House Oversight Committee ranking member Jim Jordan wants to know why anybody should believe House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff’s claims against President Donald Trump given the numerous lies he’s told in the past and continues to tell today.

Speaking shortly after Schiff bored Democrat and Republican senators alike to death by spending over two hours laying out his flimsy case against the president, Jordan listed just a few of the lies the Intelligence Committee chair turned impeachment manager has told in the past couple of years.

Listen:

Schiff: -“More than circumstantial evidence” of collusion

-Nunes memo was false

-FISA process was fine

-The “Whistleblower” would testify

-“We haven’t spoken… with the ‘Whistleblower'”

-Parodied @POTUS‘ call

-“Mr. Z” referred to Zelensky But today we’re supposed to trust him? pic.twitter.com/NELzVp2usX — Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) January 22, 2020

“We’re supposed to believe Adam Schiff today and everything he’s saying?” he asked with incredulity during a presser held Wednesday afternoon.

“Remember, this is the guy who said, ‘We have more than circumstantial evidence that there was coordination between Trump and Russia, and Russia influenced the election.’ That turned out to be false.”

Fact-check: TRUE.

Schiff did claim that, and that claim did indeed turn out to be false.

“Adam Schiff said that the Nunes was false. Michael Horowitz told us no it wasn’t; it was exactly right,” Jordan added.

Fact-check: TRUE.

Both Schiff and his media allies tried for over a year to dismiss current-House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes’ memo as a bogus document brimming with lies and conspiracy theories.

WaPo Ed. Board: “The trumped-up charges and cherry-picked evidence of the Nunes memo discredit the House majority. Republicans who should know better… have enabled this assault on independent law enforcement and accelerated the GOP’s disgrace.“ https://t.co/s41MGB8RfJ — Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) March 3, 2018

Yet upon the release of Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowtiz’s FISA abuse scandal report last month, it was finally proven that the memo was and had always been 100 percent accurate.

Schiff has never been held accountable for his lies. Similarly, the media still refuse to grant Nunes the credit he deserves.

“Strassel noted that even though Schiff had access to same documents as Nunes, he “chose to misinform the public.”#IGReport #SchiffShamhttps://t.co/Tl2oLNlcWM#M45MP — Marlene 45 Patriot ??? (@Marlene45MAGA) December 11, 2019

“Adam Schiff said you can trust the FISA court. Michael Horowitz said last month that no, you can’t; they lied to the FISA court 17 times,” Jordan continued.

Fact-check: TRUE.

The lies told by the FBI and uncovered by Horowitz were so galling that the FISA court’s presiding judge, Rosemary Collyer, issued a rare statement slamming the bureau for the “troubling instances” in which its personnel had provided information to the court “which was unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession.”

Jordan then pivoted his attention to Schiff’s more recent lies.

“Adam Schiff told us we look forward to hearing from the whistleblower. Adam Schiff said we’ve had no contact with the whistleblower,” he said.

Both statements were lies.

Adam Schiff gets 4 ‘Pinocchios’ from Wa-Po for lie about whistleblower https://t.co/GKumIEkBm4 — Conservative News (@BIZPACReview) October 4, 2019

“Then just yesterday, the story where he misrepresents to all of you … that Mr. Z is Mr. Zelensky, when in fact it was Mr. Zlochevsky,” he added.

Though most of the media ignored it, this week Politico broke a report revealing that Schiff “mischaracterized a text message exchange between two players in the Ukraine saga.”

“Schiff sent a letter to House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler last week summarizing a trove of evidence from Lev Parnas, an indicted former associate of Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani,” the outlet reported.

“In one section of the letter, Schiff claims that Parnas ‘continued to try to arrange a meeting with President Zelensky,’ citing a specific text message exchange where Parnas tells Giuliani: ‘trying to get us mr Z.’ The remainder of the exchange — which was attached to Schiff’s letter — was redacted.”

But the evidence strongly suggests “mr Z” was not Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky but rather Mykola Zlochevsky, the founder of Burisma.

“But today we’re supposed to believe him?” Jordan continued. “He just talked for two hours, 15 minutes, and we’re supposed to believe everything he said today, in spite of that history, where seven important things he had exactly wrong!?”

According to the left-wing media, that’s exactly what you’re supposed to do …

And that is what the trial is about. It’s about making clear to the entire country that Trump did exactly what he is accused of, but that his own party, suffering from political cowardice and intellectual corruption, do not have the nerve to stop him. https://t.co/ykUmsarF23 — Jennifer Rubin (@JRubinBlogger) January 22, 2020

Toobin: Schiff’s courtroom address was ‘second best’ I’ve ever seen https://t.co/ynjBzsrBvY — #TuckFrump (@realTuckFrumper) January 22, 2020

“It’s been less than two days, but one storyline of the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump has already emerged: Democrats are leaning heavily on California’s Rep. Adam Schiff to make the case against the President,” writes @CillizzaCNN | Analysis https://t.co/EyT0qMI4bT — CNN (@CNN) January 22, 2020

“So, yeah, when he talks about (Ambassador Gordon) Sondland, he doesn’t tell you that was all presumption. Mr. Sondland said that, when Congressman [Mike] Turner asked him, under oath, at the hearing,” Jordan concluded.

“So, that’s the kind of game that they’re playing here, and, again, I think that the American people see through it all.”

It would help if the American people were exposed to the full truth. Alas, the biased media act like such propagandists for the Democrat Party that all many Americans are hearing is whatever the Democrat Party wants them to believe, regardless of whether it’s fact or fiction.