King Schiff

Schiff claims 'immunity' in bid to keep impeachment phone subpoenas secret:

Judicial Watch is seeking to obtain subpoenas the House Intel Committee issued during the impeachment inquiry to get Americans’ phone records. The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee has requested dismissal citing four points.

1. The doctrine of sovereign immunity deprives the Court of jurisdiction over the House Defendants, and no express and unequivocal waiver exists. Classic, the House votes for impeachment of the President reasoning that resistance to a Congressional subpoena cannot be trumped by executive privilege, yet a claim by citizen group should be dismissed because it is not within the court's jurisdiction. Schiff here is doing something that parallels what he claimed the President did not have a right to. 
2. Given that the records sought by Plaintiff involve matters pursued and obtained by the House Defendants as part of the House-authorized impeachment inquiry, they are absolutely protected by the Speech or Debate Clause. A Debate Clause  may be in the Constitution, I would have to read more to confirm, but what is being sought is NOT the product of debate, it is the product of clandestine partisan strategy meetings and interviews.
3. Plaintiff fails to state a claim because Congress has created a comprehensive scheme for the review of government records—the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)—that preempts the common law right sought to be vindicated by this litigation, Double speak, Judicial Watch seeks documents that the House Intelligence Committee will not release. The purported "scheme of government records"  does not include the requested documents. Government scheme, that's a pair of words that should strike fear into citizens. 
4. Finally, under governing case law, the records Plaintiff seeks to review are not 'public records' and, therefore, are not subject to the common law right of public access. And even if the records are 'public records,' Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the House Defendants’ interest in non-disclosure. How the court decides is likely dependent on the court in which the FOIA motion was placed. If the court rules in favor of Judicial Watch, some information is going to come out of that committee that will reveal that Adam Schiff staged the impeachment process. From the layman in me, why does the House of representatives have a claim of "interest of non-disclosure", isn't that contrary to judicial requirement for exculpatory evidence.

Does anybody think that Adam Schiff isn't a pathological liar?