quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Something I discovered while researching something else:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..._officials_and_spies


Links between Trump associates and Russian officials and spies

Mueller found no evidence of Russian collusion
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/24...of-russian-collusion


Durham found epic flaws in how the FBI handled the process --

https://apnews.com/article/dur...35a09091c363419e6766

and you want to quote a vanity project from wiki?

oh, it's terribly difficult to edit a wikipedia page -- here, let me show you how "hard" it is
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik...he%20original%20page.

The beginning paragraphs of the article you linked from NPR:

The Mueller Report did not find any evidence of collusion, but did find two main efforts by the Russians to interfere in the 2016 presidential campaign.

We're breaking down the results of the special counsel's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. As we've been discussing this hour, the special counsel did not find that President Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government - that according to a summary of the conclusions delivered by the - Attorney General William Barr to the Congress. But one of the key questions of Robert Mueller's investigation was into the nature of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

=======================================

"Collusion" is a word/concept that Mueller explained. It's not a legal term, so he wasn't investigating based on that word. He was investigating conspiracy, for which if there was enough evidence, convincing evidence, he could take legal action upon. No legal action could stem from "collusion" so he wasn't into that.

Trump make up the distortion using the word "collusion" and it worked, with Barr, you and TB40 and millions of others.

Trump was not exonerated by the Mueller report nor the Durham report.

Schiff was correct - there is lots of evidence for collusion.

OK, my bad for using the generic collusion.
Mueller found no criminal conspiracy. Meaning nothing to charge him with. So if there is not enough evidence to charge, it is hearsay.
As I said, both Trump and Hillary used misinformation, I put one no better than the other.
Wiki is not allowed in most colleges, as it is so easily manipulated. Makes for a quick info search if you dont care if it's all accurate.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

and you want to quote a vanity project from wiki?

oh, it's terribly difficult to edit a wikipedia page -- here, let me show you how "hard" it is
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik...he%20original%20page.

I've seen a lot of some folks discrediting Wikipedia. They have a bias reason for that, which is because Wikipedia articles generally contridict their lies and bias and beliefs.

What I haven't seen is those same people trying to discredit the linked footnotes.

Why bother? It's just like the other lies and disinformation. If you can trigger bias confirmation, further action would deflate.

When I use Wikipedia as a source, if the content is contested, I look at the footnotes, and trace that and corroborate with diligence.

I usually don't trust Wikipedia entirely, but the articles are thorough and footnoted or otherwise generally backed up.

Plus, the thoroughness aside, segments and specifics can be corroborated, and if not then dismissed as a one-off.

quote:

Mueller found no criminal conspiracy.

I don't think that's accurate. "Findings" in a criminal investigation is a formal term, stating the basis for bringing charges.

If the evidence, in the Mueller team's opinion, was not strong enough to suggest prosecution, then that doesn't mean there was NO evidence. It just means that prosecution wasn't recommended because such case wasn't strong enough.

And we know that any case brought against Trump better be a slam dunk.

"criminal conspiracy" is two parts.

Conspiracy can and did exist in the Trump campaign. It was not elevated to the level of criminal in the legal sense, because it wasn't prosecuted.

Also, Trump dangled pardons as a carrot to those who could testify, such as Manafort and Stone, etc.

Trump is as dirty as they get, I have no doubt. But, I expect there is not a politician in DC who has been there more than one term who hasnt colluded with someone on a shady event.
It still comes down to charges. Even more than charges, can they make it stick. Charges thrown out still means nothing. People can be as pissed as they want about it ( as in Hillary's server) but if there is no conviction, there is nothing.
You have never heard me say anything about "The big guy" topic. It's because until they convict Joe of something, it's all meaningless. It's back to the, I dont read opinion pieces.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I wish someone would back up their claims that Schiff lied with evidence.

Schiff said he has seen EVIDENCE of Russian COLLUSION - which is what you asked for -- you got it .. literally everything else is your cognitive bias trying to "win" by being schiffty (see what i did there) with you word play

Jesus wept, you are an interesting cat.

from NPR -- NOT a right wing site
"The Mueller Report did not find any evidence of collusion, but did find two main efforts by the Russians to interfere in the 2016 presidential campaign."

collusion
noun
col·​lu·​sion kə-ˈlü-zhən
Synonyms of collusion
: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collusion


interfere
verb
in·​ter·​fere ˌin-tər-ˈfir ˌin-tə-
interfered; interfering
Synonyms of interfere
intransitive verb

1
: to enter into or take a part in the concerns of others
2
: to interpose in a way that hinders or impedes : come into collision or be in opposition
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interfere

Schiff (and you) said Russian collusion -- and even NPR acknowledges that the Mueller report found none.


Now, if you would quit moving the goal post when you've lost the point, that would be the rational adult thing to do


As for editing wikipedia - I literally can alter articles to say what I want them to say, and for a moment, it will say that - there is no corpus of review, only edit wars.
Here, from wikipedia themselves -

quote:

an editor who is biased against or for the work may add unsourced personal opinion. It is even possible that a person might introduce completely made-up, false information as a hoax.

quote:

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic writing or research

quote:

While reading Wikipedia articles, remember to consider the information carefully. Never treat what is on Wikipedia as a fact without verifying it elsewhere

quote:

If you, in the course of your research, find that there is misinformation on Wikipedia,... please consider editing the article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use

Dude, you have lost this one - If it's not in you to admit you were wrong, then walk away from it.

亚当·希夫从不撒谎。我有维基百科来证明这一点

1. The Russians did try to interfere with the 2016 election, and Mueller indicted more than a dozen Russian operatives, most of whom fled the country to avoid prosecution.

2. Trump announced in rallies and interviews that he would accept election help from a foreign power that offered it.

3. Mueller discovered several meetings between Trump representatives and Russian operatives.

For Christ's sake...connect the dots. Is it any surprise some of us believe that Trump did collude with the Russians in their election interference?

Mueller concluded he could not prove such collusion beyond a reasonable doubt--a high standard of proof.

I believe it's more likely than not--a 51% probability--that Trump did collude with the Russians. In his narcissism, I don't think he saw anything wrong with doing it.

We know fir w fact Stone and Manafort did.

Again, Mueller himself said he wasn't trying to find collusion, because it isn't a legal term.

He was investigating for evidence that would support criminal conspiracy by Trump team and Trump.

If you don't know, you should know, unless you are willfully ignorant, that in court the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and that burden (beyond reasonable doubt I think) is a high bar. It's as high as it gets when dealing with Trump as POTUS or X-POTUS.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...-obstruction-mantra/

Robert Mueller kneecaps President Trump’s no collusion, no obstruction mantra
Again.

July 24, 2019 at 1:35 p.m. EDT

Former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III wasted no time during his House Judiciary Committee testimony Wednesday in undercutting President Trump’s ongoing insistence that Mueller’s probe cleared him of all wrongdoing.

In fact, it was only about an hour after Trump’s most recent claim that there was “NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION” that Mueller slowly read into the record an opening statement that made obvious how wrong Trump was.

“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” Mueller said. But: “We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term. Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.”

That’s an important distinction, between a colloquial term, collusion, and what Mueller’s team sought to determine, which was whether there was enough evidence to prove criminal conspiracy. Mueller is pointed: There was no determination on “collusion” — and there may have been at least some evidence pointing to possible conspiracy.

This isn’t new. It’s what the report itself said and what Mueller said during the news conference earlier this year in which he announced that he was leaving his position as special counsel.

At the hearing, Rep. Douglas A. Collins (R-Ga.) pressed Mueller on the extent to which “collusion” and “conspiracy” are interchangeable as terms, asking Mueller if the two aren’t colloquially equivalent. Mueller said they weren’t, prompting Collins to follow up by noting that the report equates the two. The difference, of course, is that the report is drawing a legal equivalence to evaluate possible criminal overlap between Trump’s team and Russia. That’s not what Trump is doing when he uses the term.

In his opening statement, Mueller also addressed the question of obstruction: Did Trump try to interfere with the probe?

“We investigated a series of actions by the president towards the investigation,” he said. “Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today.”

He was pressed on this in the first question offered by Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.).

“Director Mueller,” Nadler asked, “the president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely and totally exonerated him, but that is not what your report said, is it?”

“Correct,” Mueller replied. “That is not what the report said.”

Nadler quoted from a section of the report in which Mueller’s team wrote that it would have exonerated Trump on the question of obstruction if it could. But, the report says, it couldn’t.

“So the report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct?” Nadler asked.

“That is correct,” Mueller replied.

“And what about total exoneration? Did you totally exonerate the president?” Nadler continued.

“No,” Mueller said.

“Does your report state there is sufficient factual and legal basis for further investigation of potential obstruction of justice by the president?” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.) later asked.

“Yes,” Mueller replied.

Trump has also repeatedly rejected the idea that Russia’s interference in the 2016 election was meant to aid his own candidacy. (He also regularly rejects the idea that any Russian interference takes place, but that’s well-established by now.) Under questioning from Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Mueller contradicted Trump’s claims.

“Did your investigation find that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from one of the candidates winning?” Lofgren asked.

It did, Mueller replied. Lofgren followed up: Which one?

“Well,” Mueller said, “it would be Trump.”

When Mueller appeared before the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday afternoon, committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) walked through a number of the claims Trump has made in the past about Mueller and his probe.

Few were more direct than this one: “Your investigation is not a witch hunt, is it?” Schiff asked.

“It is not a witch hunt,” Mueller replied.

Schiff walked through several other claims that the president has made. Schiff noted that Mueller’s report identified outreach attempts from Russia to Trump’s campaign.

“The campaign welcomed the Russian help did they not?” Schiff asked.

“I think we report in the report indications that that occurred, yes,” Mueller said.

"When the president said the Russian interference was a hoax, that was false, wasn't it?" Schiff asked later.

“True,” Mueller replied.

Another central argument from Trump is that Mueller was hopelessly conflicted. The president made reference to part of that allegation Wednesday morning, reiterating a past claim that Mueller might have had it out for him because Trump didn’t give him a job as FBI director.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) asked Mueller if he hadn’t met with Trump the day before being appointed special counsel.

“Not as a candidate,” Mueller replied. In other words, Mueller appears to be saying he met with Trump to discuss the then-vacant FBI director position, a position that Mueller had once held — but not because he was a candidate for the job. (Gohmert didn’t follow up on the point.)

This makes sense. As The Washington Post’s Devlin Barrett has reported, Mueller is barred by law from holding the FBI director position again. Barrett’s sources did say that White House staffers raised the possibility of changing that law, but that doesn’t comport with Trump’s presentation of Mueller as having gotten “turned down” in seeking the position.

Later, speaking with Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.), Mueller clarified further.

“I was not applying for the job,” he said. “I was asked to give my input on what it would take to do the job, which triggered the interview you’re talking about.” He later added that “it was about the job, but not about me applying for the job.”

During his news conference in May, Mueller said that he didn’t intend to offer public testimony and would let the report speak for itself. The report does in fact note that Trump’s claims about a purported conflict of interest don’t hold up.

“As for Mueller’s interview for FBI Director, Bannon recalled that the White House had invited Mueller to speak to the President to offer a perspective on the institution of the FBI,” it reads in Volume II. “Bannon said that, although the White House thought about beseeching Mueller to become Director again, he did not come in looking for the job.”

The report is also clear on Trump’s other claims of exoneration in precisely the way that Mueller explained before the committee. What’s unusual about Mueller’s House Judiciary Committee testimony is how directly and immediately Mueller’s words contradict the president’s. Which, it seems, is what the administration was hoping to avoid.

================================================

https://www.washingtonpost.com...eport-actually-says/

Attorney General Barr would rather not have Mueller explaining what his report actually says.

===============================================

Google search on the question:

why mueller did not make a determination as to whether the president committed a crime

https://www.google.com/search?...nt=gws-wiz-serp#ip=1

=============================================

Mueller: ‘If We Had Confidence That the President Did Not Commit a Crime, We Would Have Said So’
During a statement on Wednesday, the special counsel clarified that he did not exonerate the president

https://www.rollingstone.com/p...have-said-so-841450/

Mueller’s remarks, which lasted 10 minutes, reiterated the key conclusions of the special counsel’s report, including he and his team could not determine whether President Trump committed a crime. “If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” he said.

As he did in his report, Mueller explained that his office was bound by Justice Department regulations that prohibit a sitting president from indictment: “Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.”

first it was
show where he lied
then it was
collusion
next it was
interference
and now its
obstruction



quoting Nadler and Schiff to exonerate them isn't exactly what a rational mind would choose


after all, the Nad thinks antifa is a myth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1Zu2fQ7jXw


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AALREbJZEZk

I won't even attempt to "defend" collusion -- this is about Schiff being a dirtbag- and he has proven that, in public, repeatedly. Trump is a pretty terrible candidate - and no, i wouldn't hold my nose and vote for him...

but ya'll defending other dirtbags is a little disingenuous

Between you and TB40, it has devolved into this.

Neither one of you accepts reasonable explanation, facts, or even the truth.

Remember, I'm not just arguing with you. TB40 has entered, with zingers.

Both of you are fixated on parroting Trump lies.

I've shown you.

You can't see.

I'm not doing what you are accusing me of - moving the goalpost. Your initial claim that Schiff lied has been answered thoroughly.

For the direction this argument took -- I'm just following the crumb trail of lies with answers. You and TB40 are setting the direction.

Tell me some more lies, and I'll bite.

And the answer is schiff lied, and you dont care that he did.
This reminds me of when you said Andrew McCabe was your hero. When I showed you he lied to the IG and his own personel, you said, well. maybe hero isnt the right word, but I still like him. You just will not see what is in front of you. A lie is a lie, there is no such thing as a partial lie, or only some is a lie. That goes for trump, mccarthy, schiff and all the rest.

I do not intend to offend.

I simply do not see evidence of where Schiff lied.

Although both you and Jeff think you showed me, I think I debunked your claims.

It seemed to me that both of you were relying on somebody said, mostly Trump, that Schiff lied, and that was that - just as good as a fact.

That's often the way it is.

As far as I can see and read, the so deemed evidence you provided does not support your claim.

I looked at his literal words, quotes and otherwise, and I don't see where he lied.

I still want you or anyone to show me a specific lie by Schiff.

I think I'm willing to be convinced.

to be clear, you refuted, not debunked, the truths before you -- you said "i don't see where he lied" .. but if you accept the vote that impeached trump (twice) you HAVE to accept the vote the censored schiff FOR LYING.. same body voted, same political lines vote.

I accept trump was impeached by the house - twice.

again, moving the goalposts until you are right
refute
verb
re·​fute ri-ˈfyüt
refuted; refuting
Synonyms of refute
transitive verb
: to deny the truth or accuracy of
refuted the allegations

debunk
verb
de·​bunk (ˌ)dē-ˈbəŋk
debunked; debunking; debunks
Synonyms of debunk
transitive verb

: to expose the sham (see SHAM entry 1 sense 2) or falseness of

Your own fact check pointed out the false claim he made in the article.
You claimed you knew what fascism was. When you finally posted something by a peer reviewed writer, he sid, " todays use of fascism is a feeble imitation of the real thing"
You post things against your argument , and wont recognize it.
It's who you are, no amount of showing changes that. You will only absorb what parts of a report you agree with. I dont think you try to, it's simply how you think.

well, what I don't do is post claims that I can't provide evidence for, and demand I'm correct, and throw BS.

You two claim that Schiff is a liar. The burden is on you to prove it, beyond reasonable doubt.

Your throwing in the fascism argument is a deflection.

The topic is that you claim Schiff is a liar. Prove it.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

The topic is that you claim Schiff is a liar. Prove it.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?...sure-rep-adam-schiff

the EXACT same proof that Trump was impeached -- if you don't care to accept this vote, then please, feel free to also state trump wasn't impeached

I see this in the link you posted:

"The House Ethics Committee will now open an investigation into his conduct."

So, they censored him before investigation?

hummm

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
the EXACT same proof that Trump was impeached -- if you don't care to accept this vote, then please, feel free to also state trump wasn't impeached

Wow - I really don't follow that non-logic.

And besides that, I read several articles and see that they censored him for alleged misconduct and misleading the public. So they claimed, but still I didn't see specifics of what, and when.

I didn't see the specific word lies or liar in the transcripts of the House, or the wording within the censor.

Trump said it, so I assume you are following his cue.

The claims are not enough for me. I want proof.

You haven't provided any, nor do I see any from the House republicans.

I see claims - that's all.

I think I'm being very reasonable with you.

Yeah -- vote to censure, then the sentencing part -- just like in town

Like trump was impeached and then it went to the senate for trial --

you THINK you are being reasonable? Hmmm, that's the point, and the problem -- the exact same proof that trump was impeached isn't good enough for you to go "you know what, I was wrong" ...

life hack, if you don't own up to being wrong at least once a week, you either aren't doing anything or are perceived as a huge jerk

quote:

the exact same proof that trump was impeached isn't good enough for you to go "you know what, I was wrong" ...

Wow. Somehow you believe that is a logical statement. "The exact same proof"??? I don't get it.

quote:

Like trump was impeached and then it went to the senate for trial --

So, you think the investigation by the ethics committee is the same as a trial?

hummm

I don't think so. I also think due process in this matter is a farce. That's the main thing about all of it. They have gone off the rails.

What if the ethics committee finds misconduct, or IDs specific lies as you claim, and spells them out? I doubt that will happen.

Do they sentence him, maybe eject him from congress, or what?

Seems to me they, republicans, had done some sentencing already with mere claims. They previously kicked him off the committee he was on.

And BTW, I'm still willing to be convinced, and also I'm willing to admit you are right, IF you can prove your case.

That's not the same as admitting I was wrong. That would occur if I was wrong about you making claims with no proof. Filling that gap is up to you.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I don't get it.

trust me, we know - you refuse to listen, learn, or alter your position when you are in the wrong - we KNOW you don't get it .. like arguing with a toddler when he' arguing that "that's not fair" ...

you don't have to like it -- it's our shared reality ..

BTW, I looked up the House Ethics Committee.

Note it's the same "House" where the censor happened -- not the Senate, which is where Trump's impeachment went after the House was done with him.

Also the ethics committee is made up of equal members from both parties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..._Committee_on_Ethics

BTW, I notice that they have ratcheted up their investigation of George Santos.

I did find this explanation regarding Schiff's censor:

"The resolution censuring Schiff, D-Calif., lists the following accusations: Schiff falsely accused former President Donald Trump of collusion with Russia during the 2016 election. Schiff abused his position as chair of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives."

So, I say again - Schiff couldn't have falsely accused Trump of collusion with the Russians because he did collude.

Abusing his position is just a claim - I see no specific proof of that.

Suppose you were on a hike through the woods and happened upon a hidden cave. Out the front of the cave was something that looked like a root or perhaps vine, twitching, inviting curiosity. So, you pick it up for closer investigation. It then becomes clear that you have ahold to the tail of a dragon.

When I started this thread, I was seeing the tail of a dragon and didn't know it.

I didn't know the depth or expanse of the perversity about demonizing Adam Schiff with propaganda and belief thereof.

This is the power of Trumpism. This is the power out there that Trump is tapping into, provoking the dragon.

The magnitude of it is shocking.

https://www.bing.com/images/se...first=1&disoverlay=1

https://www.bing.com/images/se...jaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0

scroll down

Kabob,
You told of your last divorce. Of the feminist judge. Shiff is your wife, telling her side. Is there truth to parts, yes. Is it embellished, or even lies, yes. You are the judge, refusing to hear the other side. You didnt like it when it happened to you, but are fine being that same judge?
Again, your own fact check you posted, showed Shiff lied. Not the whole thing, but when you are being held up to be judged, the lies matter.
Or were you fine with what your ex told everyone?

Bottom line is that it's all about pleasing Dear Leader Trump.

And BTW, your memory of personal stuff I said, and bringing it up later is why I am very careful about posting anything personal again. I try to anticipate how you can use it against me, and don't post it.

I also quit with the other forums for the most part, especially the classified. Too many people cling onto anything personal and use it to varying degree.

So, thanks for the reality check for the internet.

Kabob, I dont think I have brought up Trump in the entire thread, it's about lies told by politicians, mostly for their own agenda. I didnt vote for trump or Biden last time, wont this time if they are on the ballot. I sincerely hope not!!!
My bringing up of your divorce was only so you could relate, something you have a hard time doing. I was not using it against you, only trying to get you to understand what you are doing, when you didnt like it yourself.
The last thing,
It's not my memory of your personal stuff Kabob. I just have a memory. Yours sucks to be honest, either from age or posting to much, doesnt matter which. Having a memory is a good thing, do some of those memory puzzles. I have had some bad concussions, lost some short term memory after. The puzzles really help get things back.

I'm just sensitive about personal stuff from past posts being brought up, especially something as painful as a divorce.

I didn't mean to imply that you were using it against me - just being somewhat insensitive.

So, what exactly am I doing?

I'm pointing out that Schiff has triggered a massive backlash of MEGAdites, Trumpsters, and anyone inclined to be vulnerable to propaganda.

They, Trump especially, view Schiff as a threat and want to quieten him, at least.

It's also a reality check. Who is the biggest threat to the workings of govt, the system, functions of congress -- Schiff or the republicans on a Trump vengeance mission using the powers of office? Maybe Schiff did stretch his powers somewhat, but did the majority in the House, all republicans, 200++, abuse their powers and disservice the American People by doing a farce censor on Schiff?

I used to think hypocrisy was evident, mostly even to those doing it, and if not at least recognize it when pointed out by someone on the outside looking in. Now, I have a different view of that. There are those who are so steeped in their beliefs and righteousness that they can't see their own hypocrisy. Censoring Schiff supposedly for lies, but the real reason is because he opposed Trump and his MASSIVE lies, in quantity and significance. Someone needed to do it, bigly. So, how hypocritical is all that? IOW, the censor is directly related to support, promotion, promulgation, belief, etc., of ALL of Trump's lies. Another dot connected - when someone is complicit in lies, that's the same as being a liar. All republicans in the House just proved their complicity in Trump's lies. Shame. If I'm complicit with Schiff, so be it, yet no one has shown me where Schiff lied.

And this is only the beginning of Trump's vengeance. Look who's willing and able, given the power. This is lock-step stuff.

Oh, and BTW, I think you and maybe Jeffie, are good candidates for seeing my POV, premise, even if not agreeing entirely. That's because you claim to NOT be Trump supporters.

I am pretty much done with this conversation - we've gotten down to trying to count bottle caps to teach 2+2=4 -- and you refuse to move out of your space

From cpan

quote:

The House Votes to Censure Rep. Adam Schiff
The House votes 213-209 on party lines, with 6 Republicans voting present, to censure Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) over his comments regarding former President Trump's ties to Russia. The House Ethics Committee will now open an investigation into his conduct.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?...sure-rep-adam-schiff

HRes 521, voted and approved upon, stated

quote:

Whereas the allegation that President Donald Trump colluded with Russia to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election has been revealed as false by numerous in-depth investigations, including the recent report by Special Counsel John Durham, which documents how the conspiracy theory was invented, funded, and spread by President’s Trump’s political rivals;

Whereas Representative Adam Schiff, who served as ranking minority member and then Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives (the “Intelligence Committee”), occupied positions of extreme trust, affording him access to sensitive intelligence unavailable to most Members of Congress;

Whereas for years, Representative Schiff abused this trust by alleging he had evidence of collusion that, as is clear from reports by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, and Special Counsel Durham, never existed;

Whereas for years, Representative Schiff has spread false accusations that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia;

Whereas on March 20, 2017, Representative Schiff perpetuated false allegations from the Steele Dossier accusing numerous Trump associates of colluding with Russia into the Congressional Record;

Whereas once again abusing his privileged access to classified information, Representative Schiff released a memo justifying the accuracy of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant application on Trump associate Carter Page, of which was later found by Inspector General Horowitz to have 17 major mistakes and omissions, provoking FISA Court Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer to state unequivocally that the Federal Bureau of Investigation “misled the FISC”;

Whereas as ranking minority member and Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Representative Schiff behaved dishonestly and dishonorably on many other occasions, including by publicly, falsely denying that his staff communicated with a whistleblower to launch the first impeachment of President Trump;

Whereas as part of his impeachment efforts, during a hearing on September 26, 2019, Representative Schiff misled the public by reading a false retelling of a phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky;

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...-resolution/521/text

Note that the formal way to say "liar, liar, liar" is to claim "Stated a falsehood(s)" and words to that effect.

Here's the list that the house found Schiff to be a liar - and voted affirming the same.


Your OPINION varies from FACTS -- If you believe the HOUSE had to authority to vote, (including along party lines) to impeach trump, then you must also believe the House can also vote to censure schiff for falsehoods (in impolite speech "LYING") or you deny the validity of party line votes --

I don't deny that the house has the right to vote, and their rules, which create laws, therefore an attenuated reality, in either case. I don't LIKE that it's along party lines, in either case, but my approval was neither requested nor required

In plain, common language, The House voted and approved that schiff lied, repeatedly -

Over to you, but understand I likely won't reply

Just in the last couple days I posted the worse thing that could happen would be if Trump got back in. It would all be about payback instead of substance.
But, I will never agree to what Schiff and McCarthy are doing, even if I agree with them, is a good thing. You should not get to make shit up on the house floor to further your side. This all becomes a tit for tat. I dont know where it started, or by who, but all diplomacy has been lost. It is all about treating the other party worse when it's your turn.
You dont want to see shiffs lies, as you claim it's about trump. At most, trump could have 4 more years. The degradation of congress will continue into the future if they dont start being civil.

This thread is about lies, mostly, those who lie and those who believe the lies, and those who use lies as a tool, those who think lies are ok if for the right reason - the cause - the means, and those who think they can see through the lies but really can't.

I think it's a deflection or misdirection to say or act like this censor is JUST about the supposed Schiff lies. It's really about Schiff standing up to Trump's lies.

Now we have a powerful machine driving not only Trumps lies, but retaliation for those who stand up and call them what they are.

Ther is going to be a showdown, a reckoning over this.

I think it was Lincoln who said: "A House divided cannot stand."

Yep, the same Lincoln which the GOP claims to be the party of Lincoln. It ain't anymore, in case you haven't noticed.

So, this article is relevant:

Analysis: Donald Trump's war on truth confronts another test
Story by Associated Press • Yesterday 10:00 PM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...8a2703e6d4345a&ei=13

(Excerpts - read the whole article - it's filled with facts)

The cherry tree folklore is too good to be true, but it's no lie that George Washington had a thing for the truth. “I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is the best policy,” he wrote in his farewell address.

A few decades later, another future president's reputation for veracity earned him a well known nickname: Honest Abe Lincoln.

Then there's Donald Trump

America has had prevaricators in the Oval Office before, but never one who has been at war with the truth as regularly, on so many different subjects. As a candidate and as president, Trump demonstrated a keen ability to use broadcast and social media to amplify his distortions, and found remarkable success in convincing large chunks of the American public.

As Trump seeks a second term while fighting federal and state charges, the nation faces the prospect of another campaign riddled with falsehoods and misinformation, and the possibility that he could be returned to the White House by an electorate that either believes his falsehoods, or doesn't care.

“This is a test moment. We haven’t been in a situation like this,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. Jamieson said that before Trump, the assumption was that certain lies — lies that undermine faith in democracy or the courts, for instance — would be disqualifying for a person seeking public office. “If saying the election was rigged doesn't fall into that category, then what does?”

(more)

It looks like you and I posted at the same time Jeff.
And like me, it's the abuse of power you are against.
For me, that abuse is if it's used by the house, senate, president, or any agency connected to.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
I am pretty much done with this conversation -

Over to you, but understand I likely won't reply

I quoted only part of your post for brevity purpose only.

It is readily available above for those who want to read it.

And, BTW, I think that post is outstanding compared to your previous posts in this thread.

It says what you've been trying to say, all along.

I'll be curious as to what becomes of the Ethics Committee investigation.

There was never a question, on my part, as to whether the House had the power and authority to take action on impeachments or censors, etc. You brought that up as though that made it valid as in proof.

BTW, IMO the basis for Trump's impeachment(s) was far more substantial than the basis for Schiff's censor.

In essence, what I've been saying, and provided good rebuttal, as you say, that the claim that Schiff mislead, regarding his accusations of collusion, is a lie in itself, and it services a whole magnitude of Trump's lies, including the BIG LIE.

Trump and his campaign DID collude with Russian assets. It wasn't a conspiracy theory, hatched and promoted by Schiff. In the beginning, it was more akin to probable cause to figure criminal conspiracy was going on and should be investigated.

The whistleblower thing, for example was thoroughly fact checked and found partially true, but not to the degree republicans spun it.

Same for the supposed "false retelling" of the phone call between Trump and Zelensky. This was discussed and explained in detail and thoroughly, mostly on the left media, but also Schiff explained it when confronted in the interviews, satisfactorily IMO.

So, again I say this whole thing is more about Trump and his lies than it is about Schiff.

Here are two articles that delve into the issues at stake with what the republican majority House of representatives are doing. Schiff's censor is just the beginning.

I find no parts of these articles that is not true.

Prosecution vs. the presidency: Trump cases present looming legal crisis for nation
Story by Kevin Rector • 8h ago

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...0b50f5f175e2ad&ei=68

I'll quote excerpts from the articles:

While the Constitution outlines the process by which Congress can impeach a sitting president — Trump was twice impeached by the House but never convicted by the Senate — it is silent on the question of whether a sitting president can be prosecuted through normal judicial channels.

The courts have likewise been quiet on the question, experts said, though the Justice Department has weighed in.

In 1973 and again in 2000, when Presidents Nixon and Clinton were in hot water, Justice Department officials issued opinions concluding that sitting presidents cannot be indicted or prosecuted.

Both opinions hinged on a core principle of American democracy: the separation of powers. They concluded that any judicial interest in charging a sitting president with a crime — and subjecting him or her to the physical and mental demands of a potentially lengthy and politically fraught criminal trial — was outweighed by the mandate from voters to perform the onerous executive duties of the presidency.

On balance, department officials reasoned, it would be untenable for any individual prosecutor to have the power to target and temporarily incapacitate through criminal proceedings the head of the executive branch.

In the 2000 opinion, Randolph D. Moss, the assistant attorney general at the time, wrote that indicting or prosecuting a sitting president “would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.” So sitting presidents — and sitting presidents alone in all of government — are “immune” from such actions.

“Where the President is concerned,” Moss wrote, “only the House of Representatives has the authority to bring charges of criminal misconduct through the constitutionally sanctioned process of impeachment.”

Moss, now a federal judge, did not respond to a request for comment.

His opinion was reiterated by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel brought on by the Justice Department in the early years of Trump’s presidency to investigate possible collusion between Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia.

Mueller and his team of prosecutors indicted or secured guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies during the nearly two-year investigation, including Trump’s campaign manager, former national security advisor and Cohen, the president’s personal attorney. But when it came to Trump and whether he obstructed justice by attempting to thwart the probe, Mueller punted.

Citing the Justice Department’s position that sitting presidents can’t be indicted, Mueller decided it would be unfair to conclude one way or the other whether Trump had committed a crime.

“Accordingly,” Mueller wrote, “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Trump’s critics denounced the double standard afforded the president and noted that Mueller’s team had collected substantial evidence to suggest obstruction . Directly contradicting Mueller’s words, Trump claimed that the report offered him “complete and total EXONERATION.”

Based on that history, legal experts say, Trump is clearly more vulnerable now, while he is out of office, than he was during his first term as president or would be were he to win a second term. That has created the intense legal window in which cases have been brought, but it’s unclear whether they will be adjudicated prior to the election — or if any outcomes will even matter if Trump wins a second term.

If Smith’s federal case were pending when Trump won the election, “then the decision about whether to pursue the case would be up to the attorney general at the time, and the Department of Justice could elect to simply dismiss the charges and not pursue them,” Mintz said.

If the New York case or one in another state were pending when he won the election, prosecutors in those states would similarly be forced to consider whether they could continue trying the president. If they decided they could and pushed forward, Trump would likely challenge their authority — potentially taking the question of whether a sitting president can be prosecuted to the U.S. Supreme Court, which leans conservative and includes three Trump appointees.

==================================================

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...0b50f5f175e2ad&ei=69

Conservative former judge calls Trump support 'colossal political miscalculation'
Story by Reuters • 2h ago

"Building the Republican campaign around the newly indicted front-runner is a colossal political miscalculation, as comedic as it is tragic for the country," said Luttig, an appointee of Republican President George H.W. Bush who served from 1991 to 2006.

Lutting wrote in the New York Times that the Republican Party is in part to blame for the former president's federal indictment earlier this month accusing Trump of mishandling classified documents. There are few signs that Trump will face political consequences internally, which undermines rule of law and threatens the future of the party , Luttig said.

"No assemblage of politicians except the Republicans would ever conceive of running for the American presidency by running against the Constitution and the rule of law. But that’s exactly what they’re planning."

In order to spoon feed those who claim that Schiff lied about Russian collusion, I present the following videos of Schiff and his presentations of the evidence.

This ought to be plenty of opportunity for you to show me where Schiff lied.

I've asked several times - show me?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS7qGx7t0x4&t=49s

Rep. Adam Schiff Puts End To Question Of Donald Trump Russia Collusion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3zjbIxFJZM

Rep. Schiff Discusses Growing Body of Evidence in Russia Case

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VKMhiWp5nc

Rep. Schiff on CNN: Evidence of Collusion is Clear, Mueller Will Find Out if There's Been a Crime

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZafTtNBrZs

Rep. Adam Schiff says "plenty of evidence" of Russia collusion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDO87d8XYiE

Rep. Adam Schiff Lays Out Evidence For Russian Involvement In Presidential Election

In addition to Russian help and collusion there's this:

https://youtube.com/shorts/uK7z4kcI5qw?feature=share

Above the law and two-tiered justice


https://youtube.com/shorts/hR83TssFcog?feature=share