Adam Schiff Must Resign
Comments
-
@reformed posted:
Re-read and you will see it. Especially my answer when you brought up the Stormy Daniels nonsense.
Ah! The "national security" argument? Do you seriously believe that a president of the United States' being subject to blackmail because of his or her past conduct is NOT a national security concern? If so, my goodness are you wrong about that.
That aside, we now know that you believe presidents may lie "bold faced to the American people" about their extra marital affairs with porn stars. I'll send Adam Schiff a note recommending that the next time he offers a parody, he needs to make it about the extra marital affair with a porn star... that he's never had.
-
It was only a "parody" after he was called out on it. He was hoping he wouldn't be called out. You know it and I know it. In his deranged mind he really believes that is what happened despite evidence to the contrary.
-
@reformed posted:
It was only a "parody" after he was called out on it. He was hoping he wouldn't be called out. You know it and I know it. In his deranged mind he really believes that is what happened despite evidence to the contrary.
Anyone who has ever heard someone say of another driver, "He came flyin' down the street at a hundred miles an hour!" and knew the other driver hadn't actually been "flyin'" and was very likely not traveling at 100mph knows what Adam Schiff meant when of the Trump-Zelenskyy call he said, "What those notes reflect is a classic mafia-like shakedown of a foreign leader," and to characterize part of Trump's presentation to the Ukrainian leader he said, "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." Anyone who's understood the meaning of such a description of a fast moving vehicle knows that Schiff didn't mean the call actually WAS a Mafia shakedown, and that the reference to the number of times Trump was going to repeat the "favor" he requested might not have been meant as an actual count or to assert that Trump actually said anything about how many times he intended to repeat it.
And if it wasn't clear from Schiff's word choice and voice tone that he was taking dramatic license with the call's content, then when he said in his opening statement that "Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the President communicates," and "This is in sum and character what the President was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine," it should have been.
The final point about Schiff's statement is that his characterization of the call was accurate in most respects. I can't believe I have to do this (posters in these forums could have made this comparison on their own) but here's a comparison of major points from Schiff's statement and the call memorandum:
SCHIFF: "Zelensky begins by ingratiating himself and he tries to enlist the support of the President. He expresses his interest in meeting with the President and says his country wants to acquire more weapons from us to defend itself."
TRANSCRIPT (Zelenskyy): "You are absolutely right Mr. President. We did win big and we worked hard for this. We worked a lot but I would like to confess to you that I had an opportunity to learn from you. We used quite a few of your skills and knowledge and were able to use it as an example for our elections and yes it is true that these were unique elections. We were in a unique situation that we were able to achieve a unique success. I'm able to tell you the following: the first time, you called me to congratulate me when I won my presidential election, and the second time you are now calling me when my party won the parliamentary election. I think I should run more often so you can call me more often and we can talk over the phone more often...."
"I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes."
SCHIFF: "And what is the President’s response? Well, 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. [CLEARLY HIS PERSONAL OPINION]
SCHIFF: "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."
TRANSCRIPT (Trump): "I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it's something that you should really ask them about. When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she doesn't do anything. A lot of the European countries are the same way so I think it's something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.... I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it."
SCHIFF: "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." [A "MAFIA TAKEDOWN"-LIKE REFERENCE]
SCHIFF: "I’m going to put you in touch with people, and not just any people. I’m 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."
TRANSCRIPT (Trump): "I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you said yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.... Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great....
"I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I'm sure you will figure it out.
Did Schiff add some dramatic license to his presentation? Yes. But did he have the call's core flow and content right? Yes. Certainly as right as the person who speaks of a driver's "flyin' down the street at a hundred miles an hour!"
-
No he did not have the core right. He added lies to it.
-
@reformed posted:
No he did not have the core right. He added lies to it.
Unsurprisingly, this thirteen word response is no more insightful, informed, or dispositive than your many other 8-20 word responses. If you want others to respond to the substance of your posts, reformed, you first must provide posts that have substance. This one doesn't.
-
I said all that needs to be said. Adam Schiff did nothing but paint a fantasy of what he wants to be real. Nothing to see here. We have the transcript. We can see what was said. This is all nonsense. Move on. I know you guys can't accept that you lost in 2016 but this is beyond ridiculous.
-
Ah the Whistleblower worked in the Obama White House. That's all you need to know folks.
-
@reformed posted:
Ah the Whistleblower worked in the Obama White House. That's all you need to know folks.
And AGAIN you demonstrate your fealty to the axiom, "If you can't beat the message, beat the messenger." No facts. No actual reason to doubt the whistleblower. Just dismissal based on one of the details to which he was professionally assigned, the National Security Council.
How do I know that? By reading what I'm guessing is your source for breaking news flash, an article in Townhall.com. In addition to some false and misleading characterizations about the whistleblower and his or her complaint, the Townhall piece quotes at length from a Washington Examiner story which reports, among other things, the following:
"A retired CIA officer told the Washington Examiner: 'From everything we know about the whistleblower and his work in the executive branch then, there is absolutely no doubt he would have been working with Biden when he was vice president.'
"'As an experienced CIA official on the NSC with the deep knowledge of Ukraine that he demonstrated in his complaint, it is probable that the whistleblower briefed Biden and likely that he accompanied him on Air Force Two during at least one of the six visits the 2020 candidate made to the country.'"
Thank you, reformed. You've alerted us to a MASSIVE scandal! During the Obama administration, an experienced intelligence community professional with "deep knowledge" of Ukraine might have accompanied the vice president on one or more of the VP's trips to Ukraine, of all places! How dare ANY White House leverage professionals with "deep knowledge" of particular countries in their foreign policy! How dare ANY White House leverage intelligence!! The Trump White House sure hasn't leveraged any, and the Kurds in Syria currently under attack by Turkish forces can tell you how THAT'S working out.
You're shooting blanks at a whistleblower you know only by a complaint whose ONLY "error" you have cited is not about an assertion of fact, but rather a one word assertion of personal opinion ("pressured").
-
Showing bias and Democrat double standards Bill. We have seen the transcript and the result? There was no quid pro quo. No pressure. no wrong doing. Whistleblower is obviously a political hack who wasn't even a witness to the conversation and wanted to start a controversy. This is the Russian Investigation 2.0.
-
@reformed posted:
Showing bias and Democrat double standards Bill.
You've shown neither bias nor any double standards. ALL Americans, including people who work in the intelligence community, are have a constitutional right to their personal political views. The issue is NEVER whether people have political views; it's whether those views improperly influence their work product. In the case of the whistleblower, the ICIG commented directly as to the influence of the whistleblower's political views reflected in his or her complaint:
"...although the preliminary review identified some indicia of an arguable political bias on the part of the Complainant in favor of a rival political candidate, such evidence did not change my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern 'appears credible,' particularly given the other information the ICIG obtained during its preliminary review."
Translation? The ICIG identified the existence of political bias, but because of the information he gathered from his OWN investigation of the complaint's contents, concluded the whistleblower's bias did NOT affect the credibility of his or her assertions.
Alternative translation? Even when a Democrat is president, a Republican can tell the truth. Even when a Republican is president, a Democrat can tell the truth.
Your claim is utterly and completely baseless, reformed. EVERYONE - including you - has some form of political bias. By your standard, ONLY a supporter of the president's could be trusted to file a credible whistleblower complaint... even though THAT person would of course suffer from his or her own form of "political bias." And since according to you, "political bias" means we can't trust the "biased" person's work product, we wouldn't be able to trust the Trump supporter's complaint either. Come to think of it, since everyone has political bias, by your logic, we wouldn't be able to trust ANYONE's whistleblower complaint, which would be an absurd and unacceptable outcome.
We have seen the transcript and the result? There was no quid pro quo. No pressure. no wrong doing. Whistleblower is obviously a political hack who wasn't even a witness to the conversation and wanted to start a controversy. This is the Russian Investigation 2.0.
Almost immediately after the president ended his call to the Ukrainian president, White House officials acted to secrete record of that conversation on a special code word server out of concern about the content of the call, and that the president might have committed a crime. You claim to be a person well informed about these matters. If you don't know that what I just asserted is true, then you're not well informed. The reporting on this matter has been widespread, consistent, and credible.
The White House did NOT treat the record of the president's call to Ukraine the way they usually treat calls to other heads of state. It hurriedly hid evidence of the call precisely because those who listened to the call live believed there HAD BEEN pressure and there HAD BEEN a quid pro quo. You have a constitutional right to believe otherwise. But just realize that your "political bias," NOT the facts of the matter, is the only support for your view.
-
Again, this nonsense about what server it is stored on is a red herring. WE HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT IN PUBLIC.
The bias is obvious because is a whistleblower who had no whistle to blow. He did not witness the conversation. The only thing that sparked the controversy was his spin on the conversation he did not witness or have direct knowledge of. A spin that has been shown to be false with the release of the transcript.
-
@reformed posted:
Again, this nonsense about what server it is stored on is a red herring. WE HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT IN PUBLIC.
And yet AGAIN you respond to the final result, but not to the actions that preceded the final result.
Please answer this question DIRECTLY AND WITHOUT EVASION: If there was nothing wrong with the president's call to the Ukrainian leader - if the call's "transcript" could have been released the same day without concern about its content - why did White House lawyers direct that record of the call be secreted to a code word classified server? That's NOT the way the White House normally treats records of presidential calls with foreign leaders. And we both know there is NOTHING in that transcript that needed code word protection. So why did they secrete the record?
YES! Eventually they released it. But before they released it, they hid it! Why?
PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTION DIRECTLY AND WITHOUT EVASION.
The bias is obvious because is a whistleblower who had no whistle to blow. He did not witness the conversation. The only thing that sparked the controversy was his spin on the conversation he did not witness or have direct knowledge of. A spin that has been shown to be false with the release of the transcript.
Here you repeat a claim for which I have on multiple occasions asked that you provide support; not once have you done so.
I think you believe the whistleblower's "spin" on the conversation was that the president "pressured" the Ukrainian leader to investigation Crowdstrike and the Bidens. That happens to be a "spin" with which MANY experts and laypeople agree, as is perhaps best evidenced by the dramatic increase, since release of the whistleblower's complaint, in the percentage of Americans who believe the president should be impeached AND removed from office. Public opinion notwithstanding, the fact remains that you have yet to identify ONE SINGLE ASSERTION OF FACT in the whistleblower's complaint that is false.
You disagree with his or her characterization of the call. Fine. He or she disagrees with you. What does that prove? If what happened during and after the call happened as the whistleblower says it happened - and you have offered NO EVIDENCE that it didn't - then there is STILL cause for alarm.
Have you seen the latest reporting on this matter? That there was great concern about the president's intentions among national security officials BEFORE the call to Ukraine, as well as after it?
You're simply wrong about this, reformed.
-
Again, I'm not interested in discussing speculation. It's a red herring and moot point because we have the transcript. Obviously they had nothing to hide. And, as pointed out before, the Obama Administration did the same thing. I get that you don't accept it as equivalent but that doesn't change that they also did this.
-
@reformed posted:
Again, I'm not interested in discussing speculation. It's a red herring and moot point because we have the transcript. Obviously they had nothing to hide. And, as pointed out before, the Obama Administration did the same thing. I get that you don't accept it as equivalent but that doesn't change that they also did this.
[FIRST, NOTE, THAT I ADDED A SECOND PART TO MY PREVIOUS POST AFTER YOU RESPONDED HERE.]
The fact that you're not willing to answer my question directly proves the emptiness of your case. If you had an answer, you'd give it. But you don't have an answer, so you hide.
The language of your reply prompts a slightly different question... that you won't address because its truthful answer disables your argument: If "[obviously] they had nothing to hide," why did they hide it?
Coming from you, a champion of the "apples and oranges" defense, your disregard for the glaring difference between secreting code word classified material on a code word classified server and secreting material that's clearly NOT code word classified on a code word classified server is jarring. By your logic extended, there's no difference between a person who kills another person out of revenge or spite or for money, and one who kills in self-defense. After all, so your argument says, the fact that one did it in self-defense doesn't change that he or she still killed someone. So they're both killers!
As I said, jarring.
-
Oh brother, another Wapo hit piece full of anonymous sources.
-
@reformed posted:
Oh brother, another Wapo hit piece full of anonymous sources.
And YET AGAIN you evade the core content of one of my posts, choosing to address the messenger (The WAPO) rather than the message.
The journalism from the Post, the NY Times, and the Wall Street Journal, among others, during the Trump administration and prior has been brilliant. Of the hundreds of their stories that cited unnamed sources, only a scant few necessitated a subsequent correction. Their reporting on the whistleblower's complaint was spot-on accurate, we learned once we saw the document.
So your problem is not with the source of the information, reformed. Your problem is with the information itself. How do we know your problem is with the information itself? You won't address it. That's your MO: If the question I ask disrupts your argument, you don't even acknowledge it, let alone answer it, until I ask it five, six, eight, or ten times. And if information I provide disrupts your argument, you attack the messenger - whether it's me or the newspaper or the reporter - rather than the message.
We both know that if you HAD good, on-point answers to the questions I ask and the information I post, you'd give them. But since you don't have such answers, the best you can do is deflect, distract, evade, change the subject, remain silent, or attack the messenger. You've done it again and again and again and again in our exchanges. I see no evidence that your practice is going to change.
-
And if you are dead set on me speculating here it is. There are a bunch of Obama holdovers in the IC and they didn't want word of ongoing investigations trickling down to the Bidens because they are the ones under investigation of corruption and other ongoing matters. That's not a conspiracy, not unusual. That's standard.
