Adam Schiff Must Resign

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?

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.

And you're as eloquent as ever.

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.)

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?

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

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."]

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?

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.)

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?

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

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?