Levin Calls For Schiff To Be Disbarred Over Doctored J6 Committee Text Messages


OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.

Fox News host Mark Levin is calling for California Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff to be disbarred after it was revealed that his staff played a role in doctoring text messages.

During an interview on Fox, Levin spoke about reports that Schiff and his staff on the Democrat-led January 6 Commission admitted to doctoring text messages between GOP Rep. Jim Jordan and former White House Chief of Staff mark Meadows.

“When it comes to Adam Schiff doctoring evidence, Adam Schiff is a lawyer and has a license in the state of California and maybe other places,” Levin began.

“Rather than us just whining about this reprobate and unethical hack, let’s do something about it. Lawyers are not free to doctor evidence particularly when they are doctoring evidence for the purpose of putting people in prison,” he added.

“That’s exactly what Adam Schiff did. It’s time that people file a serious ethics complaint. Enough is enough. I’d ask the Republicans in Congress, but any citizen can do it – with the ethics arm of the Supreme Court of California and seek the license of Adam Schiff,” he said.


“This guy is unethical,” Levin said. “He doesn’t deserve to be a member of the bar – he is worse than a slip-and-fall lawyer, he’s a slip-and-fall congressman.”

Specifically, the committee admitted to doctoring a text between Jordan, one of Trump’s most ardent supporters, and then-Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.

The Federalist noted:

Following reporting by The Federalist that Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and his staff doctored a text message between Rep. Jim Jordan and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, the House Jan. 6 committee admitted over email that it did, in fact, doctor the text message.

As The Federalist reported on Wednesday morning, on Jan. 5, 2021, Jordan forwarded to Meadows a three-paragraph legal summary from attorney Joseph Schmitz, summarizing a four-page legal memorandum Schmitz had written regarding congressional certification of the 2020 presidential electoral vote count.

In an emailed statement to the outlet, a Democrat spokesman for the Jan. 6 committee admitted that, yes, the committee doctored the text message.

“The Select Committee on Monday created and provided Representative Schiff a graphic to use during the business meeting quoting from a text message from ‘a lawmaker’ to Mr. Meadows,” the spokesman wrote. “The graphic read, ‘On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all.’”

“In the graphic, the period at the end of that sentence was added inadvertently,” the spokesman acknowledged. “The Select Committee is responsible for and regrets the error.”


The spokesman didn’t go into details about how it was possible to “inadvertently” cut a sentence in half then go on to eliminate the last two paragraphs of a detailed legal summary.

Also, the spokesman did not “explain why Schiff attributed the content of the text to Jordan, ‘a lawmaker,’ rather than to Schmitz, the attorney who wrote it,” The Federalist continued.

“Good luck tomorrow!” Schmitz noted in a text to Jordan on the evening of Jan. 5, adding the Word document as an attachment.

The outlet then said that Schmitz texted Jordan a three-paragraph summary of the Word document — the one that Schiff “sliced and diced then attributed to Jordan.”

Test your skills with this Quiz!

Several GOP lawmakers The Federalist contacted for comment on the admission blasted Schiff for his deceit while noting that anyone who knows Jordan knows that he does not sent out lengthy text messages.

“That’s just not Jim’s style,” one lawmaker close to the Ohio Republican told The Federalist. “Long, nerdy paragraphs might be my style, but that’s not Jim’s style at all.”

“Plus, you have to remember what was going on at that time,” the lawmaker noted. “People were sending around these law review articles and debates left and right because we had an interest in learning the facts and getting them right. And if it’s somehow seditious in this country to debate or share a law review article on Alexander Hamilton’s view on things, that’s not really a country I want to be a part of anymore.”