censure him and have accused him of running a "Soviet-style impeachment inquiry."On Saturday, Trump proclaimed him "a corrupt politician" on Twitter and claimed that if Schiff "is allowed to release transcripts of the Never Trumpers & others that are & were interviewed, he will change the words that were said to suit the Dems purposes."Republicans who work side by side with him on the Intelligence Committee contend that he has changed as his star has risen alongside Trump's. A figure they once saw as a serious and studious policy wonk they now describe in viscerally negative terms, as a liar and a hypocrite who will stop at nothing to oust a duly elected president.Schiff has an "absolute maniacal focus on Donald Trump" said one committee Republican, Rep. Michael Turner of Ohio, who accused Schiff of routinely lying to the press and the public about what happened in private interviews and conducting the inquiry's initial hearings out of public view so he and other Democrats could distort the findings.And Schiff has let the publicity go to his head, Turner said: "Schiff finds the media intoxicating. And he is pretty much willing to do whatever it takes to get to the top of the media cycle."Schiff has made some missteps. His dramatized description of the president's phone call with the leader of Ukraine drew attacks from the president and Republican lawmakers, who said he was fabricating evidence -- and surprised even a close friend, Alice Hill, who knows the congressman from their days as young prosecutors in Los Angeles."I was a bit surprised because he is reserved and not prone to overstatement, very careful with his words, very careful with the facts and keeping to the facts," she said, adding, "It felt out of character."And Schiff's assertion that he had not had any contact with the whistleblower who incited the inquiry drew a "false" rating from The Washington Post; the whistleblower had approached his panel for guidance before filing his complaint. Schiff conceded he "should have been much more clear" about that.Democrats, who are united behind Schiff, counter that the attacks are opportunistic; Republicans, they said, are attacking Schiff over process because they cannot defend the president on the merits of his behavior.There is little room for error as Schiff pushes the inquiry forward in the coming months. His performance could determine not only Trump's future but also his own. Schiff is a close ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and viewed by some as her possible successor. At a recent news conference, Pelosi -- not ordinarily one to cede control -- took the rare step of sitting with reporters to watch admiringly as the congressman spoke."He's a full package," Pelosi said in an interview, praising Schiff as "always gracious, always lovely." She added, "He knows his purpose, and his purpose is not to engage in that silliness that the president is engaged in."A lawyer educated at Stanford University and Harvard Law School, Schiff tried his first big case three decades ago when, as a young federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, he secured the conviction of an FBI agent who was seduced by a Soviet spy and traded secrets for gold and cash. In 1996, he won a seat in the California Senate; in 2000, he was elected to the House by beating a Republican who had been a manager in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.In Washington, Schiff joined the Blue Dogs, a group of conservative Democrats, and made a name for himself as a national security expert. He joined the Intelligence Committee in 2008 -- drawn to it, Israel said, because he viewed it as "a quiet place for bipartisanship."His breakout moment came in 2014, when the Republican-led House established a committee to investigate attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. Schiff had argued that Democrats should not participate in what he viewed as a partisan exercise, but Pelosi put him on the committee.But it was the election of Trump that elevated Schiff's profile and made him a sought-after speaker and fundraiser in Democratic circles. As the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee last term, when Republicans still had the majority, he vigorously investigated Russian election interference and questions around whether the Trump campaign had conspired with hostile foreign actors, becoming the most recognizable public face explaining the biggest story in Washington on national TV. When Democrats won the majority in the House, he helped Pelosi draft an investigative strategy.Schiff was a late convert to the impeachment push; like Pelosi, he held back until revelations about Ukraine emerged. For the last five weeks, he has spent much of his time in a secure room four floors below the Capitol, overseeing the closed-door questioning of witnesses. He opens each witness interview and sometimes steps in to conduct questioning himself."The American people have a right to know -- they have a need to know -- how deep this misconduct goes," he said, adding, "There's no hiding the president's hand in any of this."These days, Schiff has tried to tightly control his public profile. He goes on television less than he used to and zips wordlessly through the Capitol, trailed by a phalanx of aides and a scrum of journalists, smiling wanly as they pepper him with questions.It has all given him "a new appreciation" of the struggles his celebrity constituents face in maintaining their privacy, he said. And he is well aware that, out there in the rest of the U.S., he has become a polarizing figure."I feel I've become kind of a human focus group," he said during a panel discussion after the screening here. "People will stop me in the airport in close succession. One will come up to me and say, 'Are you Adam Schiff? I just want to shake your hand -- you're my hero,' immediately to be followed by someone else who says, 'Why are you destroying our democracy?' "The congressman paused and concluded that both couldn't be right "because last time I checked, I'm the same person."This article originally appeared in The New York Times.(C) 2019 The New York Times Company
from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/34zFMD4
0 notes
Link
LOS ANGELES -- The crowd was buzzing with Hollywood types -- actress Patricia Arquette, producer Norman Lear -- at a private film screening on Sunset Boulevard one recent Sunday afternoon. But here in liberal America, the biggest celebrity in the room was not someone who makes a living in what people call "the industry."It was Rep. Adam Schiff, the straight-laced former federal prosecutor who was on the brink of prosecuting his biggest defendant yet: President Donald Trump.These are heady but perilous days for Schiff, the inscrutable and slightly nerdy chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who is leading the impeachment inquiry into Trump. Adored by the left, reviled by the right, he has become a Rorschach test for U.S. politics. Depending on one's point of view, he is either going to save the republic or destroy it.Here in his home district, at the screening of "The Great Hack," a film about misinformation in the 2016 election, Lear introduced Schiff as a "current American hero." As the audience leapt to its feet in a standing ovation, the congressman emerged from backstage in standard Washington uniform -- navy blazer, white shirt, light blue tie -- his manner as inoffensive as his attire."We thank them for their patriotism," Schiff said somberly, praising whistleblowers, including the anonymous one whose complaint against Trump prompted the impeachment inquiry, "and we hope others will follow their courageous example."Now Schiff, 59, is poised to take a much bigger stage as his inquiry moves from a secure office suite in a Capitol Hill basement into nationally televised public hearings. He will make the case against Trump to a divided nation, in what amounts to an epic courtroom drama meant to unveil evidence of the president's pressure campaign to enlist Ukraine to smear his political rivals -- a moment that is bound to be must-watch TV.At home in his district, which stretches from West Hollywood to Pasadena and north to the San Gabriel Mountains, Schiff is well acquainted with the celebrity lifestyle.He lives with his wife, Eve (yes, Adam and Eve), and their two children in suburban Maryland, but they also have an apartment in Burbank, home to Walt Disney Studios. He favors vegan Chinese food and drives an Audi whose license plate frame bears a line from the movie "The Big Lebowski" ("I don't roll on Shabbos"), from which he can quote at length. He has dabbled at screenwriting, once drafting a script that featured a prosecutor as the hero. He tried stand-up comedy, too, during a fundraiser at the Improv in Hollywood."He did a whole riff on being a nihilist," said one of his best friends, former congressman Steve Israel, who joined him onstage. "Basically, we got told to stick to our day jobs."But if Schiff has a sense of humor (his friends insist he does have a dry one), he rarely shows it in Washington, where he has carefully cultivated his image as the stylistic and substantive opposite of Trump: calm, measured, reserved and brainy.He makes no secret of his disdain for the president, who refers to him as "Little Pencil Neck" or "Shifty Schiff" when he is not replacing the congressman's surname with a similar-sounding expletive. In an interview, Schiff called Trump a "grave risk to our democracy" who is conducting an "amoral presidency" and has debased his office with "infantile" insults."What comes through in the president's comments and his tweets and his outrage and his anger toward me in particular is, this president feels he has a God-given right to abuse his office in any way he sees fit," Schiff said.Trump and his allies, sensing the threat posed by Schiff's inquiry and divided over how to defend the president against damning testimony, have united in trying to undermine the congressman's credibility. They sought unsuccessfully to have the House censure him and have accused him of running a "Soviet-style impeachment inquiry."On Saturday, Trump proclaimed him "a corrupt politician" on Twitter and claimed that if Schiff "is allowed to release transcripts of the Never Trumpers & others that are & were interviewed, he will change the words that were said to suit the Dems purposes."Republicans who work side by side with him on the Intelligence Committee contend that he has changed as his star has risen alongside Trump's. A figure they once saw as a serious and studious policy wonk they now describe in viscerally negative terms, as a liar and a hypocrite who will stop at nothing to oust a duly elected president.Schiff has an "absolute maniacal focus on Donald Trump" said one committee Republican, Rep. Michael Turner of Ohio, who accused Schiff of routinely lying to the press and the public about what happened in private interviews and conducting the inquiry's initial hearings out of public view so he and other Democrats could distort the findings.And Schiff has let the publicity go to his head, Turner said: "Schiff finds the media intoxicating. And he is pretty much willing to do whatever it takes to get to the top of the media cycle."Schiff has made some missteps. His dramatized description of the president's phone call with the leader of Ukraine drew attacks from the president and Republican lawmakers, who said he was fabricating evidence -- and surprised even a close friend, Alice Hill, who knows the congressman from their days as young prosecutors in Los Angeles."I was a bit surprised because he is reserved and not prone to overstatement, very careful with his words, very careful with the facts and keeping to the facts," she said, adding, "It felt out of character."And Schiff's assertion that he had not had any contact with the whistleblower who incited the inquiry drew a "false" rating from The Washington Post; the whistleblower had approached his panel for guidance before filing his complaint. Schiff conceded he "should have been much more clear" about that.Democrats, who are united behind Schiff, counter that the attacks are opportunistic; Republicans, they said, are attacking Schiff over process because they cannot defend the president on the merits of his behavior.There is little room for error as Schiff pushes the inquiry forward in the coming months. His performance could determine not only Trump's future but also his own. Schiff is a close ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and viewed by some as her possible successor. At a recent news conference, Pelosi -- not ordinarily one to cede control -- took the rare step of sitting with reporters to watch admiringly as the congressman spoke."He's a full package," Pelosi said in an interview, praising Schiff as "always gracious, always lovely." She added, "He knows his purpose, and his purpose is not to engage in that silliness that the president is engaged in."A lawyer educated at Stanford University and Harvard Law School, Schiff tried his first big case three decades ago when, as a young federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, he secured the conviction of an FBI agent who was seduced by a Soviet spy and traded secrets for gold and cash. In 1996, he won a seat in the California Senate; in 2000, he was elected to the House by beating a Republican who had been a manager in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.In Washington, Schiff joined the Blue Dogs, a group of conservative Democrats, and made a name for himself as a national security expert. He joined the Intelligence Committee in 2008 -- drawn to it, Israel said, because he viewed it as "a quiet place for bipartisanship."His breakout moment came in 2014, when the Republican-led House established a committee to investigate attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. Schiff had argued that Democrats should not participate in what he viewed as a partisan exercise, but Pelosi put him on the committee.But it was the election of Trump that elevated Schiff's profile and made him a sought-after speaker and fundraiser in Democratic circles. As the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee last term, when Republicans still had the majority, he vigorously investigated Russian election interference and questions around whether the Trump campaign had conspired with hostile foreign actors, becoming the most recognizable public face explaining the biggest story in Washington on national TV. When Democrats won the majority in the House, he helped Pelosi draft an investigative strategy.Schiff was a late convert to the impeachment push; like Pelosi, he held back until revelations about Ukraine emerged. For the last five weeks, he has spent much of his time in a secure room four floors below the Capitol, overseeing the closed-door questioning of witnesses. He opens each witness interview and sometimes steps in to conduct questioning himself."The American people have a right to know -- they have a need to know -- how deep this misconduct goes," he said, adding, "There's no hiding the president's hand in any of this."These days, Schiff has tried to tightly control his public profile. He goes on television less than he used to and zips wordlessly through the Capitol, trailed by a phalanx of aides and a scrum of journalists, smiling wanly as they pepper him with questions.It has all given him "a new appreciation" of the struggles his celebrity constituents face in maintaining their privacy, he said. And he is well aware that, out there in the rest of the U.S., he has become a polarizing figure."I feel I've become kind of a human focus group," he said during a panel discussion after the screening here. "People will stop me in the airport in close succession. One will come up to me and say, 'Are you Adam Schiff? I just want to shake your hand -- you're my hero,' immediately to be followed by someone else who says, 'Why are you destroying our democracy?' "The congressman paused and concluded that both couldn't be right "because last time I checked, I'm the same person."This article originally appeared in The New York Times.(C) 2019 The New York Times Company
from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/34zFMD4
0 notes
Link
LOS ANGELES -- The crowd was buzzing with Hollywood types -- actress Patricia Arquette, producer Norman Lear -- at a private film screening on Sunset Boulevard one recent Sunday afternoon. But here in liberal America, the biggest celebrity in the room was not someone who makes a living in what people call "the industry."It was Rep. Adam Schiff, the straight-laced former federal prosecutor who was on the brink of prosecuting his biggest defendant yet: President Donald Trump.These are heady but perilous days for Schiff, the inscrutable and slightly nerdy chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who is leading the impeachment inquiry into Trump. Adored by the left, reviled by the right, he has become a Rorschach test for U.S. politics. Depending on one's point of view, he is either going to save the republic or destroy it.Here in his home district, at the screening of "The Great Hack," a film about misinformation in the 2016 election, Lear introduced Schiff as a "current American hero." As the audience leapt to its feet in a standing ovation, the congressman emerged from backstage in standard Washington uniform -- navy blazer, white shirt, light blue tie -- his manner as inoffensive as his attire."We thank them for their patriotism," Schiff said somberly, praising whistleblowers, including the anonymous one whose complaint against Trump prompted the impeachment inquiry, "and we hope others will follow their courageous example."Now Schiff, 59, is poised to take a much bigger stage as his inquiry moves from a secure office suite in a Capitol Hill basement into nationally televised public hearings. He will make the case against Trump to a divided nation, in what amounts to an epic courtroom drama meant to unveil evidence of the president's pressure campaign to enlist Ukraine to smear his political rivals -- a moment that is bound to be must-watch TV.At home in his district, which stretches from West Hollywood to Pasadena and north to the San Gabriel Mountains, Schiff is well acquainted with the celebrity lifestyle.He lives with his wife, Eve (yes, Adam and Eve), and their two children in suburban Maryland, but they also have an apartment in Burbank, home to Walt Disney Studios. He favors vegan Chinese food and drives an Audi whose license plate frame bears a line from the movie "The Big Lebowski" ("I don't roll on Shabbos"), from which he can quote at length. He has dabbled at screenwriting, once drafting a script that featured a prosecutor as the hero. He tried stand-up comedy, too, during a fundraiser at the Improv in Hollywood."He did a whole riff on being a nihilist," said one of his best friends, former congressman Steve Israel, who joined him onstage. "Basically, we got told to stick to our day jobs."But if Schiff has a sense of humor (his friends insist he does have a dry one), he rarely shows it in Washington, where he has carefully cultivated his image as the stylistic and substantive opposite of Trump: calm, measured, reserved and brainy.He makes no secret of his disdain for the president, who refers to him as "Little Pencil Neck" or "Shifty Schiff" when he is not replacing the congressman's surname with a similar-sounding expletive. In an interview, Schiff called Trump a "grave risk to our democracy" who is conducting an "amoral presidency" and has debased his office with "infantile" insults."What comes through in the president's comments and his tweets and his outrage and his anger toward me in particular is, this president feels he has a God-given right to abuse his office in any way he sees fit," Schiff said.Trump and his allies, sensing the threat posed by Schiff's inquiry and divided over how to defend the president against damning testimony, have united in trying to undermine the congressman's credibility. They sought unsuccessfully to have the House censure him and have accused him of running a "Soviet-style impeachment inquiry."On Saturday, Trump proclaimed him "a corrupt politician" on Twitter and claimed that if Schiff "is allowed to release transcripts of the Never Trumpers & others that are & were interviewed, he will change the words that were said to suit the Dems purposes."Republicans who work side by side with him on the Intelligence Committee contend that he has changed as his star has risen alongside Trump's. A figure they once saw as a serious and studious policy wonk they now describe in viscerally negative terms, as a liar and a hypocrite who will stop at nothing to oust a duly elected president.Schiff has an "absolute maniacal focus on Donald Trump" said one committee Republican, Rep. Michael Turner of Ohio, who accused Schiff of routinely lying to the press and the public about what happened in private interviews and conducting the inquiry's initial hearings out of public view so he and other Democrats could distort the findings.And Schiff has let the publicity go to his head, Turner said: "Schiff finds the media intoxicating. And he is pretty much willing to do whatever it takes to get to the top of the media cycle."Schiff has made some missteps. His dramatized description of the president's phone call with the leader of Ukraine drew attacks from the president and Republican lawmakers, who said he was fabricating evidence -- and surprised even a close friend, Alice Hill, who knows the congressman from their days as young prosecutors in Los Angeles."I was a bit surprised because he is reserved and not prone to overstatement, very careful with his words, very careful with the facts and keeping to the facts," she said, adding, "It felt out of character."And Schiff's assertion that he had not had any contact with the whistleblower who incited the inquiry drew a "false" rating from The Washington Post; the whistleblower had approached his panel for guidance before filing his complaint. Schiff conceded he "should have been much more clear" about that.Democrats, who are united behind Schiff, counter that the attacks are opportunistic; Republicans, they said, are attacking Schiff over process because they cannot defend the president on the merits of his behavior.There is little room for error as Schiff pushes the inquiry forward in the coming months. His performance could determine not only Trump's future but also his own. Schiff is a close ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and viewed by some as her possible successor. At a recent news conference, Pelosi -- not ordinarily one to cede control -- took the rare step of sitting with reporters to watch admiringly as the congressman spoke."He's a full package," Pelosi said in an interview, praising Schiff as "always gracious, always lovely." She added, "He knows his purpose, and his purpose is not to engage in that silliness that the president is engaged in."A lawyer educated at Stanford University and Harvard Law School, Schiff tried his first big case three decades ago when, as a young federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, he secured the conviction of an FBI agent who was seduced by a Soviet spy and traded secrets for gold and cash. In 1996, he won a seat in the California Senate; in 2000, he was elected to the House by beating a Republican who had been a manager in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.In Washington, Schiff joined the Blue Dogs, a group of conservative Democrats, and made a name for himself as a national security expert. He joined the Intelligence Committee in 2008 -- drawn to it, Israel said, because he viewed it as "a quiet place for bipartisanship."His breakout moment came in 2014, when the Republican-led House established a committee to investigate attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. Schiff had argued that Democrats should not participate in what he viewed as a partisan exercise, but Pelosi put him on the committee.But it was the election of Trump that elevated Schiff's profile and made him a sought-after speaker and fundraiser in Democratic circles. As the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee last term, when Republicans still had the majority, he vigorously investigated Russian election interference and questions around whether the Trump campaign had conspired with hostile foreign actors, becoming the most recognizable public face explaining the biggest story in Washington on national TV. When Democrats won the majority in the House, he helped Pelosi draft an investigative strategy.Schiff was a late convert to the impeachment push; like Pelosi, he held back until revelations about Ukraine emerged. For the last five weeks, he has spent much of his time in a secure room four floors below the Capitol, overseeing the closed-door questioning of witnesses. He opens each witness interview and sometimes steps in to conduct questioning himself."The American people have a right to know -- they have a need to know -- how deep this misconduct goes," he said, adding, "There's no hiding the president's hand in any of this."These days, Schiff has tried to tightly control his public profile. He goes on television less than he used to and zips wordlessly through the Capitol, trailed by a phalanx of aides and a scrum of journalists, smiling wanly as they pepper him with questions.It has all given him "a new appreciation" of the struggles his celebrity constituents face in maintaining their privacy, he said. And he is well aware that, out there in the rest of the U.S., he has become a polarizing figure."I feel I've become kind of a human focus group," he said during a panel discussion after the screening here. "People will stop me in the airport in close succession. One will come up to me and say, 'Are you Adam Schiff? I just want to shake your hand -- you're my hero,' immediately to be followed by someone else who says, 'Why are you destroying our democracy?' "The congressman paused and concluded that both couldn't be right "because last time I checked, I'm the same person."This article originally appeared in The New York Times.(C) 2019 The New York Times Company
from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/34zFMD4
0 notes
Link
LOS ANGELES -- The crowd was buzzing with Hollywood types -- actress Patricia Arquette, producer Norman Lear -- at a private film screening on Sunset Boulevard one recent Sunday afternoon. But here in liberal America, the biggest celebrity in the room was not someone who makes a living in what people call "the industry."It was Rep. Adam Schiff, the straight-laced former federal prosecutor who was on the brink of prosecuting his biggest defendant yet: President Donald Trump.These are heady but perilous days for Schiff, the inscrutable and slightly nerdy chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who is leading the impeachment inquiry into Trump. Adored by the left, reviled by the right, he has become a Rorschach test for U.S. politics. Depending on one's point of view, he is either going to save the republic or destroy it.Here in his home district, at the screening of "The Great Hack," a film about misinformation in the 2016 election, Lear introduced Schiff as a "current American hero." As the audience leapt to its feet in a standing ovation, the congressman emerged from backstage in standard Washington uniform -- navy blazer, white shirt, light blue tie -- his manner as inoffensive as his attire."We thank them for their patriotism," Schiff said somberly, praising whistleblowers, including the anonymous one whose complaint against Trump prompted the impeachment inquiry, "and we hope others will follow their courageous example."Now Schiff, 59, is poised to take a much bigger stage as his inquiry moves from a secure office suite in a Capitol Hill basement into nationally televised public hearings. He will make the case against Trump to a divided nation, in what amounts to an epic courtroom drama meant to unveil evidence of the president's pressure campaign to enlist Ukraine to smear his political rivals -- a moment that is bound to be must-watch TV.At home in his district, which stretches from West Hollywood to Pasadena and north to the San Gabriel Mountains, Schiff is well acquainted with the celebrity lifestyle.He lives with his wife, Eve (yes, Adam and Eve), and their two children in suburban Maryland, but they also have an apartment in Burbank, home to Walt Disney Studios. He favors vegan Chinese food and drives an Audi whose license plate frame bears a line from the movie "The Big Lebowski" ("I don't roll on Shabbos"), from which he can quote at length. He has dabbled at screenwriting, once drafting a script that featured a prosecutor as the hero. He tried stand-up comedy, too, during a fundraiser at the Improv in Hollywood."He did a whole riff on being a nihilist," said one of his best friends, former congressman Steve Israel, who joined him onstage. "Basically, we got told to stick to our day jobs."But if Schiff has a sense of humor (his friends insist he does have a dry one), he rarely shows it in Washington, where he has carefully cultivated his image as the stylistic and substantive opposite of Trump: calm, measured, reserved and brainy.He makes no secret of his disdain for the president, who refers to him as "Little Pencil Neck" or "Shifty Schiff" when he is not replacing the congressman's surname with a similar-sounding expletive. In an interview, Schiff called Trump a "grave risk to our democracy" who is conducting an "amoral presidency" and has debased his office with "infantile" insults."What comes through in the president's comments and his tweets and his outrage and his anger toward me in particular is, this president feels he has a God-given right to abuse his office in any way he sees fit," Schiff said.Trump and his allies, sensing the threat posed by Schiff's inquiry and divided over how to defend the president against damning testimony, have united in trying to undermine the congressman's credibility. They sought unsuccessfully to have the House censure him and have accused him of running a "Soviet-style impeachment inquiry."On Saturday, Trump proclaimed him "a corrupt politician" on Twitter and claimed that if Schiff "is allowed to release transcripts of the Never Trumpers & others that are & were interviewed, he will change the words that were said to suit the Dems purposes."Republicans who work side by side with him on the Intelligence Committee contend that he has changed as his star has risen alongside Trump's. A figure they once saw as a serious and studious policy wonk they now describe in viscerally negative terms, as a liar and a hypocrite who will stop at nothing to oust a duly elected president.Schiff has an "absolute maniacal focus on Donald Trump" said one committee Republican, Rep. Michael Turner of Ohio, who accused Schiff of routinely lying to the press and the public about what happened in private interviews and conducting the inquiry's initial hearings out of public view so he and other Democrats could distort the findings.And Schiff has let the publicity go to his head, Turner said: "Schiff finds the media intoxicating. And he is pretty much willing to do whatever it takes to get to the top of the media cycle."Schiff has made some missteps. His dramatized description of the president's phone call with the leader of Ukraine drew attacks from the president and Republican lawmakers, who said he was fabricating evidence -- and surprised even a close friend, Alice Hill, who knows the congressman from their days as young prosecutors in Los Angeles."I was a bit surprised because he is reserved and not prone to overstatement, very careful with his words, very careful with the facts and keeping to the facts," she said, adding, "It felt out of character."And Schiff's assertion that he had not had any contact with the whistleblower who incited the inquiry drew a "false" rating from The Washington Post; the whistleblower had approached his panel for guidance before filing his complaint. Schiff conceded he "should have been much more clear" about that.Democrats, who are united behind Schiff, counter that the attacks are opportunistic; Republicans, they said, are attacking Schiff over process because they cannot defend the president on the merits of his behavior.There is little room for error as Schiff pushes the inquiry forward in the coming months. His performance could determine not only Trump's future but also his own. Schiff is a close ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and viewed by some as her possible successor. At a recent news conference, Pelosi -- not ordinarily one to cede control -- took the rare step of sitting with reporters to watch admiringly as the congressman spoke."He's a full package," Pelosi said in an interview, praising Schiff as "always gracious, always lovely." She added, "He knows his purpose, and his purpose is not to engage in that silliness that the president is engaged in."A lawyer educated at Stanford University and Harvard Law School, Schiff tried his first big case three decades ago when, as a young federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, he secured the conviction of an FBI agent who was seduced by a Soviet spy and traded secrets for gold and cash. In 1996, he won a seat in the California Senate; in 2000, he was elected to the House by beating a Republican who had been a manager in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.In Washington, Schiff joined the Blue Dogs, a group of conservative Democrats, and made a name for himself as a national security expert. He joined the Intelligence Committee in 2008 -- drawn to it, Israel said, because he viewed it as "a quiet place for bipartisanship."His breakout moment came in 2014, when the Republican-led House established a committee to investigate attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. Schiff had argued that Democrats should not participate in what he viewed as a partisan exercise, but Pelosi put him on the committee.But it was the election of Trump that elevated Schiff's profile and made him a sought-after speaker and fundraiser in Democratic circles. As the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee last term, when Republicans still had the majority, he vigorously investigated Russian election interference and questions around whether the Trump campaign had conspired with hostile foreign actors, becoming the most recognizable public face explaining the biggest story in Washington on national TV. When Democrats won the majority in the House, he helped Pelosi draft an investigative strategy.Schiff was a late convert to the impeachment push; like Pelosi, he held back until revelations about Ukraine emerged. For the last five weeks, he has spent much of his time in a secure room four floors below the Capitol, overseeing the closed-door questioning of witnesses. He opens each witness interview and sometimes steps in to conduct questioning himself."The American people have a right to know -- they have a need to know -- how deep this misconduct goes," he said, adding, "There's no hiding the president's hand in any of this."These days, Schiff has tried to tightly control his public profile. He goes on television less than he used to and zips wordlessly through the Capitol, trailed by a phalanx of aides and a scrum of journalists, smiling wanly as they pepper him with questions.It has all given him "a new appreciation" of the struggles his celebrity constituents face in maintaining their privacy, he said. And he is well aware that, out there in the rest of the U.S., he has become a polarizing figure."I feel I've become kind of a human focus group," he said during a panel discussion after the screening here. "People will stop me in the airport in close succession. One will come up to me and say, 'Are you Adam Schiff? I just want to shake your hand -- you're my hero,' immediately to be followed by someone else who says, 'Why are you destroying our democracy?' "The congressman paused and concluded that both couldn't be right "because last time I checked, I'm the same person."This article originally appeared in The New York Times.(C) 2019 The New York Times Company
from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/34zFMD4
via IFTTT
0 notes
Link
LOS ANGELES -- The crowd was buzzing with Hollywood types -- actress Patricia Arquette, producer Norman Lear -- at a private film screening on Sunset Boulevard one recent Sunday afternoon. But here in liberal America, the biggest celebrity in the room was not someone who makes a living in what people call "the industry."It was Rep. Adam Schiff, the straight-laced former federal prosecutor who was on the brink of prosecuting his biggest defendant yet: President Donald Trump.These are heady but perilous days for Schiff, the inscrutable and slightly nerdy chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who is leading the impeachment inquiry into Trump. Adored by the left, reviled by the right, he has become a Rorschach test for U.S. politics. Depending on one's point of view, he is either going to save the republic or destroy it.Here in his home district, at the screening of "The Great Hack," a film about misinformation in the 2016 election, Lear introduced Schiff as a "current American hero." As the audience leapt to its feet in a standing ovation, the congressman emerged from backstage in standard Washington uniform -- navy blazer, white shirt, light blue tie -- his manner as inoffensive as his attire."We thank them for their patriotism," Schiff said somberly, praising whistleblowers, including the anonymous one whose complaint against Trump prompted the impeachment inquiry, "and we hope others will follow their courageous example."Now Schiff, 59, is poised to take a much bigger stage as his inquiry moves from a secure office suite in a Capitol Hill basement into nationally televised public hearings. He will make the case against Trump to a divided nation, in what amounts to an epic courtroom drama meant to unveil evidence of the president's pressure campaign to enlist Ukraine to smear his political rivals -- a moment that is bound to be must-watch TV.At home in his district, which stretches from West Hollywood to Pasadena and north to the San Gabriel Mountains, Schiff is well acquainted with the celebrity lifestyle.He lives with his wife, Eve (yes, Adam and Eve), and their two children in suburban Maryland, but they also have an apartment in Burbank, home to Walt Disney Studios. He favors vegan Chinese food and drives an Audi whose license plate frame bears a line from the movie "The Big Lebowski" ("I don't roll on Shabbos"), from which he can quote at length. He has dabbled at screenwriting, once drafting a script that featured a prosecutor as the hero. He tried stand-up comedy, too, during a fundraiser at the Improv in Hollywood."He did a whole riff on being a nihilist," said one of his best friends, former congressman Steve Israel, who joined him onstage. "Basically, we got told to stick to our day jobs."But if Schiff has a sense of humor (his friends insist he does have a dry one), he rarely shows it in Washington, where he has carefully cultivated his image as the stylistic and substantive opposite of Trump: calm, measured, reserved and brainy.He makes no secret of his disdain for the president, who refers to him as "Little Pencil Neck" or "Shifty Schiff" when he is not replacing the congressman's surname with a similar-sounding expletive. In an interview, Schiff called Trump a "grave risk to our democracy" who is conducting an "amoral presidency" and has debased his office with "infantile" insults."What comes through in the president's comments and his tweets and his outrage and his anger toward me in particular is, this president feels he has a God-given right to abuse his office in any way he sees fit," Schiff said.Trump and his allies, sensing the threat posed by Schiff's inquiry and divided over how to defend the president against damning testimony, have united in trying to undermine the congressman's credibility. They sought unsuccessfully to have the House censure him and have accused him of running a "Soviet-style impeachment inquiry."On Saturday, Trump proclaimed him "a corrupt politician" on Twitter and claimed that if Schiff "is allowed to release transcripts of the Never Trumpers & others that are & were interviewed, he will change the words that were said to suit the Dems purposes."Republicans who work side by side with him on the Intelligence Committee contend that he has changed as his star has risen alongside Trump's. A figure they once saw as a serious and studious policy wonk they now describe in viscerally negative terms, as a liar and a hypocrite who will stop at nothing to oust a duly elected president.Schiff has an "absolute maniacal focus on Donald Trump" said one committee Republican, Rep. Michael Turner of Ohio, who accused Schiff of routinely lying to the press and the public about what happened in private interviews and conducting the inquiry's initial hearings out of public view so he and other Democrats could distort the findings.And Schiff has let the publicity go to his head, Turner said: "Schiff finds the media intoxicating. And he is pretty much willing to do whatever it takes to get to the top of the media cycle."Schiff has made some missteps. His dramatized description of the president's phone call with the leader of Ukraine drew attacks from the president and Republican lawmakers, who said he was fabricating evidence -- and surprised even a close friend, Alice Hill, who knows the congressman from their days as young prosecutors in Los Angeles."I was a bit surprised because he is reserved and not prone to overstatement, very careful with his words, very careful with the facts and keeping to the facts," she said, adding, "It felt out of character."And Schiff's assertion that he had not had any contact with the whistleblower who incited the inquiry drew a "false" rating from The Washington Post; the whistleblower had approached his panel for guidance before filing his complaint. Schiff conceded he "should have been much more clear" about that.Democrats, who are united behind Schiff, counter that the attacks are opportunistic; Republicans, they said, are attacking Schiff over process because they cannot defend the president on the merits of his behavior.There is little room for error as Schiff pushes the inquiry forward in the coming months. His performance could determine not only Trump's future but also his own. Schiff is a close ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and viewed by some as her possible successor. At a recent news conference, Pelosi -- not ordinarily one to cede control -- took the rare step of sitting with reporters to watch admiringly as the congressman spoke."He's a full package," Pelosi said in an interview, praising Schiff as "always gracious, always lovely." She added, "He knows his purpose, and his purpose is not to engage in that silliness that the president is engaged in."A lawyer educated at Stanford University and Harvard Law School, Schiff tried his first big case three decades ago when, as a young federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, he secured the conviction of an FBI agent who was seduced by a Soviet spy and traded secrets for gold and cash. In 1996, he won a seat in the California Senate; in 2000, he was elected to the House by beating a Republican who had been a manager in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.In Washington, Schiff joined the Blue Dogs, a group of conservative Democrats, and made a name for himself as a national security expert. He joined the Intelligence Committee in 2008 -- drawn to it, Israel said, because he viewed it as "a quiet place for bipartisanship."His breakout moment came in 2014, when the Republican-led House established a committee to investigate attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. Schiff had argued that Democrats should not participate in what he viewed as a partisan exercise, but Pelosi put him on the committee.But it was the election of Trump that elevated Schiff's profile and made him a sought-after speaker and fundraiser in Democratic circles. As the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee last term, when Republicans still had the majority, he vigorously investigated Russian election interference and questions around whether the Trump campaign had conspired with hostile foreign actors, becoming the most recognizable public face explaining the biggest story in Washington on national TV. When Democrats won the majority in the House, he helped Pelosi draft an investigative strategy.Schiff was a late convert to the impeachment push; like Pelosi, he held back until revelations about Ukraine emerged. For the last five weeks, he has spent much of his time in a secure room four floors below the Capitol, overseeing the closed-door questioning of witnesses. He opens each witness interview and sometimes steps in to conduct questioning himself."The American people have a right to know -- they have a need to know -- how deep this misconduct goes," he said, adding, "There's no hiding the president's hand in any of this."These days, Schiff has tried to tightly control his public profile. He goes on television less than he used to and zips wordlessly through the Capitol, trailed by a phalanx of aides and a scrum of journalists, smiling wanly as they pepper him with questions.It has all given him "a new appreciation" of the struggles his celebrity constituents face in maintaining their privacy, he said. And he is well aware that, out there in the rest of the U.S., he has become a polarizing figure."I feel I've become kind of a human focus group," he said during a panel discussion after the screening here. "People will stop me in the airport in close succession. One will come up to me and say, 'Are you Adam Schiff? I just want to shake your hand -- you're my hero,' immediately to be followed by someone else who says, 'Why are you destroying our democracy?' "The congressman paused and concluded that both couldn't be right "because last time I checked, I'm the same person."This article originally appeared in The New York Times.(C) 2019 The New York Times Company
from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/34zFMD4
0 notes
Last Seen Blogs
edwardmkn
Untitled
vandalist21
Untitled
chipsboo
༻Hayami-san༺
theskyissomuchbiggerhere
the sky is so much bigger here
deewellsosd
DeJongh "Dee" Wells