• 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!

How Dishonest Is Adam Schiff?

Cordelier said:
I agree... but David Hale (Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs) and Tim Morrison (NSC Staff) are both on the Republican witness list, and both appeared before House investigators, and neither of their depositions have been released yet. I think if we're going to do this fairly, it ought to be done fairly down the line, don't you?
Click to expand...

Those two witnesses were not the ones Adam Schiff was referring to in his response to Nunes
 
Lutherf said:
This is how dishonest -

Here's his letter to the HPSCI minority - https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191112_-_hpsci_chm_memo_to_members_on_open_hearings.pdf

Here is the first paragraph of the 4th page of that memo -


Notice the line about "debunked conspiracies about 2016 election interference...".

Those "conspiracies" are not "debunked". In fact, those "conspiracies" are under investigation by US Attorney, John Durham and a few weeks ago it was announced that those investigations had become criminal rather than administrative.

Schiff has now explicitly prohibited questioning of witnesses in regard to the 2016 election even though that is the basis for Trump's "ask" AND he has stated as the reason for the prohibition that the line of questioning is in regard to a "debunked" theory that is actually under a current investigation.

That is how dishonest Adam Schiff is.
Click to expand...

Yes, those CTs have been debunked, and there is compelling evidence that they came straight from the Kremlin.

Understanding that requires intellectual honesty, so I wouldn't worry about it if I were a conservative.
 
Let's make something clear: if Schiff did something illegal, throw his ass in jail. I don't care about him. I owe him nothing. I have no allegiance.

But now that we have more and more witness testimony - actual documents on top - any dishonesty on his part does not matter as to Trump's actual guilt. If Schiff is scum than whomever is in his district can vote him out. I can't. I don't live there.




This is just another example of Trumpist distraction. If Schiff said previously the evidence is "A,B,C" but the witness said it was "B,C,D" and "B,C,D" is damning enough for impeachment, then why care about "A" other than as a reason to vote Schiff out next election?

Trump is dirty as hell. His team's own edited memo (not a transcript) proves it alone. All the witnesses corroborate it. It's just sideshow after sideshow from the Trumpists.





LOOK AT THE CUTE SQUIRREL!
 
Acadia said:
I hope Republicans bring it to Schiff, go after Biden and mention the phone "whistleblower" name early and often. ALL of them.
I want to see Shiff-for-brain apoplectic.
Click to expand...

Lulz. When Gym "I tolerate sexual abuse of young men under my supervision inclusing ass-spelunking" Jordan whips himself into a spastic frenzy and spaz-rages in front of the cameras, don't get too upset.
 
ecofarm said:
That sounds fine. But we should keep in mind that opposition submissions will not contain exonerating evidence. We know that because if such existed this whole thing would be over. They can only contain obfuscation. But sure, let the Repubs obfuscate.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone interviewed so far has been pivotal one way or the other.... it's rare that you'd see testimony like that until you start reeling some of the "bigger fish" into hearings. We're still at the small fry stage - what's important now is the picture that is formed from the totality of the evidence... and that means taking information from as many different points of view as possible - so long as it is fact-based.
 
Lutherf said:
This is how dishonest -

Here's his letter to the HPSCI minority - https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191112_-_hpsci_chm_memo_to_members_on_open_hearings.pdf

Here is the first paragraph of the 4th page of that memo -


Notice the line about "debunked conspiracies about 2016 election interference...".

Those "conspiracies" are not "debunked". In fact, those "conspiracies" are under investigation by US Attorney, John Durham and a few weeks ago it was announced that those investigations had become criminal rather than administrative.

Schiff has now explicitly prohibited questioning of witnesses in regard to the 2016 election even though that is the basis for Trump's "ask" AND he has stated as the reason for the prohibition that the line of questioning is in regard to a "debunked" theory that is actually under a current investigation.

That is how dishonest Adam Schiff is.
Click to expand...

I'd like to know who investigated the Biden issue and has "debunked" it. I keep seeing dishonest talking heads like him and their allies in the MSMs throwing that word around but they never say who debunked it and the investigation that took place to find it without merit. Trump has been exposed to investigations since before his election so I think it fair that the very credible claims against Biden are looked into just a little, at the very least.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Those two witnesses were not the ones Adam Schiff was referring to in his response to Nunes
Click to expand...

I realize that, and I have no disagreement about that response.... my only disagreement is that he hasn't released any depositions that the Republicans obviously consider more "friendly" to their point of view. I don't think that's been exactly fair. I want to see the other side of this as well.
 
Cordelier said:
Luther - I'll give the President the presumption of innocence here. Let's say he was operating with firm evidence of a conspiracy or corruption on the part of the Bidens when he made the July 25 phone call. Okay, fine... so why doesn't he put it out there, then? This whole matter can simply go away if he can present a case for why he took the actions he took. He's got the Bully Pulpit. He's got Twitter. Hell, all he's got to do is step out his front door, and he's on live TV all over the world. So nobody is stopping him from making his case.

We're not interested in more bizarre conspiracy theories, though. It's time to put up or shut up. This is where the rubber meets the road.
Click to expand...
ecofarm said:
Why didn't he take his case to the authorities? Why didn't he tell anyone? Why did he choose to single-handedly pursue international justice in an obviously corrupt manner?

He just had to save us? No matter what, and he couldn't afford to tell anyone. That's what I'm supposed to believe, even after knowing the whole Biden thing is BS.

It's impossibly stupid.
Click to expand...

And that's not counting....

- His seeming complete lack of caring about corruption in other places, like Russia.

- His buddy-buddy relationship with Putin + Putin's help in 2016, for that matter.

- The effect of withholding military aid from Ukraine on Ukraine-Russia negotiations.

Yadda yadda. This is why I have a real worry about American democracy: enough people simply do not care, seemingly for partisan ends. That's a problem.
 
Fishking said:
I'd like to know who investigated the Biden issue and has "debunked" it. I keep seeing dishonest talking heads like him and their allies in the MSMs throwing that word around but they never say who debunked it and the investigation that took place to find it without merit. Trump has been exposed to investigations since before his election so I think it fair that the very credible claims against Biden are looked into just a little, at the very least.
Click to expand...

I don't think there was anything to investigate there - Vice President Biden's actions on the matter were entirely consistent with US foreign policy. I can post up Deputy Asst. Secretary of State George Kent's deposition on that front if you like.
 
Mr Person said:
And that's not counting....

- His seeming complete lack of caring about corruption in other places, like Russia.

- His buddy-buddy relationship with Putin + Putin's help in 2016, for that matter.

- The effect of withholding military aid from Ukraine on Ukraine-Russia negotiations.

Yadda yadda. This is why I have a real worry about American democracy: enough people simply do not care, seemingly for partisan ends. That's a problem.
Click to expand...

To be fair, though, nobody really cared about Watergate until the hearings started being televised, either.
 
Cordelier said:
I realize that, and I have no disagreement about that response.... my only disagreement is that he hasn't released any depositions that the Republicans obviously consider more "friendly" to their point of view. I don't think that's been exactly fair. I want to see the other side of this as well.
Click to expand...

Many potential witnesses have been ordered by the White House not to testify, if they wanted to tell their side of the story then it is counterproductive to tell witnesses not to testify.

And there are a lot of witnesses

A Who’s Who of Ukraine Witnesses
 
Fishking said:
I'd like to know who investigated the Biden issue and has "debunked" it. I keep seeing dishonest talking heads like him and their allies in the MSMs throwing that word around but they never say who debunked it and the investigation that took place to find it without merit. Trump has been exposed to investigations since before his election so I think it fair that the very credible claims against Biden are looked into just a little, at the very least.
Click to expand...

You are not reading it corretly. Here is the relevant quote: "...will not serve as venues for any Member to further the same sham investigations into the Bidens or into debunked conspiracies about 2016 U.S. election interference that President Trump pressed Ukraine to undertake for his personal political benefit"

While the Biden allegation has in fact been debunked, that is not what Schiff said. He is referring to the allegations based on zero evidence that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered into the 2016 election. The OP dishonestly framed what Schiff said in order to present Schiff as dishonest. Kinda ironic, no?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Many potential witnesses have been ordered by the White House not to testify, if they wanted to tell their side of the story then it is counterproductive to tell witnesses not to testify.

And there are a lot of witnesses

A Who’s Who of Ukraine Witnesses
Click to expand...

I agree entirely... not only is the President opening himself up to potential obstruction of Congress charges, but from a purely PR perspective, blocking people from testifying doesn't exactly scream "Innocent!" either.
 
Lutherf said:
This is how dishonest -

Here's his letter to the HPSCI minority - https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191112_-_hpsci_chm_memo_to_members_on_open_hearings.pdf

Here is the first paragraph of the 4th page of that memo -


Notice the line about "debunked conspiracies about 2016 election interference...".

Those "conspiracies" are not "debunked". In fact, those "conspiracies" are under investigation by US Attorney, John Durham and a few weeks ago it was announced that those investigations had become criminal rather than administrative.

Schiff has now explicitly prohibited questioning of witnesses in regard to the 2016 election even though that is the basis for Trump's "ask" AND he has stated as the reason for the prohibition that the line of questioning is in regard to a "debunked" theory that is actually under a current investigation.

That is how dishonest Adam Schiff is.
Click to expand...

The reasons Trump asked for what he asked for are irrelevant.

He asked for an investigation of a political rival. It's pure politics. Do you think that inappropriate ?
 
Fishking said:
I'd like to know who investigated the Biden issue and has "debunked" it. I keep seeing dishonest talking heads like him and their allies in the MSMs throwing that word around but they never say who debunked it and the investigation that took place to find it without merit. Trump has been exposed to investigations since before his election so I think it fair that the very credible claims against Biden are looked into just a little, at the very least.
Click to expand...

Sure, but Biden's actions are irrelevant to the impeachment. That is all about Trump's actions. Impeach Hunter Biden if you'd like.

Do you think Trump's actions were acceptable and would you say that if a Democrst did the same thing?
 
Cordelier said:
I don't think there was anything to investigate there - Vice President Biden's actions on the matter were entirely consistent with US foreign policy. I can post up Deputy Asst. Secretary of State George Kent's deposition on that front if you like.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you, and many, think there is nothing to investigate, despite the obvious indications of corruption.
 
Back in the 80's, PBS aired a 2-part documentary called "Summer of Judgment" to mark the 10th Anniversary of Watergate. If you've never seen it before, I highly recommend it. But there's one part of it in particular that has always stuck with me... it occurs at about the 6:30 mark of Part 1, when the narrator interviews Sen. Sam Ervin (D-NC):



What's always stuck with me was what made Senator Ervin suspect the President wasn't exactly "toting fair".
 
Redress said:
You are not reading it corretly. Here is the relevant quote: "...will not serve as venues for any Member to further the same sham investigations into the Bidens or into debunked conspiracies about 2016 U.S. election interference that President Trump pressed Ukraine to undertake for his personal political benefit"

While the Biden allegation has in fact been debunked, that is not what Schiff said. He is referring to the allegations based on zero evidence that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered into the 2016 election. The OP dishonestly framed what Schiff said in order to present Schiff as dishonest. Kinda ironic, no?
Click to expand...

Ah...how has the Biden claims been debunked beyond people just repeatedly saying "debunked"? So there is a reading comprehension issue here, and it's on your part because you did nothing to address what I said.
 
Fishking said:
I'm sure you, and many, think there is nothing to investigate, despite the obvious indications of corruption.
Click to expand...

The only indications of corruption at the time were against Shokin and his people. Biden wanted him removed because he wasn't conducting investigations, not because he was.
 
Lutherf said:
If Trump obstructed justice with regard to the Mueller investigation then THAT is what he should be impeached on. You might notice, however, that isn't what Schiff is going after and I figure you're smart enough to know why he's not going after that.
Click to expand...

Treason works better for impeachment than obstruction.
 
rocket88 said:
Sure, but Biden's actions are irrelevant to the impeachment. That is all about Trump's actions. Impeach Hunter Biden if you'd like.

Do you think Trump's actions were acceptable and would you say that if a Democrst did the same thing?
Click to expand...

The President is allowed to look into corruption. Why are you so scared? Trump has been investigated for over 3 years now, yet it's still not enough.
 
Fishking said:
The President is allowed to look into corruption. Why are you so scared? Trump has been investigated for over 3 years now, yet it's still not enough.
Click to expand...

What specific “corruption” is Donald looking into? The answer is nothing. Just a conspiracy theory that doesn’t even make sense. That’s why the DOJ has no involvement and he sent Giuliani creeping around Europe instead.
 
Fishking said:
The President is allowed to look into corruption. Why are you so scared? Trump has been investigated for over 3 years now, yet it's still not enough.
Click to expand...

I think that's more the Attorney General's kettle of fish.... as a Fishking, you ought to know that.

Hell, if he wanted to, the Attorney General could appoint a Special Counsel to look into it tomorrow, couldn't he?
 
Adam Schiff is among one of the finest fascists this country has ever produced. The sad truth is most don't know how to spot a fascist, communist, socialist because the masses......well they be ignorant. The lines blurr between fascism, communism and socialism. Bottom line all three destroy liberty.

But Shifty lives up to a famous quote from Stalin's side kick Beria. "Show me the man and I will find you the crime". And I think that pretty much sums up his pathetic impeachment inquiry.

show me the man and i'll find you the crime - Learning History
 
Lutherf said:
This is how dishonest -

Here's his letter to the HPSCI minority - https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191112_-_hpsci_chm_memo_to_members_on_open_hearings.pdf

Here is the first paragraph of the 4th page of that memo -


Notice the line about "debunked conspiracies about 2016 election interference...".

Those "conspiracies" are not "debunked". In fact, those "conspiracies" are under investigation by US Attorney, John Durham and a few weeks ago it was announced that those investigations had become criminal rather than administrative.

Schiff has now explicitly prohibited questioning of witnesses in regard to the 2016 election even though that is the basis for Trump's "ask" AND he has stated as the reason for the prohibition that the line of questioning is in regard to a "debunked" theory that is actually under a current investigation.

That is how dishonest Adam Schiff is.
Click to expand...

This is your proof of his dishonesty? Yes those are all debunked CT's. Just because you worship a CT loving idiot does not mean they have any validity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom