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.
See more
See less

Schiff Targets Political Rival, Journalist

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    I have asked repeatedly for the EVIDENCE you stated exists but are unwilling to provide - and you darn well know it.
    Juvie inspired me to try to think JimLike -- and consider that he fumbled in wording this....

    Let's look at the quote...

    Schiff doesn't have anything to do with the whistleblowers complaint, which by the way is confirmed by evidence.


    And see it as...

    Schiff doesn't have anything to do with the whistleblowers complaint, -- the complaint, by the way, which is confirmed by evidence.


    To be charitable, I can see that as JimL making a typically suspect statement, but not claiming that it (that first statement) is "confirmed by evidence", but that the complaint itself is.

    (he, of course, could have clarified that)
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
      But it's okay that Schiff had contact with the gossip leaker before the complaint was filed? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....
      Originally posted by JimL View Post
      If 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?
      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      You're gonna prove a negative? This, I gotta see.
      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
      You 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.
      Originally posted by JimL View Post
      What 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.
      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
      Prove it. No excuses. Where's the evidence? Prove it.
      Originally posted by JimL View Post
      Prove what, what on earth are you concerned about if the whistleblower talked to Schiff?
      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
      Quit dodging. You said you had evidence that proved your claim. Now, pony up. Prove it.

      Or were you lying? Made a mistake?

      Prove it or admit that you were wrong.

      Prove it.
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      If, as it appears, Schiff and/or his staff coached Ciaramella this should be a question even you shouldn't have to ask.

      Oh, and it looks like Schiff lied about all of this. A lot. The Wall Street Journal actually did a wee bit of investigation rather than mindlessly repeating Schiff's claims like the rest of the MSM and and found some incredibly serious "errors."
      Originally posted by JimL View Post
      Coached him to what, to report it to the IG?
      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
      That much is obvious from even a casual read of the complaint.

      Stop dodging. Prove it.
      Originally posted by JimL View Post
      Prove what, Tea?
      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
      Stop dodging and show the evidence you claimed existed. If you've forgotten, go back through the thread - but prove your claim.

      Sheesh, Sam even tried to help you.
      Originally posted by JimL View Post
      I'm not dodging anything, tell me what you want me to prove.
      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
      Originally Posted by JimLIf 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?




      Originally Posted by JimL
      I'm not dodging anything, tell me what you want me to prove.




      For the sixth time, prove it.
      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
      Evidently not - YOU stated you had evidence that PROVED Schiff did not have contact with the whistle blower prior to the complaint - WHERE IS IT?

      To the converse:

      Source: FactCheck.org / NYT


      The New York Times broke the story on Oct. 2 that Schiff knew about “the outlines” of the whistleblower’s concerns before the Aug. 12 complaint was filed. The whistleblower had contacted an intelligence committee aide after passing along concerns to the CIA’s top lawyer and being “[c]oncerned about how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the C.I.A. was unfolding,” the Times reported.

      New York Times, Oct. 2: The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the [whistleblower] find a lawyer to advise him and meet with an inspector general, with whom he could file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. The aide did not share the whistle-blower’s identity with Mr. Schiff, an official said.
      Source

      © Copyright Original Source



      Seventh time: prove it. Where's this exonerating evidence you stated exists.
      Originally posted by JimL View Post
      Ah, now I see your error. Thats why you should have answered me when I asked you about 5 or 6 times what it was that you wanted me to prove. I never claimed what you're asking me to prove, I never said that I had evidence that Schiff never talked with the whistleblower, what I said was "who cares if he did", what difference does it make?
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      Ahem...



      That's the evidence she is asking for.
      Originally posted by JimL View Post
      Yes, and I answered that question. The answer is that Schiff had no access to the data that the whistleblower made in his complaint to the IG, and the complaint was substantiated, confirmed by the evidence. It's not like Schiff could have made up the complaint himself, had the whistleblower file that made up complaint and then that made up complaint just happened to be confirmed.

      But that isn't the question she's been asking me as you can see in post 114, the part that you didn't cite. She asked me to prove Schiff had no contact with the whistleblower.

      Now, I'm not sure, but I believe that Schiff said he had no contact with the whistleblower himself, that his staff did, so if someone, you or Tea, believes for some reason that he is lying about that, it's up to you to prove, not me. Personally, taking the above into account, I don't see what difference that would make anyway.

      So, being that is your meaningless accussation, you prove it!
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post

      Schiff doesn't have anything to do with the whistleblowers complaint, which by the way is confirmed by evidence


      That's what you said. Now you are trying to qualify it. And you still have not provided any evidence while claiming you did.
      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
      Thanks, Sparky.



      Your mistake is not answering the question when it has been posed multiple times - where is the evidence YOU claimed exists?
      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
      I have asked repeatedly for the EVIDENCE you stated exists but are unwilling to provide - and you darn well know it.

      The above are the relevant posts - I think I got them all. I made it clear multiple times and he never asks for clarification - or provides his own.






      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      Juvie inspired me to try to think JimLike -- and consider that he fumbled in wording this....

      Let's look at the quote...

      Schiff doesn't have anything to do with the whistleblowers complaint, which by the way is confirmed by evidence.


      And see it as...

      Schiff doesn't have anything to do with the whistleblowers complaint, -- the complaint, by the way, which is confirmed by evidence.


      To be charitable, I can see that as JimL making a typically suspect statement, but not claiming that it (that first statement) is "confirmed by evidence", but that the complaint itself is.

      (he, of course, could have clarified that)
      Nope - he's had his 'grammar optional' moment for the week. If he didn't write what he meant, he can danged well say so himself. Otherwise, I presume he meant what he actually said and I want to see that evidence.
      "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 Post
        Nope - he's had his 'grammar optional' moment for the week. If he didn't write what he meant, he can danged well say so himself. Otherwise, I presume he meant what he actually said and I want to see that evidence.
        I shall nothing further say.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
          Oh, that's easy. Schiff didn't have access to the data in the complaint, and the data in the complaint was substantiated, so the only one that could possibly have had anything to do with facts contained in the complaint itself, was the whistleblower himself. What do you think, that Schiff made the whole thing up and then it just happened to turn out to be true?
          So I did miss one - and it supports CP's theory.

          But I'm waiting for Jim.
          "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 Post
            The Obama administration didn't even care about Russian election meddling, said it was no big deal until they thought they could use the narrative to beat up on Trump.
            Didn't Joe Biden recently say something to the effect that the Russians would never have meddled with an election when he was Vice President?

            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 JimL View Post
              Oh, that's easy. Schiff didn't have access to the data in the complaint, and the data in the complaint was substantiated, so the only one that could possibly have had anything to do with facts contained in the complaint itself, was the whistleblower himself. What do you think, that Schiff made the whole thing up and then it just happened to turn out to be true?
              The first (but not the only) glaring flaw in this argument is contained in your last sentence.

              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 rogue06 View Post
                Didn't Joe Biden recently say something to the effect that the Russians would never have meddled with an election when he was Vice President?
                "While Putin’s trying to undo our elections, he’s actually undoing elections in, in Europe. Look at what’s happening in Hungary … look at what’s happening! You think that would happen on my watch, on Barack’s watch? You can’t answer that, but I promise you it wouldn’t have. And it didn’t."

                https://nypost.com/2019/07/05/biden-...-on-his-watch/
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  "While Putin’s trying to undo our elections, he’s actually undoing elections in, in Europe. Look at what’s happening in Hungary … look at what’s happening! You think that would happen on my watch, on Barack’s watch? You can’t answer that, but I promise you it wouldn’t have. And it didn’t."

                  https://nypost.com/2019/07/05/biden-...-on-his-watch/
                  Uh didn't the whole Russian meddling thing actually happen under his watch?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                    No, it isn't - I've been trying to ignore most of you while trying to get an answer out of Jim. Plus I specified evidence in subsequent posts. However, trying to prove 'Schiff doesn't have anything to do with the whistle blower's complaint' would indeed be an attempt to prove a negative.

                    Jim backed himself into a pointless corner - you aren't helping him.
                    No, I didn't back myself into a corner, Tea. I answered that question long ago, you just don't get it. The reason, the proof, that Schiff had nothing to do with the data in the whistleblowers complaint, is because Schiff had no access to that data, and since the complaint was confirmed it could only have come from the person who did have access to that data, i.e. whistleblower.

                    Again, in response to that, I asked you, how could Schiff have just created a story, given it to the whistleblower, have him deliver the complaint to the IG and then have it magically come true?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      Uh didn't the whole Russian meddling thing actually happen under his watch?
                      That's what makes his statement so hilarious.
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        No, I didn't back myself into a corner, Tea. I answered that question long ago, you just don't get it. The reason, the proof, that Schiff had nothing to do with the data in the whistleblowers complaint...
                        That blows my theory.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                          No, it isn't - I've been trying to ignore most of you while trying to get an answer out of Jim. Plus I specified evidence in subsequent posts. However, trying to prove 'Schiff doesn't have anything to do with the whistle blower's complaint' would indeed be an attempt to prove a negative.

                          Jim backed himself into a pointless corner - you aren't helping him.
                          How can you have a "corner" without at least one "point"?
                          Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                          Beige Federalist.

                          Nationalist Christian.

                          "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                          Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                          Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                          Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                          Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                          Justice for Matthew Perna!

                          Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                            How can you have a "corner" without at least one "point"?
                            A rounded corner?
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              You, in fact all of you, seem to have a problem with reading comprehension.
                              As this thread has become an exercise in speculative grammar, please disambiguate the ambiguous referent:
                              Schiff doesn't have anything to do with the whistleblowers complaint, which by the way is confirmed by evidence

                              Did "which" refer back to the whistleblower's complaint, or to Schiff having nothing to do with it?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                                As this thread has become an exercise in speculative grammar, please disambiguate the ambiguous referent:
                                Schiff doesn't have anything to do with the whistleblowers complaint, which by the way is confirmed by evidence

                                Did "which" refer back to the whistleblower's complaint, or to Schiff having nothing to do with it?
                                The whistleblowers complaint was confirmed, and only the whistleblower had access to that info. in the complaint, therefore even if Schiff met with the whistleblower he had nothing to do with the actual complaint itself.
                                Last edited by JimL; 12-12-2019, 10:23 AM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                148 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                395 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                113 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                365 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X