• 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's EPIC SMACKDOWN of repubs & Trump who have attacked him.

The thread title would be more accurate if smackdown were substituted with crackup.
 
Cardinal said:
Nunes has most certainly not been cleared of anything, and nobody demanded he resign which in retrospect was clearly a mistake.
Click to expand...

Remember alternative facts, that response was alternative facts in action, none of it accurate but who cares if it fits their beliefs. The right becrys fake news when in fact they are the biggest users of twisted reasoning in their fervor of defending trump. No lie is too big to swallow.
 
bubbabgone said:
But this the kind of thing Schiff and his gang here can't win unless Mueller and his gang was in the collusion tank for Trump and someone can show it.
How the hell is Schiff going to insist he evaluates evidence better than Mueller?
I know someone here who thinks "Oh well I disagree" would be a good tack for Schiff but you've got to be addled to think that argument would fly among the non-addled.
Click to expand...

Here is what you are either missing or refuse to acknowledge:

1. Schiff, and the rest of congress, are a co-equal branch of government charged with oversight of the Executive brance.
2. Schiff, as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has the right and the obligation to review all evidence to ascertain if any member of the administration conducted corrupt or illegal activities with actors from foreign governments.
3. Mueller did not have enough evidence to rise to the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt" necessary for criminal conviction of Obstruction of Justice.
4. Schiff, and indeed any committee chairman investigating this administration, only has to find a "preponderance of evidence" to bring impeachment proceedings, since impeachment is a political disciplinary process, not a criminal one.

Therefore, Schiff does indeed have the expertise, experience, and the obligation to evaluate the evidence for potential house impeachment and/or other house disciplinary measures better than Mueller, because they are working on two entirely different criteria.

Besides which, even Barr found it important to quote Mueller exactly when (I'm paraphrasing because I can't be arsed to look it up) "...although the report does not conclude there was obstruction, it does not exonerate him [Trump]."

That said, I hope that Trump is not impeached, since sans a smoking gun we do not yet have, the gutless Senate will follow their orange toddler over whatever cliff he points to, and will never convict even if the House impeaches.
 
DiAnna said:
Here is what you are either missing or refuse to acknowledge:

1. Schiff, and the rest of congress, are a co-equal branch of government charged with oversight of the Executive brance.
2. Schiff, as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has the right and the obligation to review all evidence to ascertain if any member of the administration conducted corrupt or illegal activities with actors from foreign governments.
3. Mueller did not have enough evidence to rise to the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt" necessary for criminal conviction of Obstruction of Justice.
4. Schiff, and indeed any committee chairman investigating this administration, only has to find a "preponderance of evidence" to bring impeachment proceedings, since impeachment is a political disciplinary process, not a criminal one.

Therefore, Schiff does indeed have the expertise, experience, and the obligation to evaluate the evidence for potential house impeachment and/or other house disciplinary measures better than Mueller, because they are working on two entirely different criteria.

Besides which, even Barr found it important to quote Mueller exactly when (I'm paraphrasing because I can't be arsed to look it up) "...although the report does not conclude there was obstruction, it does not exonerate him [Trump]."

That said, I hope that Trump is not impeached, since sans a smoking gun we do not yet have, the gutless Senate will follow their orange toddler over whatever cliff he points to, and will never convict even if the House impeaches.
Click to expand...



so basically you are saying that its ok for Schiff to impeach Trump regardless of whether he is blameless or not, because, you know, its Trump.
 
DiAnna said:
The ethics violations of doing his job from the wrong side of the aisle. :)
Click to expand...

the ethics violations of lying to the american people about having evidence he has not timely produced about a possible conspiracy involving the presidency of the United States, while wasting taxpayer money in keeping such a circus going.

that's what ethics violations.
 
Mongidig said:
Do you ever notice that when someone posts a video and claims it is "epic" it always turns out to be a turd? That pencil neck geek said exactly what I thought he was gonna say. He's a poor loser as are there rest of those people who thinks it's okay to continue beyond a three year investigation that found no collusion.

Hey Mr. Schiff? Do you think it's okay to use your position of authority to lie to the American people for 3 years?
Click to expand...



If turds really bother you, you must hate Donald Trump
 
DiAnna said:
Here is what you are either missing or refuse to acknowledge:

1. Schiff, and the rest of congress, are a co-equal branch of government charged with oversight of the Executive brance.
2. Schiff, as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has the right and the obligation to review all evidence to ascertain if any member of the administration conducted corrupt or illegal activities with actors from foreign governments.
3. Mueller did not have enough evidence to rise to the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt" necessary for criminal conviction of Obstruction of Justice.
4. Schiff, and indeed any committee chairman investigating this administration, only has to find a "preponderance of evidence" to bring impeachment proceedings, since impeachment is a political disciplinary process, not a criminal one.

Therefore, Schiff does indeed have the expertise, experience, and the obligation to evaluate the evidence for potential house impeachment and/or other house disciplinary measures better than Mueller, because they are working on two entirely different criteria.

Besides which, even Barr found it important to quote Mueller exactly when (I'm paraphrasing because I can't be arsed to look it up) "...although the report does not conclude there was obstruction, it does not exonerate him [Trump]."

That said, I hope that Trump is not impeached, since sans a smoking gun we do not yet have, the gutless Senate will follow their orange toddler over whatever cliff he points to, and will never convict even if the House impeaches.
Click to expand...

Sounds like all that was you saying Schiff is just fishing for grounds for impeachment.
Well, yeah, that's obviously what they have to do now but Schiff can't acknowledge that because he hasn't been presenting it that way.
And your theory might have been possible but for Schiff insisting he actually has non-circumstantial evidence of "collusion", as in something criminal, as in what Mueller was looking for.
Schiff insists he saw that evidence of criminality and it appears Mueller has not.

Which one is more inclined to have his judgement guided by partisan interests?
 
bubbabgone said:
Sounds like all that was you saying Schiff is just fishing for grounds for impeachment.
Well, yeah, that's obviously what they have to do now but Schiff can't acknowledge that because he hasn't been presenting it that way.
And your theory might have been possible but for Schiff insisting he actually has non-circumstantial evidence of "collusion", as in something criminal, as in what Mueller was looking for.
Schiff insists he saw that evidence of criminality and it appears Mueller has not.

Which one is more inclined to have his judgement guided by partisan interests?
Click to expand...

What were Schiff’s precise words regarding the evidence of collusion he saw?
 
Cardinal said:
What were Schiff’s precise words regarding the evidence of collusion he saw?
Click to expand...

Schiff told NBC’s “Meet the Press” earlier this week that “there is circumstantial evidence of collusion” and “direct evidence” of deception by the president’s campaign. He added to the assessment on Wednesday, saying he’s now aware of firmer evidence indicating collusion.

“I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now,” Schiff said in an interview with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd.

“You have seen direct evidence of collusion?” Todd asked.

“I don’t want to get into specifics, but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial, and is very much worthy of investigation,” Schiff said. “That is what we ought to do.”
​

Adam Schiff Says There's 'More Than Circumstantial Evidence' Of Trump Ties To Russia | HuffPost

That was in March of 2017 ... before Mueller was appointed.
And he's repeated it many times.
 
bubbabgone said:

Schiff told NBC’s “Meet the Press” earlier this week that “there is circumstantial evidence of collusion” and “direct evidence” of deception by the president’s campaign. He added to the assessment on Wednesday, saying he’s now aware of firmer evidence indicating collusion.

“I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now,” Schiff said in an interview with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd.

“You have seen direct evidence of collusion?” Todd asked.

“I don’t want to get into specifics, but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial, and is very much worthy of investigation,” Schiff said. “That is what we ought to do.”
​

Adam Schiff Says There's 'More Than Circumstantial Evidence' Of Trump Ties To Russia | HuffPost

That was in March of 2017 ... before Mueller was appointed.
And he's repeated it many times.
Click to expand...

What was inaccurate about what he said?
 
tres borrachos said:
The "bait" for the meeting. Love it! So which one of them forced him to accept their offer of collusion?

I'm not talking about the fact that the idiot Junior was punked. I'm talking about him accepting an offer from what he believed to be the Russian government sharing sensitive information about a previous Secretary of State in order for Russia to help his father win the election. Why go to the FBI like a normal American would when you can collude with Russia?
Click to expand...

Wow! And when the Clinton campaign used foreign spies to get dirt on Trump from anonymous Russian sources...? Shall we question Mrs. Clinton's patriotism now?

And what about the Obama DOJ who used such Russian sources in court proceedings? And at a time they knew Russia was trying to screw with the election?
 
bubbabgone said:
What was the non-circumstantial evidence that he saw and Mueller didn't?
Click to expand...

The instances of the Trump campaign colluding with Russians aren't "circumstantial."
 
Cardinal said:
I don't know because I haven't seen the Mueller report and neither have you. All of the circumstantial evidence, however, leads me to suspect he was being truthful.
Click to expand...

Well what would Mueller have done with the non-circumstantial evidence that Schiff said he saw?
 
bubbabgone said:
Well what would Mueller have done with the non-circumstantial evidence that Schiff said he saw?
Click to expand...

See edit. I was too quick to agree that the instances of collusion were "circumstantial."
 
bubbabgone said:
Put it in a sentence so I know what I'm responding to.
Click to expand...

Um....what's the point in making me copy and paste the same post I already wrote? If you're interested in what it says, read it.
 
Cardinal said:
Um....what's the point in making me copy and paste the same post I already wrote? If you're interested in what it says, read it.
Click to expand...

A cut and paste would have been easier then typing that new sentence.
It's not like you're losing an argument by being clear.
But it's your choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom