thistlintom posted:

First of all, the impeachment process is given to the House, not the Speaker.  Therefore the impeachment inquiry prior to the formal vote was improper.  The inquiry is supposed to be done by the Judiciary committee, not the Intelligence committee, which would have provided more due process for the Republicans.

In prior impeachment inquiries, both sides met and agreed to the process, this did not happen this time.  During the secretive meetings, the Republicans will continue to be limited in its rights.  During the open process, in past impeachments, both sides have the right to subpoena and question witnesses.   In this process, the Republicans are not guaranteed these rights and are not given the same procedural rights as with previous impeachment inquiries.

There is also no guarantee that previous transcripts and information from the secret hearings would be made fully available to the public  The resolution empowers Schiff to disclose information but it is up to the discretion of Schiff of what will be made available. Why should anyone trust Schiff when he has lied about meeting with the whistleblower and made up the conversation between Trump and Zelensky?

Forgot to address another incorrect point you apparently made above.  Not sure what exactly you are referring to when you say that Schiff lied about meeting with the whistleblower but that fact is that he didn't.  Here are the facts from the factcheck.org website.  The first para is the committee staffer explaining what happened when the whistleblower contacted the committee, the second is the website's response to that statement:

"Like other whistleblowers have done before and since under Republican and Democratic-controlled Committees, the whistleblower contacted the Committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Community. This is a regular occurrence, given the Committee’s unique oversight role and responsibilities. Consistent with the Committee’s longstanding procedures, Committee staff appropriately advised the whistleblower to contact an Inspector General and to seek legal counsel."

There’s support for the statement that it’s “a regular occurrence” for whistleblowers to contact congressional committees. A May 2019 Government Accountability Office report said “whistleblowers who contact the Congress typically reach out to oversight committees, the offices of their own representatives or senators, or authorizing committees.” In a 2016 story in The Intercept, a spokesman for Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, then the chair of the House intelligence committee, said the committee received whistleblower complaints in the “dozens” each year from both the intelligence community inspector general “and via individuals who approach the committee directly.”

So no, despite the insistence of Fox News and other right-wing so-called news sources, Schiff was never contacted by the whistleblower, nor did he help write the complaint, etc. etc.

Adam Schiff:  “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower,” when the whistleblower had in fact reached out to a committee aide before filing a complaint.  Hmm, sounds like there was contact.

How about addressing the other Schiff issue, that he fabricated the conversation between Trump and Zelensky?

Trump may be an asshole, but Schiff is a weasel.

thistlintom posted:

Adam Schiff:  “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower,” when the whistleblower had in fact reached out to a committee aide before filing a complaint.  Hmm, sounds like there was contact.

How about addressing the other Schiff issue, that he fabricated the conversation between Trump and Zelensky?

Trump may be an asshole, but Schiff is a weasel. 

Tom, you are proving my point!  You said above that Schiff lied about meeting with the whistleblower.  He didn't, you are wrong.  The whistleblower contacted a committee staffer, as dozens of whistleblowers before him have done (according to Nunes!!) and was advised to bring it up with the IG, which he did.  So yes, there was contact, but not with Schiff or any other committee member, as you alleged.  Nothing sinister or nefarious going on there.

As for addressing Schiff's of Trump's conversation with Zelensky, I am happy to do so.  Here is what the non-partisan website Politifacts had to say about it:

"Schiff explicitly said that he was trying to describe "the essence" of Trump’s message "shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words." He never tried to read the president’s remarks in full, nor did he pretend to offer Trump’s words.

Schiff also introduced the remarks as "the essence of what the president communicates" and described them as "in sum and character, what the president was trying to communicate."

So, again, with this important context provided by a non-partisan website that exists to resolve issues such as this, it is clear that Schiff did not "lie" but was in fact probably mocking Trump the way Trump mocks dozens of people via Twitter and elsewhere.  Giving him a dose of his own medicine, so to speak.

Finally, Trump is indeed an asshole, but he's much worse than that, as I've noted above.  As President he has the power to destroy pretty much everything that is good and right in the world, and seems determined to do so.  My fear that that his destruction of America's respect for institutions critical to the country's well-being, the constitution first and foremost but also the Fed, as well as the environment, the press (I could go on and on -- "no, really"??!!   ) is only the beginning. 

bman posted:
thistlintom posted:

Adam Schiff:  “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower,” when the whistleblower had in fact reached out to a committee aide before filing a complaint.  Hmm, sounds like there was contact.

How about addressing the other Schiff issue, that he fabricated the conversation between Trump and Zelensky?

Trump may be an asshole, but Schiff is a weasel. 

Tom, you are proving my point!  You said above that Schiff lied about meeting with the whistleblower.  He didn't, you are wrong.  The whistleblower contacted a committee staffer, as dozens of whistleblowers before him have done (according to Nunes!!) and was advised to bring it up with the IG, which he did.  So yes, there was contact, but not with Schiff or any other committee member, as you alleged.  Nothing sinister or nefarious going on there.

As for addressing Schiff's of Trump's conversation with Zelensky, I am happy to do so.  Here is what the non-partisan website Politifacts had to say about it:

"Schiff explicitly said that he was trying to describe "the essence" of Trump’s message "shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words." He never tried to read the president’s remarks in full, nor did he pretend to offer Trump’s words.

Schiff also introduced the remarks as "the essence of what the president communicates" and described them as "in sum and character, what the president was trying to communicate."

So, again, with this important context provided by a non-partisan website that exists to resolve issues such as this, it is clear that Schiff did not "lie" but was in fact probably mocking Trump the way Trump mocks dozens of people via Twitter and elsewhere.  Giving him a dose of his own medicine, so to speak.

Finally, Trump is indeed an asshole, but he's much worse than that, as I've noted above.  As President he has the power to destroy pretty much everything that is good and right in the world, and seems determined to do so.  My fear that that his destruction of America's respect for institutions critical to the country's well-being, the constitution first and foremost but also the Fed, as well as the environment, the press (I could go on and on -- "no, really"??!!   ) is only the beginning. 

It amazes me how one can produce fact after fact after fact, yet truth bounces off of the willfully obtuse and willfully ignorant with such ease. 

It is also amazing to me how that now 14 republican Senators have been asked a very simple question; can any president withhold appropriated monies or delay such to a foreign government by requesting investigation of a political opponent, demanding a public statement of such of  an investigation by a foreign country or any other “ favor first though “ request?  Oh John McCain, we could use the voice of an American patriot in the senate more than ever. Your dear friend Graham has proven to be weak and spineless without you. 

The point is that Schiff lied about not having contact with the whistleblower.  We don't know whether Schiff in fact did communicate directly with the whistleblower as he suddenly doesn't want the whistleblower to testify.  I wonder why?  I may or not be correct about whether Schiff directly talked with the whistleblower, but I do know that Schiff lied about any contact with the whistleblower.  The Washington Post gave Schiff four Pinocchios on Schiff's statement

In regards to Schiff tried to explain the essence of the discussion, that is a crock of shit. He made no mention of his "explaining the essence" and made it sound like he was directly quoting the transcript. He said that Trump asked Zelensky to manufacture dirt on Biden.  Trump had only asked that Zelensky look into reports of improper dealings involving the Bidens, and he did this as part of his concerns about corruption in Ukraine.  Schiff later said this was a parody of the transcript.  Well according to Webster the definition of a parody is a feeble or ridiculous imitation.  If that is what he meant then he is correct.  That he did this in as Chairman of the Judicial committee is pathetic.

During the Mueller investigation, Schiff repeatedly said that he had evidence of Trump's collusion with Russia but NEVER produced any evidence of it.  Mueller exonerated Trump of collusion.

Schiff is a weasel and a political animal. That he is the one leading the impeachment proceedings against Trump is pathetic.

Bman, I know we are of different political perspectives and have divergent views, but impeachment is a serious issue and will have future ramifications that we don't understand.  This should be a serious process done by serious people.  Schiff is not a serious person and has shown himself to be purely political.  Impeachment should be totally above board and handled properly.  I do not think that is currently happening.

 

thistlintom posted:

The point is that Schiff lied about not having contact with the whistleblower.  We don't know whether Schiff in fact did communicate directly with the whistleblower as he suddenly doesn't want the whistleblower to testify.  I wonder why?  I may or not be correct about whether Schiff directly talked with the whistleblower, but I do know that Schiff lied about any contact with the whistleblower.  The Washington Post gave Schiff four Pinocchios on Schiff's statement

In regards to Schiff tried to explain the essence of the discussion, that is a crock of shit. He made no mention of his "explaining the essence" and made it sound like he was directly quoting the transcript. He said that Trump asked Zelensky to manufacture dirt on Biden.  Trump had only asked that Zelensky look into reports of improper dealings involving the Bidens, and he did this as part of his concerns about corruption in Ukraine.  Schiff later said this was a parody of the transcript.  Well according to Webster the definition of a parody is a feeble or ridiculous imitation.  If that is what he meant then he is correct.  That he did this in as Chairman of the Judicial committee is pathetic.

During the Mueller investigation, Schiff repeatedly said that he had evidence of Trump's collusion with Russia but NEVER produced any evidence of it.  Mueller exonerated Trump of collusion.

Schiff is a weasel and a political animal. That he is the one leading the impeachment proceedings against Trump is pathetic.

Bman, I know we are of different political perspectives and have divergent views, but impeachment is a serious issue and will have future ramifications that we don't understand.  This should be a serious process done by serious people.  Schiff is not a serious person and has shown himself to be purely political.  Impeachment should be totally above board and handled properly.  I do not think that is currently happening.

 

Tom, but you continue to say things that aren't true and dispute facts that are on the record. 

Schiff didn't lie about having contact with the whistleblower, comments to the contrary have been debunked repeatedly by credible sources.  He had no contact, period. 

You say he made no mention of "explaining the essence" but those were the exact words he used to preface his subsequent remarks which so concern you.  Here is a link to a video that proves that, if you don't want to watch it all 9 minutes of it, fast forward to 4 minutes and 10 seconds in: Schiff opening comments

Mueller never exonerated Trump of collusion, he said he did not find sufficient evidence of it to charge him with a crime, which is very different from exonerating him. He did however document over 100 contacts between the Trump campaign and persons affiliated with the Russia Government.  And Mueller specifically said that he was not/not exonerating Trump of obstruction of justice, FWIW.

I get that you have a hate on for Schiff but I am again surprised and disappointed that this is what seems to have gotten under your skin rather than the fact that Trump is an embarrassment, a disgrace and a danger to the world.  You are so upset about what you think are Schiff's lies while saying nothing about Trump's daily dozen of lies, some of which you seem to have accepted at truth since you repeat them above.

In any case, this has become very circular.  If you continue to post easily provable untruths I will probably take the time to debunk them tomorrow, because I actually enjoy that (don't judge me!) and it usually takes only a few minutes of googling to do so.  But for now I'm finishing my TV show and going to bed.  Nighty night!   

 

My points about Schiff were to show that he is not a person who should be trusted to be heading an impeachment inquiry.

You are correct that we do not know that Schiff directly contacted the whistleblower.  I was imprecise in my statement.  He had  actually claimed that his panel had "not spoken directly with the whistleblower".  On that point, Washington Post gave him four Pinocchios.

Ok, Schiff did introduce that he would provide the essence of the conversation between Trump and Zelensky, but he did not do that.  What Schiff said was not anything near what the President said.  He did not ask Zelensky to make up dirt and plenty of it.  That was disingenuous at the minimum.

True, exonerate is the wrong term.  My point is that Schiff has continually claimed to have evidence of collusion but never provided any of it.  Why did he, as chairman of a committee,  keep claiming he had evidence when he didn't ?

I do not like Schiff, as I said I think he is a weasel.  The key point I have been trying to make, although sometimes with inaccuracies as you have pointed out and which I apologize for, is that impeachment is a very serious matter and it should be handled in a very serious matter. This is not supposed to be political, and I think it has been handled as a political matter.  It's not about policies of a president, or about his likeability, it's about high crimes and misdemeanors and that is a high threshold.

I don't really like Trump, he does make some whoppers of statements and he is caustic and tweets ridiculous crap.  But he was duly elected president, and if you don't like his policies or his foul mouth, then you should vote him out in the election.  It is only next year.   The Democrats should be focusing on making the government work and promoting their policies instead of continually trying to take down Trump, no matter how much they hate him.

Hopefully we can move to other subjects, like how is Warren going to spend $52 trillion without taxing the middle class or when Kamala Harris is going to drop out of the race or why stores stock Christmas items before Halloween.  

thistlintom posted:

My points about Schiff were to show that he is not a person who should be trusted to be heading an impeachment inquiry.

You are correct that we do not know that Schiff directly contacted the whistleblower.  I was imprecise in my statement.  He had  actually claimed that his panel had "not spoken directly with the whistleblower".  On that point, Washington Post gave him four Pinocchios.

Ok, Schiff did introduce that he would provide the essence of the conversation between Trump and Zelensky, but he did not do that.  What Schiff said was not anything near what the President said.  He did not ask Zelensky to make up dirt and plenty of it.  That was disingenuous at the minimum.

True, exonerate is the wrong term.  My point is that Schiff has continually claimed to have evidence of collusion but never provided any of it.  Why did he, as chairman of a committee,  keep claiming he had evidence when he didn't ?

I do not like Schiff, as I said I think he is a weasel.  The key point I have been trying to make, although sometimes with inaccuracies as you have pointed out and which I apologize for, is that impeachment is a very serious matter and it should be handled in a very serious matter. This is not supposed to be political, and I think it has been handled as a political matter.  It's not about policies of a president, or about his likeability, it's about high crimes and misdemeanors and that is a high threshold.

I don't really like Trump, he does make some whoppers of statements and he is caustic and tweets ridiculous crap.  But he was duly elected president, and if you don't like his policies or his foul mouth, then you should vote him out in the election.  It is only next year.   The Democrats should be focusing on making the government work and promoting their policies instead of continually trying to take down Trump, no matter how much they hate him.

Hopefully we can move to other subjects, like how is Warren going to spend $52 trillion without taxing the middle class or when Kamala Harris is going to drop out of the race or why stores stock Christmas items before Halloween.  

I appreciate your apology and recognition that some of what you posted was not true. 

You may be interested to know that here in Canada the stores marked down all the Halloween candy by 50% or close to it, which led to it immediately disappearing from their shelves, at which point they immediately filled the space with Christmas stuff.  But at least they waited until the day after Halloween?

Back to Trump.  He just tweeted a suggestion that Schiff "picked" the whistleblower, which of course his millions of Trumpanzees will believe.  I appreciate that you don't like Trump but still find it hard to accept that you seem to be more concerned about Schiff than Trump.  The damage that he is doing to your country as well as to democracy and trust in institutions critical to the basic functioning of government, not just in the US but in the world, will be permanent in some places and will take years to fix even if he loses in 2020.  He poses an existential threat to the rule of law and pretty much everything else democracies hold dear.  

winetarelli posted:

100 Grands are the best basic Halloween candies yet most people don’t even know about them.  Pfft. Such a shame. 

Oh, I know about them and really like them.  Kind of like a Nestles Quick bar with caramel.  Other favorites are Snickers and Baby Ruth.  One thing I had as a kid that never saw afterwards was called a Coffee Break.  From what I recall, the closest thing that I have had is Kit Kat, but it seemed more than that.  We don't have kids where we live so we don't really deal with candy for Trick or Treat (bummer).

bman posted:
thistlintom posted:

My points about Schiff were to show that he is not a person who should be trusted to be heading an impeachment inquiry.

You are correct that we do not know that Schiff directly contacted the whistleblower.  I was imprecise in my statement.  He had  actually claimed that his panel had "not spoken directly with the whistleblower".  On that point, Washington Post gave him four Pinocchios.

Ok, Schiff did introduce that he would provide the essence of the conversation between Trump and Zelensky, but he did not do that.  What Schiff said was not anything near what the President said.  He did not ask Zelensky to make up dirt and plenty of it.  That was disingenuous at the minimum.

True, exonerate is the wrong term.  My point is that Schiff has continually claimed to have evidence of collusion but never provided any of it.  Why did he, as chairman of a committee,  keep claiming he had evidence when he didn't ?

I do not like Schiff, as I said I think he is a weasel.  The key point I have been trying to make, although sometimes with inaccuracies as you have pointed out and which I apologize for, is that impeachment is a very serious matter and it should be handled in a very serious matter. This is not supposed to be political, and I think it has been handled as a political matter.  It's not about policies of a president, or about his likeability, it's about high crimes and misdemeanors and that is a high threshold.

I don't really like Trump, he does make some whoppers of statements and he is caustic and tweets ridiculous crap.  But he was duly elected president, and if you don't like his policies or his foul mouth, then you should vote him out in the election.  It is only next year.   The Democrats should be focusing on making the government work and promoting their policies instead of continually trying to take down Trump, no matter how much they hate him.

Hopefully we can move to other subjects, like how is Warren going to spend $52 trillion without taxing the middle class or when Kamala Harris is going to drop out of the race or why stores stock Christmas items before Halloween.  

I appreciate your apology and recognition that some of what you posted was not true. 

You may be interested to know that here in Canada the stores marked down all the Halloween candy by 50% or close to it, which led to it immediately disappearing from their shelves, at which point they immediately filled the space with Christmas stuff.  But at least they waited until the day after Halloween?

Back to Trump.  He just tweeted a suggestion that Schiff "picked" the whistleblower, which of course his millions of Trumpanzees will believe.  I appreciate that you don't like Trump but still find it hard to accept that you seem to be more concerned about Schiff than Trump.  The damage that he is doing to your country as well as to democracy and trust in institutions critical to the basic functioning of government, not just in the US but in the world, will be permanent in some places and will take years to fix even if he loses in 2020.  He poses an existential threat to the rule of law and pretty much everything else democracies hold dear.  

Which should have been obvious to every voter in 2016 but hey Hillarys emails, misogyney and the chance to advance the right wing agenda no matter what the cost.  Sounds reasonable to me.  Not😡

spo posted:
winetarelli posted:

100 Grands are the best basic Halloween candies yet most people don’t even know about them.  Pfft. Such a shame. 

I used to love those and I have not eaten candy in ages but to me Butterfinger are the best.

Another vote for Butterfinger. Here we have Crispy Crunch which is similar.  Got quite a few in my day-after-Halloween chocolate buying binge.

Snickers are my favourite though.

bman posted:
thistlintom posted:

The point is that Schiff lied about not having contact with the whistleblower.  We don't know whether Schiff in fact did communicate directly with the whistleblower as he suddenly doesn't want the whistleblower to testify.  I wonder why?  I may or not be correct about whether Schiff directly talked with the whistleblower, but I do know that Schiff lied about any contact with the whistleblower.  The Washington Post gave Schiff four Pinocchios on Schiff's statement

In regards to Schiff tried to explain the essence of the discussion, that is a crock of shit. He made no mention of his "explaining the essence" and made it sound like he was directly quoting the transcript. He said that Trump asked Zelensky to manufacture dirt on Biden.  Trump had only asked that Zelensky look into reports of improper dealings involving the Bidens, and he did this as part of his concerns about corruption in Ukraine.  Schiff later said this was a parody of the transcript.  Well according to Webster the definition of a parody is a feeble or ridiculous imitation.  If that is what he meant then he is correct.  That he did this in as Chairman of the Judicial committee is pathetic.

During the Mueller investigation, Schiff repeatedly said that he had evidence of Trump's collusion with Russia but NEVER produced any evidence of it.  Mueller exonerated Trump of collusion.

Schiff is a weasel and a political animal. That he is the one leading the impeachment proceedings against Trump is pathetic.

Bman, I know we are of different political perspectives and have divergent views, but impeachment is a serious issue and will have future ramifications that we don't understand.  This should be a serious process done by serious people.  Schiff is not a serious person and has shown himself to be purely political.  Impeachment should be totally above board and handled properly.  I do not think that is currently happening.

 

Tom, but you continue to say things that aren't true and dispute facts that are on the record. 

Schiff didn't lie about having contact with the whistleblower, comments to the contrary have been debunked repeatedly by credible sources.  He had no contact, period. 

You say he made no mention of "explaining the essence" but those were the exact words he used to preface his subsequent remarks which so concern you.  Here is a link to a video that proves that, if you don't want to watch it all 9 minutes of it, fast forward to 4 minutes and 10 seconds in: Schiff opening comments

Mueller never exonerated Trump of collusion, he said he did not find sufficient evidence of it to charge him with a crime, which is very different from exonerating him. He did however document over 100 contacts between the Trump campaign and persons affiliated with the Russia Government.  And Mueller specifically said that he was not/not exonerating Trump of obstruction of justice, FWIW.

I get that you have a hate on for Schiff but I am again surprised and disappointed that this is what seems to have gotten under your skin rather than the fact that Trump is an embarrassment, a disgrace and a danger to the world.  You are so upset about what you think are Schiff's lies while saying nothing about Trump's daily dozen of lies, some of which you seem to have accepted at truth since you repeat them above.

In any case, this has become very circular.  If you continue to post easily provable untruths I will probably take the time to debunk them tomorrow, because I actually enjoy that (don't judge me!) and it usually takes only a few minutes of googling to do so.  But for now I'm finishing my TV show and going to bed.  Nighty night!   

 

This is all wrong about Mueller.  The job of the special council is not to exonerate...it is to recommend charges or not.  And they could not recommend as there was no wrongdoing.  You a don’t think they would love to nail Trump.  They have absolutely nothing....

I believe Irwin can confirm the above.

On a standalone question...not tied to anything else.   Is there no concern at all about Biden telling the government of Ukraine to fire the special prosecutor in 6 hours or you will not get the Billion $, as VP of the U.S.?   That is not an issue at all?

napacat posted:
bman posted:
thistlintom posted:

The point is that Schiff lied about not having contact with the whistleblower.  We don't know whether Schiff in fact did communicate directly with the whistleblower as he suddenly doesn't want the whistleblower to testify.  I wonder why?  I may or not be correct about whether Schiff directly talked with the whistleblower, but I do know that Schiff lied about any contact with the whistleblower.  The Washington Post gave Schiff four Pinocchios on Schiff's statement

In regards to Schiff tried to explain the essence of the discussion, that is a crock of shit. He made no mention of his "explaining the essence" and made it sound like he was directly quoting the transcript. He said that Trump asked Zelensky to manufacture dirt on Biden.  Trump had only asked that Zelensky look into reports of improper dealings involving the Bidens, and he did this as part of his concerns about corruption in Ukraine.  Schiff later said this was a parody of the transcript.  Well according to Webster the definition of a parody is a feeble or ridiculous imitation.  If that is what he meant then he is correct.  That he did this in as Chairman of the Judicial committee is pathetic.

During the Mueller investigation, Schiff repeatedly said that he had evidence of Trump's collusion with Russia but NEVER produced any evidence of it.  Mueller exonerated Trump of collusion.

Schiff is a weasel and a political animal. That he is the one leading the impeachment proceedings against Trump is pathetic.

Bman, I know we are of different political perspectives and have divergent views, but impeachment is a serious issue and will have future ramifications that we don't understand.  This should be a serious process done by serious people.  Schiff is not a serious person and has shown himself to be purely political.  Impeachment should be totally above board and handled properly.  I do not think that is currently happening.

 

Tom, but you continue to say things that aren't true and dispute facts that are on the record. 

Schiff didn't lie about having contact with the whistleblower, comments to the contrary have been debunked repeatedly by credible sources.  He had no contact, period. 

You say he made no mention of "explaining the essence" but those were the exact words he used to preface his subsequent remarks which so concern you.  Here is a link to a video that proves that, if you don't want to watch it all 9 minutes of it, fast forward to 4 minutes and 10 seconds in: Schiff opening comments

Mueller never exonerated Trump of collusion, he said he did not find sufficient evidence of it to charge him with a crime, which is very different from exonerating him. He did however document over 100 contacts between the Trump campaign and persons affiliated with the Russia Government.  And Mueller specifically said that he was not/not exonerating Trump of obstruction of justice, FWIW.

I get that you have a hate on for Schiff but I am again surprised and disappointed that this is what seems to have gotten under your skin rather than the fact that Trump is an embarrassment, a disgrace and a danger to the world.  You are so upset about what you think are Schiff's lies while saying nothing about Trump's daily dozen of lies, some of which you seem to have accepted at truth since you repeat them above.

In any case, this has become very circular.  If you continue to post easily provable untruths I will probably take the time to debunk them tomorrow, because I actually enjoy that (don't judge me!) and it usually takes only a few minutes of googling to do so.  But for now I'm finishing my TV show and going to bed.  Nighty night!   

 

This is all wrong about Mueller.  The job of the special council is not to exonerate...it is to recommend charges or not.  And they could not recommend as there was no wrongdoing.  

I believe Irwin can confirm the above.

On a standalone question...not tied to anything else.   Is there no concern at all about Biden telling the government of Ukraine to fire the special prosecutor in 6 hours or you will not get the Billion $, as VP of the U.S.?   That is not an issue at all?

I believe your first point above is incorrect, as Mueller specifically said he was not exonerating Trump.

Re your second point, Biden was one of dozens of government leaders from dozens of countries who wanted the special prosecutor fired because he was obviously corrupt.  Do a little googling (I suggest non-American courses) and see for yourself, though I'll paste-in below a link to Politifacts for ease of reference.  So no, it is not an issue at all.   

Here you go, Napa!

"And they could not recommend as there was no wrongdoing."

Not even close Perry Mason. The couldn't recommend charges because of a DOJ guideline (not even a law!) that a sitting president can't be indicted. Don't they ever show you anything truthful on Fox State News?

napacat posted:
bman posted:
thistlintom posted:

The point is that Schiff lied about not having contact with the whistleblower.  We don't know whether Schiff in fact did communicate directly with the whistleblower as he suddenly doesn't want the whistleblower to testify.  I wonder why?  I may or not be correct about whether Schiff directly talked with the whistleblower, but I do know that Schiff lied about any contact with the whistleblower.  The Washington Post gave Schiff four Pinocchios on Schiff's statement

In regards to Schiff tried to explain the essence of the discussion, that is a crock of shit. He made no mention of his "explaining the essence" and made it sound like he was directly quoting the transcript. He said that Trump asked Zelensky to manufacture dirt on Biden.  Trump had only asked that Zelensky look into reports of improper dealings involving the Bidens, and he did this as part of his concerns about corruption in Ukraine.  Schiff later said this was a parody of the transcript.  Well according to Webster the definition of a parody is a feeble or ridiculous imitation.  If that is what he meant then he is correct.  That he did this in as Chairman of the Judicial committee is pathetic.

During the Mueller investigation, Schiff repeatedly said that he had evidence of Trump's collusion with Russia but NEVER produced any evidence of it.  Mueller exonerated Trump of collusion.

Schiff is a weasel and a political animal. That he is the one leading the impeachment proceedings against Trump is pathetic.

Bman, I know we are of different political perspectives and have divergent views, but impeachment is a serious issue and will have future ramifications that we don't understand.  This should be a serious process done by serious people.  Schiff is not a serious person and has shown himself to be purely political.  Impeachment should be totally above board and handled properly.  I do not think that is currently happening.

 

Tom, but you continue to say things that aren't true and dispute facts that are on the record. 

Schiff didn't lie about having contact with the whistleblower, comments to the contrary have been debunked repeatedly by credible sources.  He had no contact, period. 

You say he made no mention of "explaining the essence" but those were the exact words he used to preface his subsequent remarks which so concern you.  Here is a link to a video that proves that, if you don't want to watch it all 9 minutes of it, fast forward to 4 minutes and 10 seconds in: Schiff opening comments

Mueller never exonerated Trump of collusion, he said he did not find sufficient evidence of it to charge him with a crime, which is very different from exonerating him. He did however document over 100 contacts between the Trump campaign and persons affiliated with the Russia Government.  And Mueller specifically said that he was not/not exonerating Trump of obstruction of justice, FWIW.

I get that you have a hate on for Schiff but I am again surprised and disappointed that this is what seems to have gotten under your skin rather than the fact that Trump is an embarrassment, a disgrace and a danger to the world.  You are so upset about what you think are Schiff's lies while saying nothing about Trump's daily dozen of lies, some of which you seem to have accepted at truth since you repeat them above.

In any case, this has become very circular.  If you continue to post easily provable untruths I will probably take the time to debunk them tomorrow, because I actually enjoy that (don't judge me!) and it usually takes only a few minutes of googling to do so.  But for now I'm finishing my TV show and going to bed.  Nighty night!   

 

This is all wrong about Mueller.  The job of the special council is not to exonerate...it is to recommend charges or not.  And they could not recommend as there was no wrongdoing.  You a don’t think they would love to nail Trump.  They have absolutely nothing....

I believe Irwin can confirm the above.

On a standalone question...not tied to anything else.   Is there no concern at all about Biden telling the government of Ukraine to fire the special prosecutor in 6 hours or you will not get the Billion $, as VP of the U.S.?   That is not an issue at all?

My view is this:  Trump is quite corrupt. He is dishonest. He is a piece of garbage.  I am not an expert on criminal law nor the Mueller report or investigation.  He is a narcissistic pathetic pathological liar, who understands nothing about foreign policy, support of allies, the adverse effects of tariffs and the mounting deficit, and who is one of the least empathetic persons on the planet, blaming the California Governor's forestry policy for destructive fires that have nothing to do with forests.

As to Biden.....  His first wife was killed in a car accident. Very tragic. He blamed the other party and has capitalized on this some by accusing the other driver of being drunk. Well, the reality is that the accident was his wife's fault, which doesn't make it any less tragic.  But it shows an honesty issue.

 https://www.investmentwatchblo...d-by-a-drunk-driver/

Years ago he had a plagiarism scandal. That's pretty well known.  One was during his law school days, the other during the 1988 campaign for President, in which he"borrowed" some lines from a British politician's speech without attribution.

He helped pass a law when in the Senate which was very helpful to Maryland National Bank, which has its HQ in Delaware.  What do you know? Hunter Biden got a cushy job at MNBA America, the holding company that owns the bank, which was also a major contributor to Biden's political campaigns. (Is there a difference between this and the scandals with the Hollywood types buying college admissions for their kids? -  Yes. Campaign contributions are a legalized form of bribery.  And, of course, Trump has certainly helped his kids with jobs.  Donald Jr., Ivanka  are not brilliant people who have achieved on their own.

Trump dodged the Vietnam war draft by getting a doctor to write that he had bone spurs in his ankles.  Biden dodged the draft by getting student deferments and then by getting a doctor to write that he had asthma as a child. (He might have ....that could be true).  Note: I was eligible for the draft during the latter stages of the war.  They had a lottery where one's birthday was pulled out of a drum, and people were drafted by birthday. I had a middling number, but high enough to escape the draft.  I would have been a lousy soldier for alot of reasons.

So, if Presidential candidates were measured by honesty, this would go into overtime and end as a tie.  But, that's not how we measure them.   I will say that Biden, if elected, would probably appoint cabinet people and advisors who have some good experience, and contrary to the current POTUS, he might actually listen to them.  He would attempt to bring the country together, not divide it by nasty, angry and unsupportable tweets. 

 

 

 

 

bman posted:
napacat posted:
bman posted:
thistlintom posted:

The point is that Schiff lied about not having contact with the whistleblower.  We don't know whether Schiff in fact did communicate directly with the whistleblower as he suddenly doesn't want the whistleblower to testify.  I wonder why?  I may or not be correct about whether Schiff directly talked with the whistleblower, but I do know that Schiff lied about any contact with the whistleblower.  The Washington Post gave Schiff four Pinocchios on Schiff's statement

In regards to Schiff tried to explain the essence of the discussion, that is a crock of shit. He made no mention of his "explaining the essence" and made it sound like he was directly quoting the transcript. He said that Trump asked Zelensky to manufacture dirt on Biden.  Trump had only asked that Zelensky look into reports of improper dealings involving the Bidens, and he did this as part of his concerns about corruption in Ukraine.  Schiff later said this was a parody of the transcript.  Well according to Webster the definition of a parody is a feeble or ridiculous imitation.  If that is what he meant then he is correct.  That he did this in as Chairman of the Judicial committee is pathetic.

During the Mueller investigation, Schiff repeatedly said that he had evidence of Trump's collusion with Russia but NEVER produced any evidence of it.  Mueller exonerated Trump of collusion.

Schiff is a weasel and a political animal. That he is the one leading the impeachment proceedings against Trump is pathetic.

Bman, I know we are of different political perspectives and have divergent views, but impeachment is a serious issue and will have future ramifications that we don't understand.  This should be a serious process done by serious people.  Schiff is not a serious person and has shown himself to be purely political.  Impeachment should be totally above board and handled properly.  I do not think that is currently happening.

 

Tom, but you continue to say things that aren't true and dispute facts that are on the record. 

Schiff didn't lie about having contact with the whistleblower, comments to the contrary have been debunked repeatedly by credible sources.  He had no contact, period. 

You say he made no mention of "explaining the essence" but those were the exact words he used to preface his subsequent remarks which so concern you.  Here is a link to a video that proves that, if you don't want to watch it all 9 minutes of it, fast forward to 4 minutes and 10 seconds in: Schiff opening comments

Mueller never exonerated Trump of collusion, he said he did not find sufficient evidence of it to charge him with a crime, which is very different from exonerating him. He did however document over 100 contacts between the Trump campaign and persons affiliated with the Russia Government.  And Mueller specifically said that he was not/not exonerating Trump of obstruction of justice, FWIW.

I get that you have a hate on for Schiff but I am again surprised and disappointed that this is what seems to have gotten under your skin rather than the fact that Trump is an embarrassment, a disgrace and a danger to the world.  You are so upset about what you think are Schiff's lies while saying nothing about Trump's daily dozen of lies, some of which you seem to have accepted at truth since you repeat them above.

In any case, this has become very circular.  If you continue to post easily provable untruths I will probably take the time to debunk them tomorrow, because I actually enjoy that (don't judge me!) and it usually takes only a few minutes of googling to do so.  But for now I'm finishing my TV show and going to bed.  Nighty night!   

 

This is all wrong about Mueller.  The job of the special council is not to exonerate...it is to recommend charges or not.  And they could not recommend as there was no wrongdoing.  

I believe Irwin can confirm the above.

On a standalone question...not tied to anything else.   Is there no concern at all about Biden telling the government of Ukraine to fire the special prosecutor in 6 hours or you will not get the Billion $, as VP of the U.S.?   That is not an issue at all?

I believe your first point above is incorrect, as Mueller specifically said he was not exonerating Trump.

Re your second point, Biden was one of dozens of government leaders from dozens of countries who wanted the special prosecutor fired because he was obviously corrupt.  Do a little googling (I suggest non-American courses) and see for yourself, though I'll paste-in below a link to Politifacts for ease of reference.  So no, it is not an issue at all.   

Here you go, Napa!

That's correct that Mueller said he was not exonerating Trump...however, that is not his position to do so.  His job was to recommend charges or not.  PERIOD (As Biden  likes to say).  

As for Biden...yes I have heard the same defense.  Odd how this quid pro quo is ok though.

"As for Biden...yes I have heard the same defense.  Odd how this quid pro quo is ok though."

God you're so ignorant and as I've said many times just such a poor debater. Funny about that word "though." Not only is it the proof of the demagogue in chief's anti-democratic act, but with it your use of it you are admitting that Trump did what he's accused of, offering a quid pro quo to it get a foreign country to give him dirt on a political opponent. Meanwhile there's no proof of anything in regard to Biden. But let's say there were, I'm going to make a shocking statement that it's not near the offense of blackmailing other countries to help you win a US election.

Also please read up on today's news from Great Britain that Trump was trying to squeeze information against his political "enemies."

"His job was to recommend charges or not."

I guess you didn't read my response, or are deliberately ignoring it as a good Fox State News viewer. He was constrained from recommending charges because of a DOJ rule. PS, not a law.

May I suggest you find some other thread to respond to because every time you do here you just dig yourself down deeper and deeper.

Napacat proves yet again he is dumber than he looks:  

  1.  Mueller made it very clear that obstruction of justice took place, and that he is prevented from recommending charges per DoJ protocol.  He also made it clear that collusion would’ve taken place if Putin’s Bitch’s band of idiots weren’t such dreadful bumble£u€ks.
  2.  Anyone who can’t discern the difference from “hey, ignore the US Constitution and help me out with some info about my biggest political opponent in the upcoming election, and everything will be right as rain in our (directly give a bunch of money to you) relationship” versus “I represent the entire Western world when I say get rid of that corrupt official or no assistance is forthcoming from any of us.....and no, I don’t get any personal benefit from saying/doing this” is as dumb as the Putin’s Bitch family.  
The Old Man posted:

"As for Biden...yes I have heard the same defense.  Odd how this quid pro quo is ok though."

God you're so ignorant and as I've said many times just such a poor debater. Funny about that word "though." Not only is it the proof of the demagogue in chief's anti-democratic act, but with it your use of it you are admitting that Trump did what he's accused of, offering a quid pro quo to it get a foreign country to give him dirt on a political opponent. Meanwhile there's no proof of anything in regard to Biden. But let's say there were, I'm going to make a shocking statement that it's not near the offense of blackmailing other countries to help you win a US election.

Also please read up on today's news from Great Britain that Trump was trying to squeeze information against his political "enemies."

"His job was to recommend charges or not."

I guess you didn't read my response, or are deliberately ignoring it as a good Fox State News viewer. He was constrained from recommending charges because of a DOJ rule. PS, not a law

May I suggest you find some other thread to respond to because every time you do here you just dig yourself down deeper and deeper.

Please, no. Let the nonsense stay in just one place.

The Old Man posted:
purplehaze posted:
billhike posted:
Please, no. Let the nonsense stay in just one place.

Methinks that ProSys was imagining a thread on a far distant planet from here.

PH

Actually that was my comment and yes. (But again, it's just so he can stop embarrassing himself.)

Actually, we're both incorrect.  The comment I copied was made by the "Old Man hating" bill hike.

thistlintom posted:

...But he was duly elected president, and if you don't like his policies or his foul mouth, then you should vote him out in the election.  It is only next year.   The Democrats should be focusing on making the government work and promoting their policies instead of continually trying to take down Trump, no matter how much they hate him.

That's a cute sentiment if Trump wasn't actually trying to undermine the election by asking foreign entities to make up dirt about potential opponents.  

Also, he lost the popular vote by 3 million, and is president because land gets more electoral credit than urban areas.  

edited for a typo

And you are correct on the "cat".  He's embarrassingly myopic.  Unfortunately, he's not alone.  

I'm fervently against any restrictions on voting rights for eligible citizens, but the concept that the votes of people who don't even know who their representatives are, or who have never once read our Constitution, or who don't get that we are a nation of immigrants and that this melting pot has made our country such a great example of inclusion and creativity is sometimes very, very frustrating.

PH

cellarnewbie posted:
thistlintom posted:

...But he was duly elected president, and if you don't like his policies or his foul mouth, then you should vote him out in the election.  It is only next year.   The Democrats should be focusing on making the government work and promoting their policies instead of continually trying to take down Trump, no matter how much they hate him.

That's a cute sentiment if Trump wasn't actually trying to undermine the election by asking foreign entities to make up dirt about potential opponents.  

Also, he lost the popular vote by 3 million, because is president because land gets more electoral credit than urban areas.  

Good comments, newbie.  I hope to live long enough to see the Electoral College go into the ash bin of history.  

And as far as tom's comment on Dems "focusing on making the government work and promoting their policies instead of continually trying to take down Trump..." I'd ask this question:  

What are responsible Republicans (oxymoron?) doing about the 404 bills passed by Congress with at least one co-sponsor from each party that are sitting on the Turtle's desk, gathering dust?  Making government work?  Disingenuous claptrap.

PH

 

The Old Man posted:

"As for Biden...yes I have heard the same defense.  Odd how this quid pro quo is ok though."

God you're so ignorant and as I've said many times just such a poor debater. Funny about that word "though." Not only is it the proof of the demagogue in chief's anti-democratic act, but with it your use of it you are admitting that Trump did what he's accused of, offering a quid pro quo to it get a foreign country to give him dirt on a political opponent. Meanwhile there's no proof of anything in regard to Biden. But let's say there were, I'm going to make a shocking statement that it's not near the offense of blackmailing other countries to help you win a US election.

Also please read up on today's news from Great Britain that Trump was trying to squeeze information against his political "enemies."

"His job was to recommend charges or not."

I guess you didn't read my response, or are deliberately ignoring it as a good Fox State News viewer. He was constrained from recommending charges because of a DOJ rule. PS, not a law.

May I suggest you find some other thread to respond to because every time you do here you just dig yourself down deeper and deeper.

You are a bitter and rotten soul and I presume an overall jerk of a human.  You, Old Man,  think I implied that Trump had a quid pro quo ( I did not).  I stated "odd how this quid pro quo was ok" (Biden).  You interpret that to imply that I indicated that Trump made one as well...nice leap.  Stick to the person I was speaking about. 

If the rule is that a sitting president cannot be indicted...then what was the point of the entire investigation.  You know they would have nailed them if they could. On one hand....Trump is a moron and the dumbest president ever.  On the other hand, you also want us to believe he is brilliant and worked with Russia to get elected and was able to hide it from the special council. Man...You all are a tiring bunch. 

And the Cellarnewbie  who states: "Also, he lost the popular vote by 3 million, because is president because land gets more electoral credit than urban areas".

This is only due to Los Angels County / Southern CA and Manhattan.  You think we want  this group of out of touch people to sway the general elevation in their favor...not at all.   Any talk of dissolving the Electoral College is nonsensical and just bitterness from the losing side.

Get over it...Trump will win again.  

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×