• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary'

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

These idiotic conspiracy theories are silly.



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.
Click to expand...

Mueller Report, Volume I, page 66, second paragraph:
[In particular,] the investigation examined whether these contacts involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the
Trump Campaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future. Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination.
Click to expand...

After 2 1/2+ years, $40M, unlimited FBI investigatory resources. If it were there, they would have found it. They did not find it, otherwise they would have stated they had found it.

If the media wanted to regain and restore their credibility, they might want to start holding Democrats as accountable as they are hold Republicans. As it is they've given up reporting on politics and have turned into political activists.

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

No. Politically driven decisions as to what to investigate and what not to investigate.

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.
Click to expand...

No, that would be the left, leftists and Democrats (although I needlessly repeat myself) and their incessant inability to accept the results of the 2016 election.

The great irony is:
Her official Twitter account said later on Oct. 24: "Donald Trump refused to say that he'd respect the results of this election. That's a direct threat to our democracy."
Click to expand...

The left and the Democrats haven't accepted the results of the 2016 election yet.

If you want to look at Ukrainian collusion to influence US elections, you could start here, for example.

Ukraine’s top prosecutor divulged in an interview aired Wednesday on Hill.TV that he has opened an investigation into whether his country’s law enforcement apparatus intentionally leaked financial records during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign about then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in an effort to sway the election in favor of Hillary Clinton.The leak of the so-called black ledger files to U.S. media prompted Manafort’s resignation from the Trump campaign and gave rise to one of the key allegations in the Russia collusion probe that has dogged Trump for the last two and a half years.

Ukraine Prosecutor General Yurii Lutsenko’s probe was prompted by a Ukrainian parliamentarian's release of a tape recording purporting to quote a top law enforcement official as saying his agency leaked the Manafort financial records to help Clinton's campaign.

The parliamentarian also secured a court ruling that the leak amounted to “an illegal intrusion into the American election campaign,” Lutsenko told me. Lutsenko said the tape recording is a serious enough allegation to warrant opening a probe, and one of his concerns is that the Ukrainian law enforcement agency involved had frequent contact with the Obama administration’s U.S. Embassy in Kiev at the time.
As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges
Click to expand...

So eliciting foreign influence in US elections is only bad if it's not Democrats doing it?
 
RetiredUSN said:
And the liberals on DP support this clown.

And they can't see why a guy like trump gets elected.

So much for the party of intellectuals....eh?
Click to expand...

Why aren't you guys demanding Trump and White House officials testify before Congress?

So much for adhering to any sort of principles or values...eh?
 
W_Heisenberg said:
False dilemma - Wikipedia

A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option.

The false dilemma fallacy can also arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception. For example, "Stacey spoke out against capitalism, therefore she must be a communist" (she may be neither capitalist nor communist). "Roger opposed an atheist argument against Christianity, so he must be a Christian" (When it's assumed the opposition by itself means he's a Christian). Roger might be an atheist who disagrees with the logic of some particular argument against Christianity. Additionally, it can be the result of habitual tendency, whatever the cause, to view the world with limited sets of options.
Click to expand...
And the point of this meaningless drivel?
 
Bullseye said:
And the point of this meaningless drivel?
Click to expand...

You asserted an argument based on the logical fallacy called False Dilemma.

You said, "If a unhinged mob of looney left true believers go to extremes to deny or discredit something, it's most certainly true."

Well, no, there could be other reasons why an "unhinged mob of looney left true believers go to extremes to deny or discredit something."

They could just be upset that uneducated and ignorant Trump supporters keep putting forward disingenuous and propagandistic arguments devoid of any sort of logical reasoning.
 
Bullseye said:
With all due respect I'd submit you don't no **** about what the right wants.

Actually, no, the requirement for personal knowledge was changed JUST PRIOR to this whole scenario.
Click to expand...

Incorrect
 
Bullseye said:
Because I can tell from the reactions he's evoking from you guys that he's dead on the money. If a unhinged mob of looney left true believers go to extremes to deny or discredit something, it's most certainly true.
Click to expand...

:lol:

You posted an opinion piece with incorrect information and people called it out as such. In your mind though people are trying to discredit something? They don't need to. The false claims by the writer discredited the article, not anyone in here.
 
Bullseye said:
Nice piece of CYA from ICIG. Fact still remains the information the WB provided has to be verified to be of value in an investigation. What someone heard in the break room or the restroom means nothing until verified.
Click to expand...

First of all, nice job moving the goal posts. You just disregarded the entire memo that answered the questions you wanted asked.

As to "has to be verified" that's correct. Have you missed the testimony since the WB complaint was made public? The transcripts are now available online, so you can read all about how what he said was verified or not.
 
Bullseye said:
Because I can tell from the reactions he's evoking from you guys that he's dead on the money. If a unhinged mob of looney left true believers go to extremes to deny or discredit something, it's most certainly true.
Click to expand...

I don't even know what argument I'm supposed to be discrediting. You didn't make one - you just posted a link without comment. If you want to summarize any part of his article and make a case for why you think it's compelling, let's see it.

Otherwise, I have no interest. The writer is a moron and a hack.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Why aren't you guys demanding Trump and White House officials testify before Congress?

So much for adhering to any sort of principles or values...eh?
Click to expand...

Why aren't the democrats allowing witnesses for the republicans.

Boomerangs hurt...........don't play with them unless you know what you are doing.
 
PoS said:
Adam Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary' - CNNPolitics


Strange. Why would the Dems hide the accuser from cross examination? If the case is so airtight, why not go public with all of it?
Click to expand...

I thought you guys were bitching that the whistleblower was second hand? So now we get you guys a bunch of first hand accounts that were in on the call and were in meetings with key players and now you are reverting back to "but what about the whistleblower?"

Seriously, could you be more transparent?
 
JasperL said:
That's a weak dodge and you know better. If the problem is corruption by U.S. officials, WE do the investigations, and ask for assistance. You've been following along with the Barr/Durham stuff I'm sure. Who is taking the lead on those inquiries? Oh, right, the Barr DoJ! We then ask for ASSISTANCE when we need it from our allies. We do it officially, through accepted channels, in accordance with U.S. law.

Trump did mention Barr several times in that call, when asked about Ukraine and his involvement, Barr said, roughly



Odd don't you think?
Click to expand...


I believe we did ask for assistance. But it doesn't matter. This is for you, and all the other folks who support your view:

Since before Trump assumed office, you've been crying for impeachment. Tlaib summed it up - "Impeach the mother****er." And that's a completely irrational position, with no justification at all. I've read endless arguments attempting to justify impeachment from Mueller to the most mundane, and none have gone anywhere because they're not based in fact. They're based on completely irrational hatred and base corruption within the ranks of the democratic party. Schiff and this entire effort reminds me of the very corrupt and brutal Putin. Or maybe it's more like radical jihad, where any outrage is justified because those other people aren't like you. I dunno, but I'm not going to patiently respond to all this base insanity.

As I mentioned earlier here, write your resolution to impeach Trump, spell out the articles, and get on with it. I'll be surprised if the Senate even takes it up. You'll be kicked to the curb, and that's exactly where you live and belong.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Why aren't the democrats allowing witnesses for the republicans.

Boomerangs hurt...........don't play with them unless you know what you are doing.
Click to expand...
Becuse it is not supposed to be a cirus and the **** show the Republicans want to turn it into but about the facts that Trump extorted a foreign leader and held up military aid. Are there any witnesses to refute the facts?
 
humbolt said:
I believe we did ask for assistance. But it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

You "believe" wrong because Barr denies that there was any investigation into Joe Biden, and you cannot point to any evidence one exists. I get it - the facts don't matter to you. They do matter to a lot of the rest of us.

This is for you, and all the other folks who support your view:

Since before Trump assumed office, you've been crying for impeachment. Tlaib summed it up - "Impeach the mother****er." And that's a completely irrational position, with no justification at all. I've read endless arguments attempting to justify impeachment from Mueller to the most mundane, and none have gone anywhere because they're not based in fact. They're based on completely irrational hatred and base corruption within the ranks of the democratic party. Schiff and this entire effort reminds me of the very corrupt and brutal Putin. Or maybe it's more like radical jihad, where any outrage is justified because those other people aren't like you. I dunno, but I'm not going to patiently respond to all this base insanity.

As I mentioned earlier here, write your resolution to impeach Trump, spell out the articles, and get on with it. I'll be surprised if the Senate even takes it up. You'll be kicked to the curb, and that's exactly where you live and belong.
Click to expand...

I haven't been calling for Trump's impeachment since he was inaugurated, so I don't know why you're attributing arguments made by someone else to me. I can only defend what I say, not what whoever the hell you'd like to bring up says. At any rate, I'm interested in responding to your baseless personal attacks. If you can't debate on the merits, that's fine. I do understand that it's hard to do when you're defending Trump.

FWIW, the right wing has been demanding public hearings for weeks now. They're getting them starting this week. I'm not surprised that on the eve of them beginning the new talking points handed down to the lemmings is to skip them and go straight to impeachment, but you have to admit it's kind of funny.

WE DEMAND PUBLIC HEARINGS!!!

Ok, they start this week.

THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE JUST A CIRCUS!! NANCY WRITE YOUR IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES AND BE DONE WITH IT!!

:lamo
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
First of all, nice job moving the goal posts. You just disregarded the entire memo that answered the questions you wanted asked.

As to "has to be verified" that's correct. Have you missed the testimony since the WB complaint was made public? The transcripts are now available online, so you can read all about how what he said was verified or not.
Click to expand...
Nope, haven't missed much, except I read it with my logic engaged; you guys read it with your TDS flaring up. Also, reread the actual phone call transcript this morning. You guys are still off the rails.
 
Bullseye said:
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 . . ."
Click to expand...

Bullseye, Jasper clearly documented that the "editorial" you posted was lying. so lets see if you have the courage of your convictions (I don't think you do). Please state clearly that the Bidens's name was never mentioned in the phone call as your "editorial" states.
 
SkyFox76 said:
:lol:

You posted an opinion piece with incorrect information and people called it out as such. In your mind though people are trying to discredit something? They don't need to. The false claims by the writer discredited the article, not anyone in here.
Click to expand...
LOL, Oh, I'm sure the cult of lunacy on the left disagree with the article, but it's accurate and well-reasoned, unlike the looney patrol on this thread.
 
Vern said:
Bullseye, Jasper clearly documented that the "editorial" you posted was lying. so lets see if you have the courage of your convictions (I don't think you do). Please state clearly that the Bidens's name was never mentioned in the phone call as your "editorial" states.
Click to expand...
JasperL couldn't document the sun rises in the East. :lamo
 
RetiredUSN said:
Why aren't the democrats allowing witnesses for the republicans.

Boomerangs hurt...........don't play with them unless you know what you are doing.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with the Republican list out of hand - I think some or even most of the names on the list should be heard. The ones I have a problem with are those where the evidence against them is only supported by the President's "belief" they were engaged in illegal activities. I think there needs to be more than a "belief" to make them a relevant witness. If there is some evidence - or if the witness in question has communicated a desire to supply evidence - that meets the standard of reasonable suspicion, then absolutely they should be allowed to testify. Until such point, I don't think their testimony would be relevant.
 
Bullseye said:
JasperL couldn't document the sun rises in the East. :lamo
Click to expand...

But, Jasper did clearly document that the "editorial" you posted was lying. :lamo
 
PoS said:
Adam Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary' - CNNPolitics


Strange. Why would the Dems hide the accuser from cross examination? If the case is so airtight, why not go public with all of it?
Click to expand...

Because there is no whistle blower. Also, whistle blower's do not have to remain nameless and there is no reason for them not to testify. If this were a court case, they would have to testify and face the accused. The only protection they get is not to be retaliated against. Not to remain anonymous. Schiff is guilty of treason as he conspires with this person and the person's attorney who admitted he was behind the coup going on.
 
Cougarbear said:
Because there is no whistle blower. Also, whistle blower's do not have to remain nameless and there is no reason for them not to testify. If this were a court case, they would have to testify and face the accused. The only protection they get is not to be retaliated against. Not to remain anonymous. Schiff is guilty of treason as he conspires with this person and the person's attorney who admitted he was behind the coup going on.
Click to expand...

There is no need for the whistleblower. Trump has done a fine enough job of hanging himself. You'd almost think the man has some Chad in him. :lamo
 
Cougarbear said:
Because there is no whistle blower. Also, whistle blower's do not have to remain nameless and there is no reason for them not to testify. If this were a court case, they would have to testify and face the accused. The only protection they get is not to be retaliated against. Not to remain anonymous. Schiff is guilty of treason as he conspires with this person and the person's attorney who admitted he was behind the coup going on.
Click to expand...

Except that it isn't a court case.

And even in court, you only get to cross examine witnesses against you. And the prosecution decides who they will choose as witnesses.
 
Cordelier said:
I don't disagree with the Republican list out of hand - I think some or even most of the names on the list should be heard. The ones I have a problem with are those where the evidence against them is only supported by the President's "belief" they were engaged in illegal activities. I think there needs to be more than a "belief" to make them a relevant witness. If there is some evidence - or if the witness in question has communicated a desire to supply evidence - that meets the standard of reasonable suspicion, then absolutely they should be allowed to testify. Until such point, I don't think their testimony would be relevant.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Cougarbear said:
Because there is no whistle blower. Also, whistle blower's do not have to remain nameless and there is no reason for them not to testify. If this were a court case, they would have to testify and face the accused. The only protection they get is not to be retaliated against. Not to remain anonymous. Schiff is guilty of treason as he conspires with this person and the person's attorney who admitted he was behind the coup going on.
Click to expand...

You should go look up the word 'treason'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom