Schiff’s ‘Transparency’ is Unclear

To Adam Schiff regarding his recent Protecting Our Democracy Act reform package.

1. The U.S. is not a “democracy” it is a “republic.” I recommend that you study the Constitution as there is a very significant difference between the two forms of government. Our nation’s brilliant founders deliberately chose “republic” over a “democracy.” People should find out why.

2. In your new bill to protect “democracy” you emphasized [increasing] government transparency. Not long ago you accused President Trump of an impeachable offense committed in a call to the Ukraine. His immediate response was to publish a transcript of the entire call. Is that not transparency? Yet when Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against you that sought the controversial impeachment-related subpoenas for phone records, including those of Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s lawyer, you refused to be transparent. This is how you responded:

“In their 14-page motion, Schiff and the Committee claim ‘sovereign immunity;’ ‘Speech or Debate Clause’ privilege; immunity from FOIA and transparency law; that the records are secret; and that Judicial Watch and public do not need to see them.” What???

You state in court that transparency does not apply to you and you have decided that the public does not need to know. Do you see anything wrong with this picture? Double standard? [Here is the link to Judicial Watch: https://www.judicialwatch.org/tom-fittons-weekly-update/schiff-above-the-law/.)

As our representative, your job is to serve the needs of the people in your district. As a person in your district that you serve, I am requesting that you change your mind, set a good example of the transparency that you advocate, and release the documents. My suggestion is that, before you accuse others of not being transparent, first stand up and be the best example you can be by being fully transparent yourself.

Your Constituent,

Scott Foster

Tujunga