Adam Schiff of the House Intelligence Committee then and now

[Daemon Sophic]

Now it is "IF"

Yes.
That’s what the Mueller investigation is about.


Now. Did you follow the rest of my post?

 

[Stanyon]

The second paragraph of your post is just ranting, and in the name of goodwill, I am ignoring it.

It wasn't a rant, it was flippant amusement for myself.

 

[Stanyon]

Yes.
That’s what the Mueller investigation is about.
Now. Did you follow the rest of my post?

And as stated in the O.P. the people most closely involved in it have their doubts.

What you posted is nothing I haven't read before,
"Click on Jesus if you want Trump impeached"

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I don’t understand the Jesus reference.

As per your OP. Yeah, he’s pulling back from earlier more vocal railing against Trump and his possible collusion with Russia. But I think he’s just doing politics and following Pelosi’s lead.

That said; Schiff is continuing to voice the ideas that I have put into my posts in this thread. Particularly that even if the Mueller investigation does not find a flaming hot and smoking gun to prove beyond all doubt that Trump was colluding with the Russians, it does not mean that Trump is safe from impeachment and/or criminal indictment.
Colluding with the Russians is only one crime among many that circumstances, witnesses, and hard evidence in the form of signed checks, and tax returns, etc...could yet show that Trump is a criminal and therefore must be removed from office.....and that all of these leads need to be investigated.

However, the typical right-wingnut response (straight from tRump’s mouth) is that this is a harrasment “witch-hunt”, and that if Mueller fails to find a smoking gun, then any and all other investigations MUST be halted. “Leave our dear sweet hyperintelligent president Trumpy-poo alone you big meanies!”

Who knows (apart from Mueller) what the special committee has found. Perhaps they have mountains of circumstantial evidence, and exploitive big business deals with Putin and other Russian criminal oligarchs......but no video footage of Trump passing polling data and cash over to Russian agents.
And in th eyes of the public (especially the 25% of Americans who would support tRump even if he went on a shooting spree in an orphange for blind children) with or without that video, all the testimony in the world won’t make those people agree with “collusion”. Maybe Pelosi and Schiff have recognized that is what some people are like, so regardless of his actual guilt, regardless how obvious it is to sane people and professional investigators associated with the intelligence committee (like CIA and FBI agents) they have to dial back the vitriol to prevent riots and violence when a mob boss gets a pass from naïve fools.



Or perhaps two weeks from now Trump will be in prison.

 

[Stanyon]

I don’t understand the Jesus reference.

I was making a joke about a facebook ad/meme that was attributed to supposed Russian trolls, it was a picture of
Jesus and Satan arm wrestling. the caption read
"click Jesus if you want Trump to win" apparently depending on the day you could click Jesus if you wanted Hillary to win and this was held up as proof of Russia undermining U.S. democracy. If I didn't see the hearing I would have thought it was a joke but shortly after a high ranking military officer was pushing for blocking RT news in the U.S. Do you see how this Russophobia is being used as a justification for censorship?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I was making a joke about a facebook ad/meme that was attributed to supposed Russian trolls, it was a picture of
Jesus and Satan arm wrestling. the caption read
"click Jesus if you want Trump to win" apparently depending on the day you could click Jesus if you wanted Hillary to win and this was held up as proof of Russia undermining U.S. democracy. If I didn't see the hearing I would have thought it was a joke but shortly after a high ranking military officer was pushing for blocking RT news in the U.S. Do you see how this Russophobia is being used as a justification for censorship?

Hmmm. Sounds like a very poor example. While censorship is generally a very bad idea, what would be better is marking sources as reliable or not, and having a strong fact-checking group for all "news" agencies; to immediately take down blatant lies, and with severe penalties for networks that are selling propaganda.
Everyone is free to have their own opinion on a subject, but there is only one set of facts. Unfortunately, at least 1/4 of Americans are so naive/stupid/biased, that you cannot make them see/understand reality, no matter how well you try.

P.S. - I found your reference. article Perhaps it was my news agencies (and if I recall, on this forum too) where I did in fact see the Jesus/Satan clickbait, but (as the NYT article states) it was always Hillary whom Satan supported. Ironic, but to be expected.


If you can find similar Russian tripe that promoted Hillary as a wonderful person, I would be interested to see it.

 

[Shad]

Hmmm. Sounds like a very poor example. While censorship is generally a very bad idea, what would be better is marking sources as reliable or not, and having a strong fact-checking group for all "news" agencies; to immediately take down blatant lies, and with severe penalties for networks that are selling propaganda.

Yah all we need is the Ministry of "Truth" to determine what is fact or not controlled by government. Hilarious.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Trump is being investigated for multiple other types of crimes as well. He's being looked at for campaign law violations, money laundering, emoluments violations, bank fraud, tax evasion, obstruction of justice, and insurance fraud come to mind.

Source?

The comment was a compilation of multiple sources seen over two years. Emoluments violations investigations are coming from Maryland and D.C. as I recall. The Felix Sater connection is the reason Ivanka and Donald Sr. are in the cross-hairs for money laundering. Tax evasion is pretty much a given considering how Trump not only refused to present his taxes voluntarily, but threatened Mueller if he crossed some red line. Campaign law violations have been supported by Cohen's testimony.

Schiff being on an 'Intelligence' anything should qualify for the "Oxymoron Award of the Week".

Schiff is a brilliant man. I've heard him speak a few times - twice on Maher's show. He would make an excellent president if it were possible for him to compete in a fair election.

the Dems hung their hats on the 'collusion' charge from the get-go. If this is a bust, then anything they might bring up in the future would have to have a smoking cannon to be believable.

The Mueller investigation of Trump originated with Republican-appointed and registered people such as Rosenstein and Mueller himself.

Did the Republicans suffer from a half dozen politically motivated but sterile investigations of the Benghazi affair? No. Unlike the Benghazi witch hunts, the Trump investigations were triggered by an interest in determining the truth based on alarming intelligence, which is why unlike the former, we already have several dozen felony convictions and convicts. Have you ever questioned why so much of Trump's orbit had Russian connections and lied about it?

This thread is about the alleged Russian collusion and Schiff's pronouncements that there was plenty of evidence and then his retraction.

The Democrats seem to have decided to make it appear that impeachment isn't already a done deal. They will impeach Trump, and the Republican Senate will let Trump walk. Mueller and the various state law enforcement agencies, however will not.

The endless investigations are/were expected and if all the current investigations fail to come to anything I am sure there will be another, perhaps that Trump passed gas while playing golf?

The democrats lost in a free and fair election

That has happened, but not in 2016.

 

[Shad]

. Campaign law violations have been supported Cohen's testimony.

Cohen perjured himself in front of Congress. No lawyer with any sense is going to use Cohen as a witness.

 

[Revoltingest]

Tax evasion is pretty much a given considering how Trump not only refused to present his taxes voluntarily...

Really?
Why do you suppose the IRS has taken no legal action?
Refusal to divulge returns is hardly proof of what you claim.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Yah all we need is the Ministry of "Truth" to determine what is fact or not controlled by government. Hilarious.

Yeah I agree that it is risky especially if ignorant people get into it. And alternative could be some form of government committee populated by 40% 40% 20% mixture of Republicans Democrats and independents respectively.
Alternatively we could go back to the good all days of forcing all networks to allow dissenting voices to SHOW EVIDENCE of their point of view on every channel and every show.

Cohen perjured himself in front of Congress. No lawyer with any sense is going to use Cohen as a witness.

You do realize that the turned witness, is a mainstay in American courts since the country was founded. Right?
His credibility was shot when his earlier lies (that did not serve Cohen but only served Trump) were revealed by evidence and other witnesses to be complete fabrications.
Contrariwise his most recent testimony is repeatedly backed up by evidence. Yes; a courtroom must always be leery of a turned witness, but when their testimony is collaborated by hard evidence, then they can be readily believed.

 

[Shad]

Yeah I agree that it is risky especially if ignorant people get into it.

Or those in power that want to control narratives and influence what the voters are willing to do. Iraq 2 for example. All those agencies claiming a fact, all got it wrong. So how can we have "facts" when the agencies can not even get it right?

And alternative could be some form of government committee populated by 40% 40% 20% mixture of Republicans Democrats and independents respectively.

So we vote for facts?

Alternatively we could go back to the good all days of forcing all networks to allow dissenting voices to SHOW EVIDENCE of their point of view on every channel and every show.

Was that ever really a thing?

You do realize that the turned witness, is a mainstay in American courts since the country was founded. Right?

Yes. However when they commit perjury while testifying it damages their credibility. Which Cohen does not have any.

His credibility was shot when his earlier lies (that did not serve Cohen but only served Trump) were revealed by evidence and other witnesses to be complete fabrications.

Consider it more of a self-inflicted double-tap

Contrariwise his most recent testimony is repeatedly backed up by evidence.

If you are talking about the cheques which are personal accounts that evidence is of nothing

Yes; a courtroom must always be leery of a turned witness, but when their testimony is collaborated by hard evidence, then they can be readily believed.

What evidence?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Cohen perjured himself in front of Congress. No lawyer with any sense is going to use Cohen as a witness.

If I recall correctly, Cohen's lie was about Trump doing nothing wrong.
So he lied about that. So does that mean Trump actually did do something wrong?
Hmmmm ....

 

[Shad]

If I recall correctly, Cohen's lie was about Trump doing nothing wrong.
So he lied about that. So does that mean Trump actually did do something wrong?
Hmmmm ....

That is the problem with a serial liar. No one will believe the liar when they are making a true statement. So evidence is required.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is the problem with a serial liar. No one will believe the liar when they are making a true statement. So evidence is required.

The lie was about some thing. So if he lied about that thing, then that makes that thing true. Things are true, or they are false.

 

[Shad]

The lie was about some thing. So if he lied about that thing, then that makes that thing true.

No it doesn't. You need to demonstrate that it is a lie not merely conclude that it is because Cohen said it.

*My previous point was not about a specific statement. It was a "boy who cried wolf" statement.