• 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!

Adam Schiff Opening Statement On Trump Wiretapping Claims Comey Testifies 3 20 17

Toppling treasonous Trump will not hurt the country one bit. We've been through this before.

If he's committed treason, I agree. You make the definitive statement that he is "treasonous Trump." What if he isn't? In your opinion, if it turns out that he hasn't committed treason, do you feel that all the statements like yours above, will or at least could harm the country?
 
Umm...how did they get "slick willie" to lie under oath? Isn't it up to "slick willie" to tell the truth or lie about it? Funny how you claim that the GOP got someone to lie and yet when it comes to Trump it is purely Trumps responsibility. I agree that its Trumps responsibility. I do not agree that its the GOP's fault that they supposedly "got slick willie" to lie. That's about as a partisan a statement as you can possibly get.

yes, Slick Willie lied of his own free will; I grant anyone here that & stand corrected.

does not change the fact that the GOP has offered the US nothing but BS since 1854 ..................


Lincoln, Nixon, the $52 million the GOP wasted on Whitewater could have gone to feed the poor .......... instead of GOP egos ..............
 
I would recommend listening to Mr. Schiff's opening statement; there are some comments within that I was previously not aware of.

As he states, these things could be coincidental but they need to be thoroughly investigated.

There is a better chance that investigators find multible prayer rugs in Trump's Trump Tower residence than
finding evidence of Trump colluding with Russians to interfere with our elections. Even a baby that;s just been born
would know that.
 
yes, Slick Willie lied of his own free will; I grant anyone here that & stand corrected.

does not change the fact that the GOP has offered the US nothing but BS since 1854 ..................

Agreed. Same goes for the DNC. Only since 1848.
 
You have been watching the hearing from the beginning? lol It just started but yet you are making assumptions already, you are no better than the Trump haters you diss, have a look in the mirror bud.

Assumption of innocence is the basis of our legal system. You have a problem with that? Or, do you feel that we should condemn people by popular disdain, rather than actual proof? I don't like the guy. He embarrasses the hell out me sometimes with the crap he says and does. However, my dislike for him and his actions is not going to sway me to condemn him as guilty before the investigations have even concluded. Those are the types of assumptions that you and others seem to think are okay assumptions to make, but the assumption of innocence until proven guilty is not.

That's telling.
 
Your statement "Quit talking retarded ****"" is just another form of telling another DP member to STFU; you just happen to state it differently


your implication is NO DIFFERENT; only the verbiage you utilize

I have no problem with you posting, I have a problem with how retarded what you are saying is.
 
Assumption of innocence is the basis of our legal system. You have a problem with that? Or, do you feel that we should condemn people by popular disdain, rather than actual proof? I don't like the guy. He embarrasses the hell out me sometimes with the crap he says and does. However, my dislike for him and his actions is not going to sway me to condemn him as guilty before the investigations have even concluded. Those are the types of assumptions that you and others seem to think are okay assumptions to make, but the assumption of innocence until proven guilty is not.

That's telling.


I make no assumptions myself & that is why I believe all investigations need to take place & then let the chips fall where they may

I see a lot of Trump supporters expressing the idea that ANY investigation is BS

I don't think so
 
If he's committed treason, I agree. You make the definitive statement that he is "treasonous Trump." What if he isn't? In your opinion, if it turns out that he hasn't committed treason, do you feel that all the statements like yours above, will or at least could harm the country?

My statement does not carry enough weight to harm a country. I will gladly recant if I am incorrect.

Trump has more Russian ties than Oswald had.
 
Assumption of innocence is the basis of our legal system. You have a problem with that? Or, do you feel that we should condemn people by popular disdain, rather than actual proof? I don't like the guy. He embarrasses the hell out me sometimes with the crap he says and does. However, my dislike for him and his actions is not going to sway me to condemn him as guilty before the investigations have even concluded. Those are the types of assumptions that you and others seem to think are okay assumptions to make, but the assumption of innocence until proven guilty is not.

That's telling.

Do not get your panties in a bunch there Buttercup. You started the post with an assumption of what I thought, that was your first error. The second error was to spin that into some rambling about me convicting Trump before all the evidence was in, mistake on your part. If you continue to make assumptions about strangers on a public forum, get used to being wrong.
 
I make no assumptions myself & that is why I believe all investigations need to take place & then let the chips fall where they may

I see a lot of Trump supporters expressing the idea that ANY investigation is BS

I don't think so

Then I suggest you read my posts on the subject, because I have said basically what you say above. My only difference is that I feel the FBI should be allowed to complete their investigation, or at least the majority of it, before the House and Senate get involved so that the Congress doesn't do something that would potentially screw up any prosecutions that the FBI and DOJ may eventually pursue in this regard.

To be clear, as I've said here before, if can be shown that Trump coordinated with Russia to hack the DNC or Hillary Clinton or her campaign staff, then he should be immediately impeached, found guilty by the Senate, removed from office, and then prosecuted by the DOJ to the fullest extent of the law and then SHOT by firing squad as a traitor under the US Code.
 
Nope. He's saying that what another poster is saying is retarded. There is a difference.

so, if a DP member disagrees with the content of another DP member's post, by your definition it is OK for me to say that the other member's choice of speech is retarded?

LOL ........... OK, I'll remember that for future reference ..........
 
Last edited:
wow, there you go again; now you are referring to another DP member as a retard ........

Hit the triangle. I am characterizing your POST and the information in it. Your reading comprehension is not my problem.
 
Do not get your panties in a bunch there Buttercup. You started the post with an assumption of what I thought, that was your first error. The second error was to spin that into some rambling about me convicting Trump before all the evidence was in, mistake on your part. If you continue to make assumptions about strangers on a public forum, get used to being wrong.

I was only discussing what you stated.

Being that you have twice now called me names and twice now been demeaning and rude, I will respectfully withdraw from responding to your posts going forward.
 
I was only discussing what you stated.

Being that you have twice now called me names and twice now been demeaning and rude, I will respectfully withdraw from responding to your posts going forward.


seems to be an EPIDEMIC here .........
 
Aww poor little snowflake, do you need me to sing you a lullaby? Do not assume to know what I am thinking, then back peddle, not surprised your running off with your tail tucked between your legs. Its past your bedtime Buttercup, do you need your binky?
 
Well, yeah it is. The only conclusion that the FBI has drawn and gone on record with is their assumed motive that looks like the Russian involvement was as opposition to Clinton. Their only statement regarding Trump collusion with the Russians is that there is no proof.


She's peripheral the question of collusion itself.

Sorry, it's simply not about her.
 
Keep thinking yours are not a joke, KCW.

If you want to address me directly, use my forum handle. Don't bait, the fish around here are terribly overfed as is.
 
My statement does not carry enough weight to harm a country.
I didn't give you that much credit or power either. I said ALL the statements -- "... do you feel that all the statements like yours above, will or at least could harm the country?" It is my opinion that all of them together, do.
I will gladly recant if I am incorrect.
That is an honorable statement, and I believe you.

Trump has more Russian ties than Oswald had.
Being that Oswald didn't own a multi-billion dollar international company, and Trump does... that was never in question.
 
seems to be an EPIDEMIC here .........

Epidemic is too strong, I believe. The staff and the rules give everyone a chance to change their ways and debate politely. However, after a reasonable time period (and cumulative points) they also give those that refuse to do so, the opportunity to find alternative locations on the interwebs to debate.
 
Don't bait
O tempora! O mores!

Bravo!

giphy.gif
 
Back
Top Bottom