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

[Cardinal]

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.

Yes, a cut and paste would have been easier, but the new point of curiosity is why you want me to copy and paste a post from one page back that you could just read. Your request is weird.

 

[bubbabgone]

Yes, a cut and paste would have been easier, but the new point of curiosity is why you want me to copy and paste it when you could just read it. Your request is just weird.

Good grief.
Now it does seem like you know your argument was too weak to continue.
So be it.
I'll respond when you have something to say on point.

 

[Cardinal]

Good grief.
Now it does seem like you know your argument was too weak to continue.
So be it.
I'll respond when you have something to say on point.

Imagine if I asked you to copy and paste the post you wrote at the top of this page. That would just be weird, right?

 

[bubbabgone]

Imagine if I asked you to copy and paste the post you wrote at the top of this page. That would just be weird, right?

You said you made an edit somewhere.
How would you know whether one of my responses was before or after your edit.
Either make your point clear or let it go because I'll not reply again unless you do.

 

[Luckyone]

That was epic?

Hmm....

2 years ago Devin Nunes was running that committee and stepped aside when he was accused of being too close to the White House. Now, ironically enough, Nunes has been cleared of wrong doing and Schiff doesn't have the integrity to step aside when he's been stone cold busted running a propaganda campaign against the president. Today's speech was a gross misrepresentation of the facts and served as nothing more than additional evidence of Schiff's character or, rather, the lack thereof.

Yes, it was epic because truth hurts those who lie and almost everyone in Trump's cabinet as well as those in Congress that support him are liars.

Political correctness went out the door when Trump was elected (all Republicans cheered when that happened) but they don't like it when it is done to them. Schiff, who has always been politically correct, decided it was time to use the same tact that Trump uses and the right was aghast.

IT WAS EPIC!

 

[Cardinal]

You said you made an edit somewhere.
How would you know whether one of my responses was before or after your edit.
Either make your point clear or let it go because I'll not reply again unless you do.

Which response are you referring to?

 

[Luckyone]

"Smackdown?" More like a whiny litany of unsubstantiated or disproved jabberwocky.

How did I know you were going to say that word for word? I must be seer!

You are getting too predictable Bullseye and it makes your posts less readable and totally unsuccessful as far as trying to make your point.

 

[Luckyone]

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

Unfortunately for you, the answer is "yes" but not to lie but to tell the truth because the fact remains that many "turds" (such as Trump) get off on technicalities of the law. He was exonerated of colluding with the Russians but not of favoring Putin and certainly was not exonerated of trying to cover it up.

 

[Bullseye]

How did I know you were going to say that word for word? I must be seer!

You are getting too predictable Bullseye and it makes your posts less readable and totally unsuccessful as far as trying to make your point.

Telling the true consistently is always predictable. It's you guys constantly shifting attempts to ignore facts and find ways to continue your witch hunts

 

[Luckyone]

Telling the true consistently is always predictable. It's you guys constantly shifting attempts to ignore facts and find ways to continue your witch hunts

Yeah, I know you think your truth is the only truth. Unfortunately for you, all Trump supporters say the same things in the face of irrefutable facts, many of which I have supplied to you before and you not only did not refute them with facts but ignored them conveniently when it suited your fantasy world.

Truths are not truths when they are handpicked.

 

[iguanaman]

Not one thing Schiff quoted was either unsubstantiated OR disproved. In fact, every single thing he pointed out has been publicly corroborated repeatedly; it simply doesn't rise to the level of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" as required for criminal prosecution in federal court.

Yes and we need to see how Mueller came to that conclusion. It certainly does not mean that these things do not constitute " high crimes or misdemeanors" either. They stink to high heaven. Perhaps we need new laws regarding failure of a candidate to report overtures of help from a foreign Government and secretly engaging in business deals with said Govt. while running for office.

 

[Luckyone]

Are there anymore indictments? No? Well, that should clear up your confusion.

No more indictments. Nonetheless Mueller did indict or get guilty pleas from 34 individuals and 3 companies, meaning that there was a hell of a lot of witches hanging around Trump.

Goes to the adage of "tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are"

Let me repeat myself, 34 indictments or guilty pleas from persons and 3 from companies!!!!!

If you live in an anthill, you must be an ant!

 

[Luckyone]

In case anybody doesn't know why Schiff had this epic rant on TV today ... it's because he was given the letter requesting his resignation from the committee around lunchtime today:

GOP Letter to Schiff

Yeah, I see the strategy behind that, get rid of those that are in your way to accomplishing your corrupt goals. Classic scammer guidelines.

 

[DiAnna]

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?

No. What I am saying is that the evidence that is already publicly available, from information in various indictments to the presidents own tweets, public statements, and public actions is already grounds for impeachment. Therefore, it is the duty of the Intelligence Committee, knowing that Russian interference in the election has been proven and is ongoing, to conduct their own investigation. It is what they are there for.

 

[Athanasius68]

No. What I am saying is that the evidence that is already publicly available, from information in various indictments to the presidents own tweets, public statements, and public actions is already grounds for impeachment. Therefore, it is the duty of the Intelligence Committee, knowing that Russian interference in the election has been proven and is ongoing, to conduct their own investigation. It is what they are there for.

What does Russian interference in the 2016 election have to do with impeachment of Trump?

No issue with investigating what Russia was up to in 2016 and how campaigns, both Trump and Clinton, responded.
And how the Obama Administration responded.

 

[bubbabgone]

No. What I am saying is that the evidence that is already publicly available, from information in various indictments to the presidents own tweets, public statements, and public actions is already grounds for impeachment. Therefore, it is the duty of the Intelligence Committee, knowing that Russian interference in the election has been proven and is ongoing, to conduct their own investigation. It is what they are there for.

That's fine.
They can do that and it's what I expected they would do.
All I'm saying is that as observers we should acknowledge that when Schiff blanketed the airwaves for 2 years claiming he has seen non-circumstantial evidence of a crime then we have to suspect either his judgement or his motivation.
Why?
Because the guy hired to find such non-circumstantial evidence doesn't appear to have found it.
"The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
Non-circumstantial evidence would have established such a thing.

 

[Nickyjo]

That wasn't a "smackdown". That was a regurgitation of anti-Trump nonsense. All of it is trumped up, so to speak and it was negated by Mueller.

Sorry Mycroft and Bullseye, Schiff sliced and diced with stuff that is in the public record, on tape, etc. Then again, you can believe that a few dozen words about the investigation released by the president’s AG, who got his job because he said he didn’t believe in the investigation, completely and totally clears the president of everything.

Time will tell.

 

[Mycroft]

Sorry Mycroft and Bullseye, Schiff sliced and diced with stuff that is in the public record, on tape, etc. Then again, you can believe that a few dozen words about the investigation released by the president’s AG, who got his job because he said he didn’t believe in the investigation, completely and totally clears the president of everything.

Time will tell.

See my sig...and then read Barr's principle conclusions about Mueller's report.

And while you are at it, get rid of your baseless notions about Barr being Trump's man.

Believe me, you'll feel better when people start getting indicted.

 

[Slyfox696]

I know. I've heard it all before from him and from the news since it's all been out there.

Then why did you say this?

Well let's look at it this way.

- Schiff keeps saying he saw solid non-circumstantial evidence of Trump collusion.
- No one ever seems to want to ask him what that evidence is.

Here's the point about that all spelled out.

Say you were interviewing Schiff one on one and he again said he's seen non-circumstantial evidence of Trump/Russia collusion.

We all have. It is in the public. Schiff told you and you have now said you know what it is.

I hope you would ask what specific evidence he's talking about. Would you?

No need, he told you in that video. :shrug:

If he repeated the usual stuff I hope you would ask him why Mueller didn't recommend a "collusion" charge since he saw the very same thing, and probably more. Would you?

That's why we need to see the Mueller report.

Barr's summary addressed only two VERY narrow potential criminal charges, specifically conspiracy with the GRU and the IRA (two things which were never really alleged in the first place). However, "collusion" is not limited to two narrow criminal charges. It can be other criminal charges (for example, aiding and abetting computer crimes or money laundering) which may not have been within Mueller's scope or it could just be a counterintelligence danger.

That's why we need to see the report. That is the point of releasing Mueller's report.

How would he respond?

Probably the way I did. :shrug:

That he's smarter than Mueller? Bad move 1.
The alternative would be that he knows something Mueller doesn't. Bad move 2 for the reasons mentioned that you haven't addressed yet.

Or that you seem to think there's an either/or scenario here when in fact it is more complicated.

I'm not offended. You just didn't think it through.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that is NOT the problem here...

 

[bubbabgone]

Then why did you say this?



We all have. It is in the public. Schiff told you and you have now said you know what it is.

No need, he told you in that video. :shrug:

That's why we need to see the Mueller report.

Barr's summary addressed only two VERY narrow potential criminal charges, specifically conspiracy with the GRU and the IRA (two things which were never really alleged in the first place). However, "collusion" is not limited to two narrow criminal charges. It can be other criminal charges (for example, aiding and abetting computer crimes or money laundering) which may not have been within Mueller's scope or it could just be a counterintelligence danger.

That's why we need to see the report. That is the point of releasing Mueller's report.

Probably the way I did. :shrug:

Or that you seem to think there's an either/or scenario here when in fact it is more complicated.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that is NOT the problem here...

That would be a peculiar approach to a on-on-one interview of Schiff by you ... to not pursue something he said any deeper. Very superficial of you.
But it would explain why you'd never have to get to the next question.

Q - "If he repeated the usual stuff I hope you would ask him why Mueller didn't recommend a "collusion" charge since he saw the very same thing, and probably more. Would you?"
(Best to avoid anything that might be uncomfortable, huh. Kinda like what you've been doing.)

So what would you talk about? Grandchildren, golf, and travel? Quite a different approach to an important interview of Schiff on an important topic.

I sure hope it's nothing more than you not thinking enough about these things.

 

[Slyfox696]

That would be a peculiar approach to a on-on-one interview of Schiff by you ... to not pursue something he said any deeper. Very superficial of you.

I'm not interviewing Schiff. I'm rebutting the suggestion you made that we do not know what Schiff is talking about when he talks about the evidence of collusion, since Schiff literally ticked through a list of collusion. :shrug:

Q - "If he repeated the usual stuff I hope you would ask him why Mueller didn't recommend a "collusion" charge since he saw the very same thing, and probably more. Would you?"

(Best to avoid anything that might be uncomfortable, huh. Kinda like what you've been doing.)

Apparently you did not read my post very well:

"That's why we need to see the Mueller report.

Barr's summary addressed only two VERY narrow potential criminal charges, specifically conspiracy with the GRU and the IRA (two things which were never really alleged in the first place). However, "collusion" is not limited to two narrow criminal charges. It can be other criminal charges (for example, aiding and abetting computer crimes or money laundering) which may not have been within Mueller's scope or it could just be a counterintelligence danger.

That's why we need to see the report. That is the point of releasing Mueller's report."


I'm not sure why you keep suggesting people have not said things they have LITERALLY just said, but it is quite unbecoming.

I sure hope it's nothing more than you not thinking enough about these things.

Actually, at this point, I think it is a case of you literally not reading or watching what people are saying when they say it, just so you can come back and suggest it was never said.

So why are you pretending people haven't said the things you want them to say? Does it make you uncomfortable to actually have a conversation using ALL the facts and not ignore the ones you want to pretend do not exist?

 

[bubbabgone]

I'm not interviewing Schiff. I'm rebutting the suggestion you made that we do not know what Schiff is talking about when he talks about the evidence of collusion, since Schiff literally ticked through a list of collusion. :shrug:

[/I]
Apparently you did not read my post very well:

"That's why we need to see the Mueller report.

Barr's summary addressed only two VERY narrow potential criminal charges, specifically conspiracy with the GRU and the IRA (two things which were never really alleged in the first place). However, "collusion" is not limited to two narrow criminal charges. It can be other criminal charges (for example, aiding and abetting computer crimes or money laundering) which may not have been within Mueller's scope or it could just be a counterintelligence danger.

That's why we need to see the report. That is the point of releasing Mueller's report."


I'm not sure why you keep suggesting people have not said things they have LITERALLY just said, but it is quite unbecoming.

Actually, at this point, I think it is a case of you literally not reading or watching what people are saying when they say it, just so you can come back and suggest it was never said.

So why are you pretending people haven't said the things you want them to say? Does it make you uncomfortable to actually have a conversation using ALL the facts and not ignore the ones you want to pretend do not exist?

Okay, so you'd be a disinterested (or partisan) interviewer who's clueless (or nervous) about asking followup questions.
How are you with personal curiosity? Disinterested, partisan, clueless, or nervous?
We both know what Schiff has been saying so why didn't Mueller recommend a "collusion" charge since he saw the very same thing Schiff saw, and probably more? Your own opinion.
Don't be offended if I don't reply to a non-answer. That non-answer thing by some seems to be a trend around here lately.

 

[Slyfox696]

Okay, so you'd be a disinterested (or partisan) interviewer who's clueless (or nervous) about asking followup questions.

We're trying to have a serious conversation, not waste time with some hypothetical interview.

I'm saying that everything you have said is simply not true. You asked why Schiff doesn't provide evidence and I proved he did. You asked why Mueller did not address the evidence Schiff has provided and I gave you reasons.

I could not care less about your hypothetical. I'm just looking to discuss the facts.

We both know what Schiff has been saying so why didn't Mueller recommend a "collusion" charge since he saw the very same thing Schiff saw, and probably more? Your own opinion.

I have already answered this. Twice.

Why do you keep asking me to answer questions I have already answered?

Don't be offended if I don't reply to a non-answer. That non-answer thing by some seems to be a trend around here lately.

You are literally asking for answers which have already been explicitly provided.

Why do you keep refusing to acknowledge the answers to the questions you ask?

 

[tres borrachos]

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?

Of course you should question Mrs. Clinton. What are you waiting for? Trump promised you he would appoint a special investigator to ultimately "lock her up". Why hasn't he done that? You need to ask him.