Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary'

Jay59 said:

Granted. What is your point? What Hunter Biden was doing is likely not, strictly speaking, illegal, just extremely sleazy. If it is illegal, this sort of payment by proxy is very difficult to prove. In any event, talking to the government in the nation it occurred would be part of the process.

Contrast what Joe Biden claims to have done. That is illegal--a quid pro quo--and he was bragging about it to a camera.

Click to expand...

Again, it wasn't "part" of any process in the United States, investigated by U.S. personnel. We didn't open any investigation into either Biden. Goodness, how many times does this need to be said before people will recognize it.

If Barr/Durham or anyone else in the DoJ/FBI had opened a file on the case, and we asked for assistance with that probe through the official, sanctioned, legal channels, such as our mutual aid treaty with Ukraine, Democrats could whine about it, but it's clearly legal, authorized. THAT. DID. NOT. HAPPEN. And we are where we are.

And the only way what Biden did was "illegal" is if he wasn't advancing the foreign policy interests of the United States, the WH, state department, diplomats, agreed to by our allies in Europe, IMF, UK, the reformers in Ukraine. The problem is he WAS doing all that, and there's no evidence that POS Shokin was investigating Burisma or its owner or that any investigation sitting in his drawer that he was not-doing implicated Hunter Biden in any way.

Jay59 said:

In this case A says B did X. B says I did not do X and here is the transcript to prove it.

A is relevant to rebut the transcript, so I am unsure of your point.

Click to expand...

I thought you guys thought the whistleblower's complaint was just hearsay and second-hand accounts, so it doesn't count and doesn't prove anything?

It's funny how pro-Trumpers change their arguments only a daily basis and act as if we don't remember what the previous arguments were.

To recap:

Zelenskyy asked for javelin missiles in the phone call and Trump said, "I would like you to do us a favor though.." Trump then asks for an investigation into crowd strike and into the Bidens.

Mulvaney revealed that military aid was held up because of the WH's desire for an investigation into the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory.

Sondland and Taylor provided testimony that this extortion by Trump later came to include hundreds of dollars of military aid as well.

So your analogous mathematical equation is not based on the facts.

eohrnberger said:

So much miss-information in a single post. Gotta be some sort of record.

Click to expand...

There is not a single thing I wrote that hasn't been confirmed by the Mueller report, court records, the DOJ, or the USIC, not a single thing, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

humbolt said:

Okay. I'll assume he will be presenting his incontrovertible evidence of collusion tomorrow. I'm not sure why he's waited so long, but I'm sure you can tell me.

Click to expand...

1. It's important to remember that Mueller found at least 4 instances of obstruction, and numerous attempts on the part of Trump and his campaign to conspire with the Russian government. Trump supporters ignorantly suggest that because the crime of conspiracy could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt then that means Trump was completely exonerated. That is a falsehood. Trump did commit obstruction and the evidence indicates Trump tried very hard to conspire with the Russian government. The problem isn't Schiff or the Democrats. The problem is Trump supporters are perfectly fine with Trump obstructing justice so long as it means they can continue pursuing the policies they favor.

2. Schiff never said that Trump or his associated would certainly be found guilty of the crime of conspiracy and that prosecutors and investigators like Mueller would be able prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. There is a huge difference between that and having enough evidence to arouse great suspicion and to justify a thorough investigation. That's the whole point of having an investigation. The problem is you and other Trump supporters have always thought that Trump should be immune from any sort of inquiry. That's not Schiff's problem. It's also not Schiff's problem that Trump supporters believe in stupid, conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact. I see no reason why Schiff should cater to mentally deranged people who believe Russian government propaganda over the U.S. intelligence community.

JasperL said:

Again, it wasn't "part" of any process in the United States, investigated by U.S. personnel. We didn't open any investigation into either Biden. Goodness, how many times does this need to be said before people will recognize it.

If Barr/Durham or anyone else in the DoJ/FBI had opened a file on the case, and we asked for assistance with that probe through the official, sanctioned, legal channels, such as our mutual aid treaty with Ukraine, Democrats could whine about it, but it's clearly legal, authorized. THAT. DID. NOT. HAPPEN. And we are where we are.

And the only way what Biden did was "illegal" is if he wasn't advancing the foreign policy interests of the United States, the WH, state department, diplomats, agreed to by our allies in Europe, IMF, UK, the reformers in Ukraine. The problem is he WAS doing all that, and there's no evidence that POS Shokin was investigating Burisma or its owner or that any investigation sitting in his drawer that he was not-doing implicated Hunter Biden in any way.

Click to expand...

:lamo
I'm sorry. The double standard is too ridiculous to blow off. If you don't understand the problem with your statements, I cannot explain it to you. It's literally too obvious to miss.

W_Heisenberg said:

There is not a single thing I wrote that hasn't been confirmed by the Mueller report, court records, the DOJ, or the USIC, not a single thing, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Click to expand...

If that's what you got, go with it. It isn't as stupid as some of the other things that have been said.

humbolt said:

Yes, and? Put that in your articles of impeachment.

The last time a distant relative of mine approached me for money - he has a drug abuse problem - I gave him the money. I asked him not to spend it on drugs, and conditioned the gift on it. That's a reasonable request, and if it is met, both the money and his abstinence accrue to his benefit. This is no different, or would you prefer that our aid line the pockets of the crooks Ukraine is noted for?

I'll assume the latter in your case, because Trump. You'd prefer Ukraine accept the aid, steal weapons, and sell them to the Ukrainian military, thereby doubling or tripling their money - all in their personal pockets. This has actually happened there, and the crooks were so confident that they listed it as a line item in the annual report of their company.

And you think a request to investigate corruption is out of line? Tell me another joke.

Click to expand...

I can give you credit for acknowledging that Trump actually said what he said. I'm glad you aren't trying to insist there wasn't an extortion attempt as many other Trump supporters have been suggesting.

The problem for Trump, and the reason why he will be impeached, is that he personally demanded investigations from a foreign government that would have resulted in a direct benefit to him in the 2020 election. Nobody believes that Trump extorted Ukraine to investigate Crowdstrike and the Bidens merely as part of some broader anti-corruption campaign. Not even Trump supporters are foolish enough to say such a thing.

With respect to this idea that Ukraine had a corruption problem the DOD had certified earlier this year that Ukraine had made significant progress in that area and that the military aid should be disbursed. This was part of the law that Trump himself signed.

The bottom line is that the only people who thought Ukraine weren't doing enough to fight corruption were Rudy and Trump, and oddly enough the ONLY cases they were interested in directly concerned Trump and would have had a direct impact on the 2020 election.

Your argument does not make any logical sense.

Bullseye said:

LOL, pure partisan nonsense. "Do me a favor" is hardly "crucify Biden or no missiles for you"

Click to expand...

LOL, pure partisan nonsense. Trump supporters live in a fantasy land of propaganda and delusion. It's really quite amazing how much you are fooled on a daily basis by pro-Trump propagandists. Trump has lied so many times about so many things you'd think Trump supporters would have wised up by now.

That's exactly what it is. Zelenskyy asked for more javelin missile sales, and Trump said "I would like you to do us a favor though."

When the most powerful person on the planet says, "I would like you to do us a favor though..", that's exactly what it means. When Ukraine, under constant threat by Russia and facing a daily threat to its survival asks for important military hardware, and the most powerful person on the planet says, "I would like you to do us a favor though...", that's exactly what it means.

This was then followed up with more demands. Per Sondland and Taylor's testimony the disbursement of the military aid was added on to this request. So this wasn't some random, stray comment on Trump's part. It was part of a persistent campaign of coercion. Trump's comments were followed up with official and unofficial requests to the Ukrainian government to comply with Trump's demands.

As I recall Zelensky also discussed starting the investigations as well.

Click to expand...

Zelenskyy, at the beginning of the conversation, adopted Trump's rhetoric about draining the swamp in Ukraine. That's it.

Specific discussion of specific investigations were initiated by Trump, and related to specific investigations which would have benefited Trump personally.

Jay59 said:

By whose definition of their job? The traditional role of the AG has never looked closely at the Washington swamp. Barr is doing exactly that.

I am amused by all this talk of Trump being worried about arms deals and Biden. That was basically talking about the weather. Crowdstrike is different, because that was directed at Trump. The whole Russia collusion scheme is still not an open book and Trump wants the truth out about the attempt to frame him.

Click to expand...

This undercuts your entire line of argument, such as it is:



here is the actual transcript: Fiona Hill testimony | Deposition (Law) | Ukraine

Jay59 said:

:lamo
I'm sorry. The double standard is too ridiculous to blow off. If you don't understand the problem with your statements, I cannot explain it to you. It's literally too obvious to miss.

Click to expand...

I get a lot of that - people unable to defend their statements telling me how obvious it is that I'm wrong. It's boring because it's too predictable. Nuh UHHH!!! YOU'RE WRONG!! Etc.. :yawn:

The testimony may be redundant if it doesn't add anything to the transcripts, which are incriminating enough. But not unnecessary - any additional steps to rub it in must be taken because Team Trump is working so hard to downplay this crime in the media.

W_Heisenberg said:

LOL, pure partisan nonsense. Trump supporters live in a fantasy land of propaganda and delusion. It's really quite amazing how much you are fooled on a daily basis by pro-Trump propagandists. Trump has lied so many times about so many things you'd think Trump supporters would have wised up by now.

That's exactly what it is. Zelenskyy asked for more javelin missile sales, and Trump said "I would like you to do us a favor though."

When the most powerful person on the planet says, "I would like you to do us a favor though..", that's exactly what it means. When Ukraine, under constant threat by Russia and facing a daily threat to its survival asks for important military hardware, and the most powerful person on the planet says, "I would like you to do us a favor though...", that's exactly what it means.

This was then followed up with more demands. Per Sondland and Taylor's testimony the disbursement of the military aid was added on to this request. So this wasn't some random, stray comment on Trump's part. It was part of a persistent campaign of coercion. Trump's comments were followed up with official and unofficial requests to the Ukrainian government to comply with Trump's demands.



Zelenskyy, at the beginning of the conversation, adopted Trump's rhetoric about draining the swamp in Ukraine. That's it.

Specific discussion of specific investigations were initiated by Trump, and related to specific investigations which would have benefited Trump personally.

Click to expand...

Thanks for yet another demonstration of LW partisan nonsense. You guys are full of them. :lamo

Crossfire said:

Okay, that was completely rational. You just keep blaming others for your loosening grip on rationality. That always works.

Click to expand...

This infuriates me. But I will remain being polite because I understand that not everyone comes to the table with the same level of knowledge. Also, I must remind myself you are a victim of propaganda and are just repeating, without any thought of your own, something you heard someone say.

Look, the bottom line is the case law just doesn't support Trump's crazy legal arguments.

In U.S. v Nixon the Court ruled, "This presumptive privilege must be considered in light of our historic commitment to the rule of law..[t]he right to the production of all evidence at a criminal trial similarly has constitutional dimensions." Further, the court said it "must weigh the importance of the general privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications in performance of the President's responsibilities against the inroads of such a privilege on the fair administration of criminal justice. The Court also said, "the fair administration of criminal justice" outweighed the president’s right to confidentiality in communications.

In Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, the Court rejected the "Executive’s claim of absolute immunity for senior presidential aides" and demanded the WH to comply with the subpoena. "Congress’s power of inquiry is as broad as its power to legislate and lies at the very heart of Congress’s constitutional role...Presidential autonomy, such as it is, cannot mean that the Executive’s actions are totally insulated from scrutiny by Congress. That would eviscerate the Congress’s oversight functions."

My argument is based on the case law and the underlying principles and values of our Republic.

You describe yourself as "very conservative", but it is quite apparent you are completely divorced from the political philosophy espoused by the founding fathers.

Whistleblower faces first day of testimony:

Bullseye said:

Thanks for yet another demonstration of LW partisan nonsense. You guys are full of them. :lamo

Click to expand...

Thanks for your demonstration of far-right, authoritarian partisan nonsense. You guys are full of them. :lamo.

W_Heisenberg said:

There is not a single thing I wrote that hasn't been confirmed by the Mueller report, court records, the DOJ, or the USIC, not a single thing, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Click to expand...

Trump is responsible for his own behavior

Click to expand...

True.

and those of his campaign personnel.

Click to expand...

Only if he directed them to do something. If they did it on their own, he is not.

Trump's foreign policy advisor is the one who tried to conspire with an agent of the Russian government, not the Democrats.

Click to expand...

If in reference to George Papadopoulos, false.
Misfud and Halper are / were western intel assets, and were trying to obtain intelligence on the campaign, and yes, that would be spying.

Trump was the one who called on Russia to hack Clinton's e-mails.

Click to expand...

False and already debunked. The actual quote from Trump is:

“If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI!”
https://time.com/5573539/trump-clinton-russia-hack-joke/

Click to expand...

No mention of hacking. If they had them, they should share them. That's not hacking. That's sharing of something you already have. And above all, it was said in jest, that any sane person would realize.

Trump's campaign personnel were the ones who met with Russian intelligence agents at Trump Tower, not the Democrats.

Click to expand...

Fusion GPS official met with Russian operative before and after Trump Jr. sit-down
This was a Fusion GPS set up, and even so, nothing was exchanged or agreed to.

Need I go on?
Seems you've swallowed lock stock and barrel all of the leftist DNC Pravda political activist media's 1/2 truths and politically preferred narratives they've been pushing since the middle of the 2016 campaign on pretty much every point you've raised.

"If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you do read it, you're misinformed." - Denzel Washington

A true statement if there ever was one.

W_Heisenberg said:

Zelenskyy asked for javelin missiles in the phone call and Trump said, "I would like you to do us a favor though.." Trump then asks for an investigation into crowd strike and into the Bidens.

Click to expand...

Nooooot exactly ... Trump's full sentence was "I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it."
The "it" being what you guys have been peddling starting in 2016 and up to now.

Naughty naughty Heisenberg (judging from your posts maybe it should be Hindenberg).

I'm sorry to do this but that clear error gets you ...

eohrnberger said:

True.

Only if he directed them to do something. If they did it on their own, he is not.


If in reference to George Papadopoulos, false.
Misfud and Halper are / were western intel assets, and were trying to obtain intelligence on the campaign, and yes, that would be spying.

​

False and already debunked. The actual quote from Trump is:

No mention of hacking. If they had them, they should share them. That's not hacking. That's sharing of something you already have. And above all, it was said in jest, that any sane person would realize.


Fusion GPS official met with Russian operative before and after Trump Jr. sit-down
This was a Fusion GPS set up, and even so, nothing was exchanged or agreed to.

Need I go on?
Seems you've swallowed lock stock and barrel all of the leftist DNC Pravda political activist media's 1/2 truths and politically preferred narratives they've been pushing since the middle of the 2016 campaign on pretty much every point you've raised.

"If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you do read it, you're misinformed." - Denzel Washington

A true statement if there ever was one.

Click to expand...

Well done. But my experience tells me it won't be well received.

Ok, I'll stipulate this comes from a conservative source, so can we dispense with the tsunami of "Ewwww! Townhall".

This piece lays out much more eloquently than I ever could why the "whistleblower" has to testify in person.

Bullseye said:

Ok, I'll stipulate this comes from a conservative source, so can we dispense with the tsunami of "Ewwww! Townhall".

This piece lays out much more eloquently than I ever could why the "whistleblower" has to testify in person.

Click to expand...

I'm all for any news source that provides good argument and facts. So I started reading it to understand a different point of view.

However, THIS is not journalism - "The embarrassingly laughable ego-maniac that started this #fauxpeachment farce to begin with."

I'll try to finish it, but it already rubs me the wrong way. Is this a professional or a raging blogger?

eohrnberger said:

Misfud

Click to expand...

Oh geesh. More Qanon and conservative tree house conspiracy crap. You will believe anything wont you?

Mifsud is from Malta, so he is a Westerner, so he's going to have some links to Western intelligence agencies. The problem with Mifsud is all the various connections he has with the Russian government.

Halper

Click to expand...

Halper is a Western intelligence asset, who worked directly for the U.S. government. He was hired specifically to help learn more about what the Russians were doing, and his involvement came AFTER the FBI launched Crossfire Hurricane.

that would be spying.

Click to expand...

Justifiably so. Russian kept trying to infiltrate and manipulate the Trump campaign. They were also engaged in a broader intelligence operation against the U.S. What was the FBI/CIA supposed to do? Just let them spy and do whatever they want?

Trump and his campaign should have done the wise thing and not entertained any of their offers. This is on them, not the FBI.

False and already debunked. The actual quote from Trump is: No mention of hacking. If they had them, they should share them. That's not hacking. That's sharing of something you already have. And above all, it was said in jest, that any sane person would realize.

Click to expand...

On what planet do you live that you think Russia would have been able to acquire these e-mails without hacking Clinton? Seriously have some common sense. These idiotic Qanon conspiracy theories have scrambled your brain.

Oh, and had you read the Mueller report, after Trump's announcement, you would know Russia DID try to hack Clinton's computer systems.

This was a Fusion GPS set up, and even so, nothing was exchanged or agreed to.

Click to expand...

Glenn Simpson is an expert on Russia. He was hired by Veselnitskaya for an entirely difference case involving a Russian company, Prevezon, that was being charged by the DOJ. It was in relation to that case that Simpson met with Veselnitskaya. And this wasn't some clandestine meeting. Veselnitskaya and Simpson were meeting as part of a large gathering of people, mostly associated with the law firm, Baker Hostetler. Glenn Simpson testified to this under oath. There is no reason to believe that Simpson and Veselnitskaya were trying to set up Trump or his campaign. But, on the basis of this fact alone, that they were associated with each other, you have constructed an elaborate conspiracy theory that somehow Fusion GPS set up Trump's campaign. This is a ludicrous notion that is not supported by any other piece of evidence. It's merely an assumption on your part. There are no other facts supported this stupid conspiracy theory.

Need I go on?

Click to expand...

Yes, you need to go on with facts, not elaborate conspiracy theories supported by a series of assumptions.

These idiotic conspiracy theories are silly.

\Seems you've swallowed lock stock and barrel all of the leftist DNC Pravda political activist media's 1/2 truths and politically preferred narratives they've been pushing since the middle of the 2016 campaign on pretty much every point you've raised.

Click to expand...

Lol, seems you've swallowed all this Russian propaganda attacking us, lock, stock and barrel, and all the idiotic pro-Trump conspiracy theories, and pro-Trump political narratives that Trump has been pushing since he got caught trying to conspire with the Russian government. What's amazing is that Trump has lied, mislead, or exaggerated over 13,000 times since assuming office and Trump supporters are still foolish enough to believe him.

Nearly everything the Democrats and the mass media reported or spoke about concerning the Trump-Russia investigation turned out to be true. Nearly everything. Read the Mueller report.

Are you suggesting that Mueller and his team lied about everything they revealed in the report?

If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you do read it, you're misinformed."[/URL] - Denzel Washington

A true statement if there ever was one.

Click to expand...

You are doing the work of the Russian government in their attempts to divide the American people by pushing these idiotic and unfounded conspiracy theories.

Humbolt, where'd you go? you've been eviscerated like this before. why cut and run this time?

humbolt said:

Are you cimprehension-challenged, Vern? Biden certainly did give Ukraine an "either do what I want, or forget the aid money." Joe himself admitted - no, bragged - about it. Do you need text and the video of the event? Eh, given it's you, maybe it is actually necessary. Just let me know, Vern. I'm here to please you, as you know.

Click to expand...

Vern said:

oh humbolt, thanks for not continuing to whine about me. But sadly, I just don't think being more dishonest is an improvement for you. You know Biden pressured the Ukraine as part of American and European policy. Remember, you bragged how "well read" you were so why would you "play dumb" now? Anyhoo, for you to try to obediently and dishonestly equate that with trump pressuring Ukraine for personal gain is just your typical dishonesty. Humbolt, here's your favorite, the BBC, telling you your narrative is false.

The president and his allies have claimed that as vice-president the elder Biden encouraged the firing of Ukraine's top prosecutor because the prosecutor was investigating Burisma, a gas company that employed Hunter Biden.
These allegations - though widely discredited - were raised by Mr Trump in a 25 July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Wait a second Humbolt, I've already posted that to you. Geez, for a guy who pats himself on the back for reading, you seem to be quite "cimprehension-challenged".

Click to expand...

Bullseye said:

Ok, I'll stipulate this comes from a conservative source, so can we dispense with the tsunami of "Ewwww! Townhall".

This piece lays out much more eloquently than I ever could why the "whistleblower" has to testify in person.

Click to expand...

1. Schiff doesn't have any obligation to act on the bad faith arguments being made by the Republicans.

2. The main problem isn't that Trump may have committed a crime such as bribery or extortion. The main problem is that Trump abused his office, a far worse accusation than just bribery or extortion. It's the abuse of office the represents the greatest threat to our country.

3. Hearing from the whistleblower would not substantially bolster the claims being made against Trump. Also, weeks ago Trump supporters were arguing the whistleblower was just offering second-hand information, and hearsay, and now suddenly they want him to testify? That doesn't make any sense. Wow. Another goal-post moving argument by Trump supporters. I'm in total shock.

4. That the whistleblower worked in the government long enough to have some association with previous administrations isn't important. That whistleblower may be a Democrat himself isn't important. That the whistleblower may be biased isn't important. The reason why it isn't important is because we have approximately a dozen witnesses and a phone transcript which corroborates everything the whistleblower said. If the whistleblower was biased, it obviously didn't impact what he wrote in the complain, because everything has confirmed what was in the complaint.

5. There are have been accusations that the whistleblower coordinated with Schiff's staff. This is false. There is no evidence for this. What we know is the whistleblower first went to CIA's general counsel, and nothing was done. The whistleblower didn't know what to do so he went to the Intelligence Committee staff and asked for advice. The staff told him to do things properly through the whistleblower process outlined by the law. That's what the whistleblower did. There is no evidence of any trickery involved here. And, again, it's important to note that nearly everything outlined in the complaint has proven to be true on the basis of testimony given under oath and the phone call transcript.

6. There is nothing wrong with Schiff lending financial support to his colleagues. Being the most prominent House investigator, Schiff has money pouring into his campaign coffers. And this argument is a little disingenuous on the author's part. I wonder if the author knows that as this impeachment inquiry unfolds Trump is financially supporting his major Republican allies, and not financially supporting his Republican critics.

Bullseye said:

Ok, I'll stipulate this comes from a conservative source, so can we dispense with the tsunami of "Ewwww! Townhall".

This piece lays out much more eloquently than I ever could why the "whistleblower" has to testify in person.

Click to expand...

That article is a testament to why no one serious should read Townhall except as a joke and to see what particularly dumb or dishonest right wingers are arguing at the moment. From the "article."

Ciaramella also worked with then-Vice President Biden, a name never mentioned in President Trump’s phone call, but somehow the person believed to be the object of the president’s attempt to “dig up dirt.”

Click to expand...

A “whistleblower” that somehow confused a “favor” to look into 2016 election corruption (which is in the transcript) with a mention of someone named Hunter some 500 words after the “favor.”

Click to expand...

Let's compare to the memo of the call, available about 100 places online. Here's the NYT copy:

The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.

Click to expand...

So he lied twice (at least) about what was said on the call, or is a lazy moron and never took the 5 minutes it takes to read the transcript, but still doesn't mind making false claims about it.

Can't believe I gave that bunch of hacks and liars a click. I'll try not to let it happen again.

JasperL said:

That article is a testament to why no one serious should read Townhall except as a joke and to see what particularly dumb or dishonest right wingers are arguing at the moment. From the "article."





Let's compare to the memo of the call, available about 100 places online. Here's the NYT copy:



So he lied twice (at least) about what was said on the call, or is a lazy moron and never took the 5 minutes it takes to read the transcript, but still doesn't mind making false claims about it.

Can't believe I gave that bunch of hacks and liars a click. I'll try not to let it happen again.

Click to expand...

So, your entire argument was summarized in my first post "Ewwwww! Townhall". Thanks for the totally mindlessness, I enjoyed a good laugh out of your miffed "yeah, but . . ."