Thread: Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary'

Originally Posted by Cougarbear

Attempting a "coup" is treason. Look it up.

Look up 'coup'.

Originally Posted by eohrnberger

Well, that's the question isn't it? Justifiably so or not? Sufficient predicate to open a counter intel spying operation against a political opposition presidential campaign or not. This is what Barr testified to congress and what Durham is investigating. Given that Durham's investigation has been elevated into a criminal investigation certainly brings legitimate question and doubt whether there was sufficient predicate to open the counter intel spying operation.

Well, we will see what happens, and until there is a shred of evidence indicating anything untoward your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.

If the Trump campaign would have been found to be 'colluding with the Russians', the 2 1/2+ year, $40M Mueller investigation backed by unlimited FBI investigative resources would have surely found it. They did not, as their report documents.

No, you need to read the Mueller report. It is true Mueller could not prove the crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not true that Trump did not try to conspire with the Russian because he did try. It is not true that Trump did not try to obstruct justice, because Mueller found he did on at least 4 separate occasions.

The FBI has never forensically examined the hacked DNC servers. Quite likely they would have been able to determine from where the security breech would have come, and who would have perpetrated it. But no. The DNC engaged CrowdStrike for this forensic examination

They didn't need to examine the physical servers. The FBI had access to a digital image of the servers. This is another stupid, idiotic conspiracy theory that has already been debunked.

Now why is that CrowdStrike was hired to perform this forensic examination and not the FBI?

It's common to hire third-party investigators like Crowdstrike, and the FBI did gain access to the same digital image Crowdstrike had. And a company like Crowdstrike wouldn't take possession of the physical servers anyway. All they need is a digital image of the server. There may be some information in the routers, but that's about it.

Coming to their conclusion after only a single day, how would you trust a conclusion arrived at so readily after such a sort time, without any validation, no second opinion?

Well, the FBI did examine the digital image of the server, so they did examine everything Crowdstrike examined so there was in fact a second opinion. What is it about coming to a conclusion quickly that makes you suspicious? What specific thing can you point to that would make the rapidity of their determination strange to you? The mere fact you are asking the question isn't evidence in and of itself, it's just a question.

Seems almost pre-ordained that it was the Russians.

This is a dumb thing to say. You say this based on the false assumption that the FBI didn't examine the digital image as Crowdstrike did. This is WRONG. You say this based on the fact that a conclusion was arrived at quickly. Well, so what? How does that necessarily mean the conclusion was pre-ordained. That doesn't make any sense. You need more evidence than just your own suspicions. Facts. NOT assumptions.

All the more reason she was criminal in her handling of classified materials on that server.

Oh geesh, man these attacks were aimed at her campaign server, and her personal server, which were separate and distinct from the server she used when she was SOS.

No indication that Glenn Simpson has any sort of expertise in, or experience with, Russia.

No, you see unlike the vast majority of people that opine about this stuff I actually read Simpson's testimony:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/I...0118-SD002.pdf

Go to page 22. Simpson developed expertise concerning Russia when he worked at the WSJ. He combined this knowledge with an astute ability to investigate people and businesses using public sources. This was why he was hired. As a former journalist he was good at investigating people using public sources,

Case in point, your own reference:

As to Russia collusion, pretty apparent that Glenn Simpson wrote the script for this back in 2007.

How Lobbyists Help Ex-Soviets Woo Washington
By Glenn R. Simpson and Mary Jacoby, Updated April 17, 2007 12:01 am ET

--

Tried the same thing on the McCain presidential campaign as well. Yes, the 'Russian Collusion' political narrative has been tried on previous Republican presidential campaigns.

There is a reason for this. The RUSSIANS keep trying to muck things up.

Originally Posted by JasperL

Interesting.

Corruption- siphoning off money collected at a charity event dedicated to helping veterans and using it for a political campaign.

Donald Trump fined $2m for misusing charity for political ends | US news | The Guardian

Originally Posted by Cougarbear

So, what you are saying it is improper to go on fishing expeditions to find a crime. That's exactly what Trump is saying happened with the Russia hoax and now the Ukrainian phone call hoax. So, if it's good for the Democrats, it's also good for Trump to go fishing as well. The Transcript of the call clearly spells out Trump questioning on whether Joe Biden withheld money from the Ukraine's because The Ukraine prosecutor was going after the company Joe's son, Hunter, was on the board of. This is fact based on the TV video show where Joe Biden was bragging about how he strong armed the Ukraine President to fire the prosecutor and how Obama approved of this strong arming of the Ukraine President at the time. There was no mention about withholding money from the Ukraine in context with what Trump wanted investigated. Even the President of the Ukraine agreed on TV at a press conference that he was not strong armed and forced to investigate the Biden's. I'd like to see the committee call the President of Ukraine to testify of this. Maybe the Senate will do just that.

The Committee has already called several individuals to testify to this... including Deputy Asst. Secretary of State George Kent (Kent Deposition, Pg. 336-7):

Q. (Daniel Goldman, Democratic Staffer, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence). And did you think it was appropriate for Vice President Biden to condition the release of the loan guarantees on the firing of Prosecutor General Shokin?

Deputy Asst. Secretary Kent: Prosecutor General Shokin was an impediment to the reform of the prosecutorial system, and he had directly undermined in repeated fashion U.S. efforts and U.S.
assistance programs.

And so, because we had a strategic interest in seeing the Ukrainian prosecutor system reformed, and because we have a fiduciary responsibility for U.S. taxpayer dollars, it was the consensus view that Shokin needed to be removed so that the stated goal of reform of the prosecutor general system could move forward.

Q. And so when you mentioned that that connection was a quid pro quo, you're not saying that that was an improper quid pro quo?

Deputy Asst. Secretary Kent: I didn't say that it was a quid pro quo, but it is the case that both the IMF and the U. S. Government do use conditionality for assistance, whether it is macroeconomic assistance provided by the INF or, in the case of our sovereign loan guarantees, we put conditionality that related to management of the gas system, meeting macroeconomic stability goals proposed by the IMF, social safety nets, and issues related to anticorruption. And that involved the National Anticorruption Prevention Council, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, as well as the prosecutor general's office.

Q. Okay. Mr. Malinowski has a few questions.

Rep. Malinowski (D-NJ): Thank you.

Mr. Goldman: One thing.

And just to be clear, what Vice President Biden was doing was very fundamentally different than any advocacy for a politically oriented investigation. Is that your assessment?

Deputy Asst. Secretary Kent: The request for the dismissal of Shokin was related directly to him, to his actions in the diamond prosecutors case, in his undermining of our assistance to Ukraine.

Mr. Goldman: And that's distinct from your concerns that you've raised today about advocacy for an investigation into Biden or the 2016 election?

Deputy Asst. Secretary Kent: That's how I would look at the two issues, as distinct, yes.

Rep. Malinowski (D-NJ): The distinction is between conditionality to advance the national interest and conditionality to advance a personal interest.

Deputy Asst. Secretary Kent: One might say national interest versus partisan interest, yes.

If you want to know more about Viktor Shokin, upon whom you all seem to be hanging your hopes, and the "diamond prosecutors" case referenced in the testimony above, I'll refer you to the following article:

Ukraine Ousts Viktor Shokin, Top Prosecutor, and Political Stability Hangs in the Balance - The New York Times