Adam Schiff Must Resign

Adam Schiff made an egregious false narrative in a committee hearing about what happened in the call with Trump and the Ukrainian President. He flat out made things up that did not happen. He LIED bold faced to the American Public and threatened national security.


He then lied and said he was making parody but anyone who has watched Adam Schiff the last three years knows that is a lie as well.


Pencil Neck is the one who is truly not fit for office and must be removed.

«1

Comments

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,097

    There is rather obviously a continuing coup going on against the current president of the USA.

    There was "Russiagate", and now it seems as if "Ukrainegate" is going on in an attempt to overthrow the elected president of the USA. Such were and are acts of sedition as there has not been any proof / evidence for whatever the Democrats and their propaganda USA msm are accusing president Trump. 

    As a matter of fact, there have been numerous known felonies / crimes that were committed by the Obama, Biden H. Clinton regime and officials who orchestrated such as the co-called Steele Dossier and Russiagate. There is evidence for the FBI under Obama covered up H. Clinton’s felonies. There is evidence that the CIA director John Brennan orchestrated Russiagate with false allegations. The Demorcrats and their handlers seem involved in a coup to overthrow the president of the USA is undeniable. Only few inside the USA seem to be aware of what is going on ... or are Americans at large now really more or less openly supporting a coup?

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,774

    @Wolfgang posted:

    There is rather obviously a continuing coup going on against the current president of the USA.

    No, there is not a "continuing coup going on against the current president of the USA."


    There was "Russiagate", and now it seems as if "Ukrainegate" is going on in an attempt to overthrow the elected president of the USA.

    No, there is not an attempt to "overthrow the elected president of the USA."


    Such were and are acts of sedition as there has not been any proof / evidence for whatever the Democrats and their propaganda USA msm are accusing president Trump. 

    Yes, there has been "proof/evidence" for the vast majority of the allegations raised by prosecutors, politicians, other citizens, and media outlets.


    As a matter of fact, there have been numerous known felonies / crimes that were committed by the Obama, Biden H. Clinton regime and officials who orchestrated such as the co-called Steele Dossier and Russiagate.

    No, there have not been "numerous known felonies/crimes... committed by the Obama, Biden, H. Clinton regime...."


    There is evidence for the FBI under Obama covered up H. Clinton’s felonies.

    No, there is not "evidence (that) the FBI under Obama covered up H. Clinton's felonies."


    There is evidence that the CIA director John Brennan orchestrated Russiagate with false allegations.

    No, there is not "evidence that the CIA director John Brennan orchestrated Russiagate with false allegations."


    The Demorcrats and their handlers seem involved in a coup to overthrow the president of the USA is undeniable.

    Yes it IS deniable that the "Demorcrats [sic] and their handlers seem involved in a coup to overthrow the president of the USA," and it's deniable because it's not true.


    Only few inside the USA seem to be aware of what is going on ... or are Americans at large now really more or less openly supporting a coup?

    If you're referring to the conspiracy theories you included in your post, then the reason "only [a] few inside the USA seem to be aware of what is going on" is that your conspiracy theories, as is the case with all of your conspiracy theories, are baseless and false.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,774
    edited October 1

    @reformed posted:

    Oh so you have the proof that Schiff keeps failing to provide?


    Proof of exactly what does Schiff "[keep] failing to provide"?

    Post edited by Bill_Coley on
  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,572

    Keeps saying he has proof that Russian Collusion happened.


    That being said, I noticed you did not actually comment on the OP. Was Schiff out of line? Are you going to rebuke his actual lies like you do the President's supposed lies?

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,572

    Not an attempt to overthrow the current President, yeah, you are delusional.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,774

    @reformed posted:

    Keeps saying he has proof that Russian Collusion happened.


    First, recall that "collusion" is not a legal term; it's a conduct and a state of mind; it's a willingness to work together for bad, perhaps illegal, purposes. Evidence of the 2016 Trump campaign's collusive conduct is littered throughout the Mueller report. In no certain order:

    • The campaign's June 2016 willingness to meet with Russians to receive information it believed was part of the Russian government's efforts to assist its campaign, and its sending representatives, including the campaign chair, Donald Trump Jr, and others, to the meeting itself. The fact that the meeting did not bear fruit is irrelevant to the question of collusion. An action does NOT have to bear fruit in order for it to express collusive intent. The fact that they welcomed and attended the meeting were collusive acts, evidence of their willingness to work with the Russians in secret and for bad, perhaps illegal, purposes.
    • Paul Manafort's meetings with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian politico with known connections to the GRU, a man Rick Gates told Manafort was likely a Russian spy, according to the Mueller report. Manafort even passed internal polling data to Kilimnik.
    • Roger Stone's multiple contacts with Guccifer 2.0, which included Guccifer's posting of the Democratic party's turnout strategy model "for the entire presidential campaign."
    • A total of 272 contacts between Russians and people connected with the campaign, including 38 meetings.

    That's both "evidence" and "proof" that "collusion" - actions and/or a willingness to coordinate secretly with Russians for bad, perhaps illegal, purposes - happened. Again, whether anything came of those efforts and intentions is not relevant to whether they were collusive. The Trump campaign CLEARLY was willing to receive help from the Russians and took steps to seek, invite, and receive that help. That's collusion.



    Not an attempt to overthrow the current President, yeah, you are delusional.

    And you're as eloquent as ever.



    That being said, I noticed you did not actually comment on the OP. Was Schiff out of line? Are you going to rebuke his actual lies like you do the President's supposed lies?

    It remains rich that you, of all posters, highlight ANY other person's perceived delay in responding to posts. You, a poster whom I've had to ask questions three, four, five, seven, even TEN times before you even acknowledged their existence. Wow.

    The latest example of your failure to reply concerns the request I made in THIS POST, where, using your own words to CM, I asked, "What of what Schiff said during the intel hearing was a lie? Please point out the direct quote of Schiff's lie. Not the reading between the lines; the actual quote." You have still not done so.

    As for your sky is falling response to Schiff's presentation, in my view you simply parrot the Trumpster distraction dejour, in this case, to turn attention away from the storm that's growing around the White House and toward Chairman Schiff. ANYTHING to to turn attention away from the hell that's unfolding at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

    Schiff introduced his "narrative" with these words: "Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the President communicates." So we know almost from the beginning that Schiff is not going to read the whistleblower's complaint or the White House summary verbatim; he's going to give his own summary of what he believes reads like a "classic organized crime shakedown."

    What follows that introduction is a largely accurate summary of the flow and content of the Trumpo-Zelenskyy conversation. Yes, he includes statements that are not borne out in the transcript - either because he inflates a number (what Schiff said happened seven times actually happened three times) or because he includes things that weren't said at all (Trump is not summarized as saying "And so I’m only going to say this a few more times in a few more ways.") But OVERALL, Shiff's summary is correct as to flow and content.

    As a person who had read both the complaint and the White House summary before the hearing, I knew what Schiff was doing as I listened to him live. His tone of voice and his use of mobster shakedown imagery made it clear to me that he was taking dramatic license.

    So did he "lie." Of course not.

    Should he have stuck to the damning language of the actual White House document? To avoid giving Trumpsters distraction ammo, probably. But I enjoyed and applauded his summary.


    But there's one key question for you to answer, @reformed, probably after I ask it of you another four or five times: Your standard for persons serving in public office seems to be that those who lie or other provide "false narratives" in the performance of their duties aren't "fit for office and must be removed." Aboard Air Force One on April 5, 2018, President Trump said he knew nothing about a $130,000 hush payment made to Stormy Daniels. That was false, part of his false narrative about his relationship with Daniels. By the standard to which you hold "pencil neck" Adam Schiff, since Mr Trump offered a false narrative in the performance of his duties, is President Trump also "truly not fit for office and must be removed"? Please answer directly. (NOTE: I could provide dozens, scores, hundreds, even thousands of other "false narratives" Mr Trump has offered in the performance of his duties - for example, the false narrative that China is paying the tariffs Mr Trump imposed - but one (or two) will suffice for now.)

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,572
  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,774

    @reformed posted:

    Except it was NOT the essence of the conversation. That's the lie.


    I have NO idea what "conversation" you're talking about.

    Schiff's most famous claim about evidence of collusion dates back to March 2017 and had nothing to do with the president's handling of his call with the Ukranian president. Schiff famously asserted that the evidence of collusion was "more than circumstantial." What "conversation" are you talking about?

    In the transcript of the hearing in which Schiff offered what you call his "false narrative" of the Trump-Zelenskyy conversation, the words "collusion" and "colluded" are spoken four times, AND ALL FOUR TIMES THEY ARE SPOKEN BY RANKING MEMBER DEVIN NUNES. Schiff never speaks the word or any form of the word. How could he have alleged that collusion was "the essence of the conversation" when he didn't even say the word during the entire hearing?

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,097

    Schiff's most famous claim about evidence of collusion dates back to March 2017 and had nothing to do with the president's handling of his call with the Ukranian president. Schiff famously asserted that the evidence of collusion was "more than circumstantial." What "conversation" are you talking about?


    Apparently, Mr. Schiff's idea about there being "more than circumstantial evidence of collusion" then was also nothing more than fantasy, since there wasn't any produced and the whole "Russiagate" matter blew up in the Democrats faces .... If there had been such evidence, the matter should have already progressed to respective steps ... since there were no such steps, it is plain that there was no evidence on which to base such steps

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,572

    Bill either you are stupid or playing stupid and I'm not sure which. Pencil neck said, and you even quoted, the essence of what the president communicates. But that wasn't the essence of what the president communicated. That was Pencil Neck's shading on what the president communicated. It was a lie.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,774


    @reformed posted:

    Bill either you are stupid or playing stupid and I'm not sure which.

    I used to think I was just playing stupid, but then I read - in Scientific American, I think - that you have to be pretty smart to play stupid. So, I've decided that I'm just stupid.



    Pencil neck said, and you even quoted, the essence of what the president communicates. But that wasn't the essence of what the president communicated. That was Pencil Neck's shading on what the president communicated. It was a lie.

    Here's the history of our current exchange:

    • In THIS POST, you asked whether I had "the proof that Schiff keeps failing to provide."
    • Then in THIS POST, I asked "exactly" what proof you believe Schiff "keeps failing to provide."
    • In THIS POST, you said it was "proof that Russian Collusion happened."

    Let's pause. So you asked me whether I had proof, and you said the proof you asked me about was proof that "Russian collusion happened...." Let's continue.

    • In response to your clarification that the proof you asked me about was proof that "Russian collusion happened," I offered THIS POST, which included four bullet points that I claimed amounted to both "evidence" and "proof" that "Russian collusion happened." (please remember that you said you asked me for proof that "Russian collusion happened")
    • Things went off the rails in YOUR NEXT REPLY POST, however, when you claimed "it was NOT the essence of the conversation" - the "it" apparently being "Russian collusion"???
    • Because "Russian collusion" was not the subject of last week's Intelligence Committee hearing, and Chairman Schiff never spoke any form of the word "collusion" during the hearing, in THIS POST I asked how you could claim Schiff alleged "Russian collusion" had been "the essence of the conversation" when in the hearing not once did he speak any form of the word collusion.
    • And finally in THIS POST, you said you weren't sure whether I'm "stupid or just playing stupid."


    All that comes down to this, in which I will ask you to provide what you yourself asked from CM in another thread. As possible, in fact, I will use YOUR OWN WORDS to make my request: "Please point out the direct quote" from last week's hearing that proves Schiff alleged "Russian collusion" was the "essence of the conversation" President Trump had with the president of Ukraine. And please, "(n)ot the reading between the lines, the actual quote."

    Now in my words: From the transcript of last week's hearing, quote for me (don't summarize!) Schiff's words in order to prove your assertion that he said "Russian collusion" was "the essence of the conversation" between Trump and Zelenskyy. Provide me what you asked for from CM: "the actual quote."

    For your convenience, here is A LINK to a full transcript of the hearing.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,572

    Do keep up Bill, I didn't say that is what Schiff said the other day. I was talking about his narrative that he gave about the Ukraine call.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,774

    @reformed posted:

    Do keep up Bill, I didn't say that is what Schiff said the other day. I was talking about his narrative that he gave about the Ukraine call.


    Help me "keep up": If you've been "talking about (Schiff's) narrative that he gave about the Ukraine call," WHY did you ask me for the proof "Russian collusion happened" that "Schiff keeps failing to provide"?

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,572

    Because of your stupid comment. When you said in response to @Wolfgang Yes, there has been "proof/evidence" for the vast majority of the allegations raised by prosecutors, politicians, other citizens, and media outlets. He had been talking about Russiagate and the like. I merely pointed out that fore well over a year Schiff has been saying he has undeniable proof of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians to defeat Clinton yet he has not given such evidence.


    But I see you continually try to deflect and distract. Another playbook for liberals.


    Schiff lied in the congressional hearing.


    Schiff, Sept. 26: It reads like a classic organized crime shakedown. Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates. We’ve been very good to your country, very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what? I don’t see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you though. And I’m going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it. On this and on that. I’m going to put you in touch with people, not just any people, I am going to put you in touch with the attorney general of the United States, my Attorney General Bill Barr. He’s got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him. And I’m going to put you in touch with Rudy. You’re going to love him. Trust me. You know what I’m asking. And so I’m only going to say this a few more times. In a few more ways. And by the way, don’t call me again. I’ll call you when you’ve done what I asked.

    This is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine. It would be funny if it wasn’t such a graphic betrayal of the president’s oath of office. But as it does represent a real betrayal, there’s nothing the president says here that is in America’s interest after all.


    The bolded portions of Schiff's statement are bold faced lies. It was NOT the essence of the conversation. He did not ask for Ukraine to "make up dirt" on a political opponent. He did not say I'll call you when done what I have asked. This was a bold faced lie.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,774

    @reformed posted:

    Because of your stupid comment.

    I've learned you have to expect "stupid comment(s)" from "stupid" people.



    When you said in response to @Wolfgang Yes, there has been "proof/evidence" for the vast majority of the allegations raised by prosecutors, politicians, other citizens, and media outlets. He had been talking about Russiagate and the like. I merely pointed out that fore well over a year Schiff has been saying he has undeniable proof of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians to defeat Clinton yet he has not given such evidence.

    1. I provided four bullet points' worth of data points from the Mueller report documenting the "Russian collusion" for which you asked proof. In your replies since, you have yet to dispute, let alone disprove, ANY of those bullet points.
    2. In your original question, you used the word "collusion," not "conspiring." Those two words are NOT synonymous. I provided proof of collusion. I did not provide - did not even TRY to provide - proof of a conspiracy. Provide a link to a news report that quoted Schiff as saying he had proof of Russians' "conspiring to defeat Clinton." [And the news source to which you link needs to quote Schiff as using that SPECIFIC word since it is NOT synonymous with collusion.]


    But I see you continually try to deflect and distract. Another playbook for liberals.

    Well, we liberals are so hobbled by our dishonesty and stupidity that we can't manage a very large playbook. We're hoping to get a better one for Christmas.

    For what it's worth, I see now that I misread the subject of your reply "Except it was NOT the essence of the conversation. That's the lie." Just above those words in your original post are quoted my words about "collusion," which I'm confident was the principal reason I attached your reply to my collusion comments. To wit...


    Apologies for the confusion.



    The bolded portions of Schiff's statement are bold faced lies.

    No, they're not "lies" of any sort.....


    "this is the essence of what the president communicates"

    This is Schiff's opinion/summary of what the president communicated, an opinion/summary with which you disagree and with which I agree. You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to mine. Schiff is entitled to his. You're not "lying" when you say there was no "collusion" between the Russians and the Trump campaign. You're stating your opinion of the evidence in the case. I am convinced beyond doubt that your opinion is wrong, but I don't think you're lying. Neither is Schiff.


    "I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it. On this and on that."

    To understand Schiff's comment here you have to accept an objective fact: There is NO evidence of ANY wrongdoing by Joe Biden in the Ukranian matter. None. Zero. SO, if the Ukrainian president was going to give Trump dirt on his "political opponent" Joe Biden, it would HAVE to be "made up" because there was NO "real" political dirt for him to find in his country.

    The final step is for you to accept that Trump raised the Bidens in that conversation for personal political-, not matters of state- purposes. That's blatantly true, but I know you will disagree - and I won't think you're lying when you do - so I move on.



    "Trust me. You know what I’m asking. And so I’m only going to say this a few more times. In a few more ways. And by the way, don’t call me again. I’ll call you when you’ve done what I asked."

    According to the whistleblower's complaint - whose description of the Trump-Zelenskyy phone call was spot on in nearly EVERY detail:

    "During this same timeframe, multiple U.S. officials told me that the Ukrainian leadership was led to believe that a meeting or phone call between the President and President Zelenskyy would depend on whether Zelenskyy showed willingness to "play ball" on the issues that had been publicly aired by Mr. Lutsenko and Mr. Giuliani."

    Schiff took dramatic license with that report from the complaint and the result was the statement you highlighted.



    "This is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine."

    Once again, Schiff's opinion/assessment of the phone call summary, an opinion/assessment with which you and I are free to agree or disagree. Because it's an opinion, it is NOT a "bold faced lie."



    In all the furor of this thread, there is a question I posed to you several posts ago that you have not yet answered. (Imagine that!) Here's that question again:

    But there's one key question for you to answer, @reformed, probably after I ask it of you another four or five times: Your standard for persons serving in public office seems to be that those who lie or other provide "false narratives" in the performance of their duties aren't "fit for office and must be removed." Aboard Air Force One on April 5, 2018, President Trump said he knew nothing about a $130,000 hush payment made to Stormy Daniels. That was false, part of his false narrative about his relationship with Daniels. By the standard to which you hold "pencil neck" Adam Schiff, since Mr Trump offered a false narrative in the performance of his duties, is President Trump also "truly not fit for office and must be removed"? Please answer directly. (NOTE: I could provide dozens, scores, hundreds, even thousands of other "false narratives" Mr Trump has offered in the performance of his duties - for example, the false narrative that China is paying the tariffs Mr Trump imposed - but one (or two) will suffice for now.)

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,230

    Mr. Reformed,

    Save your e-ink. Adam Schiff isn't going anywhere anytime soon. You know it. I don't have to reproduce the news around what is well known. Trump is in trouble and will be impeached. CM

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,572

    I'm only going to focus on one thing. "There's no evidence of BIden wrong doing." DOUBLE STANDARD. There was no evidence of Trump wrong doing yet we had two years of investigations and now an impeachment inquiry. Typical.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,572

    Trump is not in trouble. Schiff should be for lying bold faced to the American people. He said it was the essence of the conversation and the conversation was nothing like what he said. Schiff even admitted as much later. He should resign or be impeached himself. He is a disgrace.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,774

    @reformed posted:

    I'm only going to focus on one thing. "There's no evidence of BIden wrong doing." DOUBLE STANDARD. There was no evidence of Trump wrong doing yet we had two years of investigations and now an impeachment inquiry. Typical.


    A twofer! Not only does your post inartfully dodge the question I've asked you two times now as to whether by YOUR OWN standards Donald Trump is unfit for office because he created a "false narrative" during the performance of his official duties, it ALSO inartfully dodges the four bullet points I posted to demonstrate the Trump campaign's collusion with Russia, matters of fact to which I've drawn your attention at least twice in our exchange.

    And as if a twofer isn't impressive enough, your post adds to the absurdity of your claims by its assertion that there is "no evidence of Trump wrongdoing." The Mueller report concluded via sworn testimony that Donald Trump asked his White House counsel both to fire Robert Mueller and to create an official record that said the president never asked him to do so. In your view, that wasn't wrongdoing?

    And of course there are the other nine examples of obstructive acts detailed in the Mueller report, at least two of which - more like at least four of which - most any federal prosecutor in the country would have have charged as obstruction of justice had they been committed by anyone other than the president of the United States, who by DOJ guidelines can't be indicted while in office.

    All-in-all, an impressive post, @reformed. In fact, typical.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,572

    The Trump campaign did not do anything illegal. So I really don't care. There was no obstruction. Not one shred of evidence of obstruction. Mueller has no credibility.


    What was the false narrative Trump created?

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,230

    Mr. Reformed,

    You're taking things far too personal. You're too emotional! Take a step back. What about all the falsehoods Trump made since being in office. Don't become like Trump, unhinged. CM

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,774

    @reformed posted:

    The Trump campaign did not do anything illegal. So I really don't care.

    You follow up your twofer with some good old-fashioned moving of the goal posts!

    Earlier in our exchange, you "cared" about evidence of the Trump campaign's collusion with Russia. Now that I've pointed to just some of that evidence, you change your standard to the campaign's illegal conduct. A creative play.

    I applaud the fact that your new standard for "caring" about a presidential campaign's conduct is whether it does anything illegal. You obviously have learned what a lot of us haven't learned: If a behavior isn't illegal, then there's nothing wrong with it. I'll never forgive my parents for teaching me that some conduct is wrong even if it's not illegal.

    But this does explain why you're not bothered by the thousands of false and misleading statements the president has made while in office. In most cases, it's not illegal for a president to lie, so you "really don't care." I appreciate your high moral and ethical standards. [For any readers who DO care about presidential lying, review his appearances yesterday. One example: He said the summary the White House released of his July 25 phone call with the Ukranian president was a "word-for-word, comma-for-comma" "exact transcript," yet the "CAUTION" at the bottom of the first page of the summary says the document "is not a verbatim transcript."]



    There was no obstruction. Not one shred of evidence of obstruction. Mueller has no credibility.

    Hear no evil. See no evil. Speak no evil. Read no evil... especially if it's sworn testimony in Volume II of the Mueller report.

    Don McGahn testified under oath that the president asked him to fire Robert Mueller and to create an official White House record that made it look like he hadn't asked him to do so. Are you saying the Mueller report lied about McGahn's testimony? If it did, why hasn't McGahn objected to the report's summary of his testimony? Are you saying McGahn lied under oath? If yes, what is the factual basis for your claim? If you believe the report is accurate about McGahn's testimony, are you saying such a presidential action was NOT an obstruction of justice?



    What was the false narrative Trump created?

    For the third time in this thread I post the following question, which now and in both of its previous appearances included two examples of false presidential narratives. Please answer the question directly and without further distraction or evasion.

    But there's one key question for you to answer, @reformed, probably after I ask it of you another four or five times: [EDIT: Was THAT prediction ever on target!] Your standard for persons serving in public office seems to be that those who lie or other provide "false narratives" in the performance of their duties aren't "fit for office and must be removed." Aboard Air Force One on April 5, 2018, President Trump said he knew nothing about a $130,000 hush payment made to Stormy Daniels. That was false, part of his false narrative about his relationship with Daniels. By the standard to which you hold "pencil neck" Adam Schiff, since Mr Trump offered a false narrative in the performance of his duties, is President Trump also "truly not fit for office and must be removed"? Please answer directly. (NOTE: I could provide dozens, scores, hundreds, even thousands of other "false narratives" Mr Trump has offered in the performance of his duties - for example, the false narrative that China is paying the tariffs Mr Trump imposed - but one (or two) will suffice for now.)

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,572

    You also need to look at what was false. Schiff is a matter of Naitonal Security. Daniels is not.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,774

    @reformed posted:

    You also need to look at what was false. Schiff is a matter of Naitonal Security. Daniels is not.


    In THIS POST you asserted...

    "Trump is not in trouble. Schiff should be for lying bold faced to the American people. He said it was the essence of the conversation and the conversation was nothing like what he said. Schiff even admitted as much later. He should resign or be impeached himself. He is a disgrace."


    So your view was that Schiff "should resign or be impeached himself" for "lying bold faced to the American people."  Aboard Air Force One on April 5, 2018 President Trump "lied bold faced to the American people" about whether he knew about the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels (and yes that WAS a national security matter in that the secret payment could have been used to blackmail the president - and blackmail of executive branch members is ALWAYS a national security concern). Using YOUR standard - that those who lie "bold faced to the American people" should "resign or be impeached" - don't you have to call for Mr Trump's resignation or impeachment?

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,774

    @reformed posted:

    Again, comparing apples and oranges.

    Now I'm confused.

    It sure seemed to me that when you wrote "Trump is not in trouble. Schiff should be for lying bold faced to the American people. He said it was the essence of the conversation and the conversation was nothing like what he said. Schiff even admitted as much later. He should resign or be impeached himself. He is a disgrace" you were saying that you believe those who lie "bold faced to the American people" "should resign or be impeached." Is that NOT your standard? Perhaps it's only your standard for Adam Schiff? or other Democrats? Do you have a different standard for Donald Trump? Do you believe the president CAN lie "bold faced to the American people" WITHOUT getting "in trouble" or having to "resign or be impeached"? If so, why do you exempt him from the standard to which you hold Schiff?


    o

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,774
    edited October 4


    @reformed posted:

    Apparently you need to re-read the thread.

    No. Apparently YOU need to answer the questions I posed in my last post, NONE of which is addressed by your latest seven word reply. Specifically, my questions are:

    1. Regarding elected federal officials, is it your standard that if they lie "bold faced to the American people" they should "resign or be impeached"?
    2. If not for all elected federal officials, it that your standard only for Adam Schiff or other Democrats?
    3. Do you have a different standard for Donald Trump? If so, what is it?
    4. Do you believe the president can lie "bold faced to the American people" WITHOUT getting "in trouble" or having to "resign or be impeached"? If so, why do you exempt Mr Trump from the standard to which you hold Schiff?


  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,572

    Re-read and you will see it. Especially my answer when you brought up the Stormy Daniels nonsense.

Sign In or Register to comment.