Schiff Targets Political Rival, Journalist

[whag]

But it's okay that Schiff had contact with the gossip leaker before the complaint was filed? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....

[JimL]

You 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?

I'll take that childish rant to mean that you just can't answer the question. Try again maybe? What difference does it make if Schiff actually met with the whistleblower? How would that change anything?

[Cow Poke]

I'll take that childish rant to mean that you just can't answer the question.

If you took that as a childish rant, I guess you answered my question. You're not OK.

[Teallaura]

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 ...

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.

[Teallaura]

Congressional hearings, two weeks ago. Keep up

Goes to the total lack of Democrat credibility.

[JimL]

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.

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.

[seanD]

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?

Because it reeks of orchestration and collusion, which is why he had to lie about it.

[JimL]

Because it reeks of orchestration and collusion, which is why he had to lie about it.

Explain, how does it reek of orchestration. You mean to argue that Schiff telling the whistleblower to bring it to the IG is orchestration and collusion? What? What was orchestrated, how collusion? Explain your hypothetical.

[seanD]

Explain, how does it reek of orchestration. You mean to argue that Schiff telling the whistleblower to bring it to the IG is orchestration and collusion? What? What was orchestrated, how collusion? Explain your hypothetical.

He had to lie about it.

[Teallaura]

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.

Prove it. No excuses. Where's the evidence? Prove it.

[Sam]

Prove it. No excuses. Where's the evidence? Prove it.

The 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

[Teallaura]

Blah, blah, blah
--Sam

Let Jim answer for himself or get out of my thread.

[Teallaura]

An excerpt from a Wall Street Journal article:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...eport-n2557528

Thanks.

[rogue06]

The 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

That Schiff and/or his staff assisted Ciaramella is no longer the issue. That has been confirmed to the point that the WaPo gave Schiff four Pinocchios for insisting it didn't. And that contact is one of the reasons that Ciaramella does not qualify as a whistleblower. The question is just how much help did they provide including helping him write the complaint. Several experts have cited the lawyerly language used in noting what sort of information can and cannot be released as strong evidence that he was helped in drafting the initial complaint -- something that Ciaramella is extremely unlikely to know.

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"

[Sparko]

Three rights makes a left.