Originally posted by Teallaura
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Schiff Targets Political Rival, Journalist
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostYou seem to be in a habit of typing stupid stuff, that, when asked to back it up, suddenly becomes unimportant. Then you do that goofy "parrot what the other guy said" thing.
You OK, Jim?
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostI'll take that childish rant to mean that you just can't answer the question.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostIf he had contact with the whistleblower, which for one, is just a republican assertion, and two, who the hell cares, and why? Schiff doesn't have anything to do with the whistleblowers complaint, which by the way is confirmed by evidence. So, seriously, other than your being told ...
Prove it or you prove yourself a liar.
Prove it."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by whag View PostCite the source and then explain how that’s tantamount to Nunes dealing with an indicted player in the Ukrainian scandal. Then explain how a Christian can now believe two wrongs make a right. That would be an awesome rule of the universe if true.
Goes to the total lack of Democrat credibility."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostYou say that Schiff didn't have a hand in that complaint and that the evidence confirms this? Fine. Prove it.
Prove it or you prove yourself a liar.
Prove it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostIf he had contact with the whistleblower, which for one, is just a republican assertion, and two, who the hell cares, and why? Schiff doesn't have anything to do with the whistleblowers complaint, which by the way is confirmed by evidence. So, seriously, other than your being told to care, why do you care?
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostBecause it reeks of orchestration and collusion, which is why he had to lie about it.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostWhat are you talking about, Tea? Only the whistleblower knew what he was blowing the whistle on. It's not like Schiff brought the complaint to the whistleblower, the whistleblower brought the complaint to Schiff. Schiff didn't have access to the information in the whistleblowers complaint, he couldn't have, he's not on White House staff, only the wistleblower had that access. So, how is his bringing that to Schiffs attention a conspiracy? C'mon now, use your head."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostProve it. No excuses. Where's the evidence? Prove it.
That's what requires evidence before the assertion can be taken with appropriate significance.
It's illustrative just how folks treat the whistleblower complaint, which contains accusations whose substance has since been mostly substantiated by fact witnesses, and the accusation against Schiff which rests on no evidence whatsoever except a report that the whistleblower approached HPSCI prior to making a complaint with the ICIG (but after making a complaint to CIA counsel, whose referral was ignored).
The whole "or prove yourself a liar" thing is non-sensible and should not be attempted: applied consistently, it would ensnare a whole lot of folks making confident assertions without proper context or care.
--Sam"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostBlah, blah, blah
--Sam"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostAn excerpt from a Wall Street Journal article:
Adam Schiff’s 300-page House Intelligence impeachment report doesn’t include much new about Mr. Trump’s Ukrainian interventions. But it does disclose details of telephone calls between ranking Intelligence Republican Devin Nunes, Trump attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekulow, reporter John Solomon, former Giuliani associate Lev Parnas, the White House, and others. The details are “metadata” about the numbers and length of the calls, not the content.
The impeachment press is playing this as if the calls are a new part of the scandal, but the real outrage here is Mr. Schiff’s snooping on political opponents. The Democrat’s motive appears to be an attempt to portray Mr. Nunes, a presidential defender and Mr. Schiff’s leading antagonist in Congress, as part of a conspiracy to commit impeachable offenses.
“It is, I think, deeply concerning, that at a time when the President of the United States was using the power of his office to dig up dirt on a political rival, that there may be evidence that there were members of Congress complicit in that activity,” Mr. Schiff told the press on Tuesday. Complicit in what? Doing his job of Congressional oversight? Talking to Mr. Trump’s lawyer to get a complete view of the Ukrainian tale? Apparently Mr. Schiff now wants to impeach Members of Congress too.
This is unprecedented and looks like an abuse of government surveillance authority for partisan gain. Democrats were caught using the Steele dossier to coax the FBI into snooping on the 2016 Trump campaign. Now we have elected members of Congress using secret subpoenas to obtain, and then release to the public, the call records of political opponents.
Our sources says Mr. Schiff issued a subpoena in September to AT&T, demanding call logs for five numbers—including Mr. Giuliani’s. Subsequent subpoenas to AT&T and Verizon demanded more details. Republicans were told of the subpoenas, yet under rules of committee secrecy couldn’t raise public objections.
[…]
Mr. Schiff’s metadata disclosures hardly bear on his impeachment case. Mr. Giuliani had broadcast to the world that he wanted Ukraine to investigate Hunter and Joe Biden, but he is also Mr. Trump’s personal attorney. Does Mr. Schiff have a legal opinion saying he could ignore attorney-client privilege? Mr. Schiff published a select log of Mr. Giuliani’s calls, but he presumably has a record of everyone Mr. Giuliani spoke to for months. Imagine the political outrage if Republicans had snooped on Bill Clinton’s attorneys.
Mr. Schiff’s accusations against Mr. Nunes are even more suspect. The Democrat doesn’t know the content of Mr. Nunes’s conversations, and the Republican says he believes his spring talks with Mr. Giuliani related to the Mueller report. Mr. Nunes can speak to whomever he likes, and Mr. Schiff has no authority to investigate fellow Members.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...eport-n2557528
Thanks."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostThe accusation is that Schiff was personally in contact with the whistleblower and that he or his staff helped the whistleblower craft the complaint.
That's what requires evidence before the assertion can be taken with appropriate significance.
It's illustrative just how folks treat the whistleblower complaint, which contains accusations whose substance has since been mostly substantiated by fact witnesses, and the accusation against Schiff which rests on no evidence whatsoever except a report that the whistleblower approached HPSCI prior to making a complaint with the ICIG (but after making a complaint to CIA counsel, whose referral was ignored).
The whole "or prove yourself a liar" thing is non-sensible and should not be attempted: applied consistently, it would ensnare a whole lot of folks making confident assertions without proper context or care.
--Sam
As for this oft cited myth that its "substance has since been mostly substantiated by fact witnesses" is akin to saying that Beowulf is true history because it happens to provide the names of some real people and places.
Trump, as Ciaramella claimed, was not obsessed with talking about Biden constantly bringing him up seven or eight times. In reality, Trump brought Biden up once and that was near the end of the conversation and almost as an afterthought.
Further, the transcript clearly shows that his claim that Trump demanded that Zelensky "dig up some dirt" on Biden if he ever wanted to get any aid is not even remotely based on reality. It simply never happened.
And Ciaramella's claim that Trump told Zelensky that the latter wouldn't get any aide unless he "[dug] up some dirt" on Biden is likewise nothing short of a falsehood. It is not even remotely based on reality being that it simply never happened.The fact that the Ukrainians never even opened up an investigation much less dug up dirt and still got their aid verifies the claim is false.
Likewise his claim that at the end of the call Trump told Zelensky not to call back until he did what Trump demanded of also never happened. Not even remotely close. In reality, Trump congratulated him on his victory.
Those are just a few of the myriad of major inaccuracies that plague the supposed whistleblower's story[1] -- which would be more than sufficient to get him branded as being an unreliable witness that no lawyer would want to go near in any court of law. Well at least lawyers who would use him as a witness since those cross-examining him would regard him as a God send and would be chomping at the bit in anticipation of tearing him to shreds.
1. I hesitate at calling them deliberate lies only because that implies that Ciaramella had actual knowledge of the call which he did not have. All he had was second and third hand gossip.
00000000000000ab000-00aaahx5.jpg
This and whining from disgruntled employees about not being
listened to constituted over 95% of the "testimony"
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by whag View PostCite the source and then explain how that’s tantamount to Nunes dealing with an indicted player in the Ukrainian scandal. Then explain how a Christian can now believe two wrongs make a right. That would be an awesome rule of the universe if true.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, Yesterday, 10:43 PM
|
0 responses
13 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by eider
Today, 03:16 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
24 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Yesterday, 06:47 AM
|
56 responses
228 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 04:56 AM | ||
Started by carpedm9587, 04-14-2024, 02:07 PM
|
48 responses
284 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Yesterday, 10:12 AM
|
||
Started by Starlight, 04-14-2024, 12:34 AM
|
11 responses
87 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-15-2024, 10:57 AM
|
Comment