Adam Schiff censured

[Vanellus]

So what are the exact words of this alleged lie?

 

[childeye 2]

Pssst.... not everything is about Trump

Not even this thread.

It's about Schiff, I grant you that. But even though they won't say what it is that Schiff said, I'm reading between the lines that it's about Russia collusion, and the Trump/Zelensky phone conversation.

 

[Always in His Presence]

It's about Schiff, I grant you that. But even though they won't say what it is that Schiff said, I'm reading between the lines that it's about Russia collusion, and the Trump/Zelensky phone conversation.

They have said. Multiple times. I have provided additional links as examples. Denying they said anything is not valid when they have been talking about it for three years.

Perhaps you need a new news source.

 

[Aldebaran]

So what are the exact words of this alleged lie?

He wasn't censured for "exact words". He was censured for a pattern of slander and misinformation.

 

[Vanellus]

He wasn't censured for "exact words". He was censured for a pattern of slander and misinformation.

Doesn't a "pattern of slander and misinformation" need actual words? What are they?

 

[Always in His Presence]

Doesn't a "pattern of slander and misinformation" need actual words? What are they?

Post 253
Post 260
Post 261

 

[Vanellus]

Post 253
Post 260
Post 261

261 is about defining what a censure is. The other two are just links to biased media such as Biz Pac Review

How about you yourself specifying what Schiff's alleged falsehoods are, rather than just providing links. If you've read the links yourself you should know what the alleged falsehoods actually are. Share them with the forum so we can know what they are. Why are you so reluctant to do that?

Bizpac Review Media Bias Rating

Learn the AllSides Media Bias Rating of Bizpac Review. AllSides rates the media bias of hundreds of news outlets, media sources and writers.

www.allsides.com

About Bizpac Review​

Bizpac Review is a news media source with an AllSides Media Bias Rating™ of Right.

What a "Right" Rating Means​

Sources with an AllSides Media Bias Rating of Right display media bias in ways that strongly align with conservative, traditional, or right-wing thought and/or policy agendas. A Right bias is the most conservative rating on the political spectrum.

Learn more about Right ratings

Details​

In August 2020, an AllSides editor conducted an independent review of Bizpac Review and gave them a Right bias rating. Bizpac Review's reporting and editorial pages favor topics and language that appeal to a conservative audience.

 

[JustOneWay]

Post 253
Post 260
Post 261

Post 253 - paywall

Post 260 - This one has teeth. Everybody knew what Schiff meant, and admitting that trump did not actually say "If you don't understand me, I'm going to say it seven more times" It was more of a stupid attempt at humor than a lie, but he will be held to account for ridicule against a man who continually ridicules others, just usually not in places where ridicule warrants rebuke. A censure is warranted.

Post 261 - nothing there.

 

[Always in His Presence]

We can accurately present the information - and that is all we can do.

If you are thoroughly convinced of your position. Go with it.

 

[Vanellus]

We can accurately present the information - and that is all we can do.

If you are thoroughly convinced of your position. Go with it.

The one thing I'm convinced of is that no one, themselves, has written down in a post in this thread what Schiff's alleged falsehoods are supposed to be.

 

[childeye 2]

They have said. Multiple times. I have provided additional links as examples. Denying they said anything is not valid when they have been talking about it for three years.

Perhaps you need a new news source.

Respectfully, you're mistaken, they do not say, and they have not been saying it for three years.

This is the first thing said in the house resolution dated June 9:
Whereas the allegation that President Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal 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;

It doesn't say above to what they are referring so the articles you posted as "examples" are not applicable. The above statement as worded implies to me not only that they believe collusion was investigated and proven false but that they also believe Durham proved that a conspiracy theory of collusion with Russia was invented by political rivals. Otherwise, hidden behind the semantics, they most likely are just referring to the Steele dossier which was opposition research.


Here's is an example of real evidence of Trump campaign collusion/cooperation right here and they can't assert it didn't happen:
Don junior emails
Stone indictment

 

[disciple Clint]

I did read the opinion pieces you posted. Their opinions aside, there were no specific falsehoods detailed, let alone evidence provided that proved any statements false.

And nothing directly from the House Ethics committee, detailing what specific falsehoods led to the censure. Only opinions offered about what those falsehoods might be.

So, while I respect everyone's right to hold an opinion, even if that opinion has no factual basis, I'm afraid I can't accept your opinion pieces as proof that Rep. Schiff's censure was based on any specific or deliberate falsehoods.

-- A2SG, but nice try. Gotta appreciate the effort.....

Try getting to the articles that you said were behind a paywall for you there are simple ways to do that, the facts are out there.

 

[A2SG]

Try getting to the articles that you said were behind a paywall for you there are simple ways to do that, the facts are out there.

If you already have access to the full articles, why not simply post the specific falsehoods that led to Rep. Schiff's censure (along with the requisite proof that they are false, and Schiff knew it), and we'll all be able to discuss the issue knowledgeably, rather than depend on conjecture and assumptions.

Surely, if you're interested in a knowledgeable, informed discussion of the specific reasons behind Schiff's censure, that'd be easy to do.

Right?

-- A2SG, why make me go through hoops you've already gone through............

 

[disciple Clint]

Other search engines are available!

But even the following posts don't give the exact words that constitute Schiff's alleged lies. (I'm not referring to the links here.) If you are confident that Schiff has lied then why not, yourself, write down what you think those lies are (the exact words) rather than link opinion pieces?

Very well, he lied repeatedly but one example:
In an interview on MSNBC’s “Meet the Press Daily,” host Chuck Todd asked if Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, currently has a circumstantial case.

“Actually, no, Chuck. I can tell you that the case is more than that. And I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now,” Schiff said.


Asked if he’s seen direct evidence of collusion, Schiff said, “I don’t to want go into specifics, but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial, and it very much worthy of investigation. So, that is what we ought to do.” Adam Schiff says there's "more than circumstantial evidence" of Trump-Russia collusion

 

[A2SG]

Very well, he lied repeatedly but one example:
In an interview on MSNBC’s “Meet the Press Daily,” host Chuck Todd asked if Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, currently has a circumstantial case.

“Actually, no, Chuck. I can tell you that the case is more than that. And I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now,” Schiff said.


Asked if he’s seen direct evidence of collusion, Schiff said, “I don’t to want go into specifics, but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial, and it very much worthy of investigation. So, that is what we ought to do.” Adam Schiff says there's "more than circumstantial evidence" of Trump-Russia collusion

Okay, that's half of it. Now where's the proof that there isn't evidence beyond the circumstantial (which we certainly do know exists)?

You want to claim Schiff's comment is a lie, then you have to demonstrate that it's false, and that Schiff knew it was false.

So, finish the job.

-- A2SG, we'll wait.....

 

[disciple Clint]

Okay, that's half of it. Now where's the proof that there isn't evidence beyond the circumstantial (which we certainly do know exists)?

You want to claim Schiff's comment is a lie, then you have to demonstrate that it's false, and that Schiff knew it was false.

So, finish the job.

-- A2SG, we'll wait.....

the proof is in the Durram report which you obviously have not read. In short there never was a basis for the investigation and no evidence of any potential crime.

 

[A2SG]

the proof is in the Durram report which you obviously have not read.

True enough. If you have, would you care to detail that proof for us here?

In short there never was a basis for the investigation and no evidence of any potential crime.

If you mean Schiff's censure, the investigation seems to be currently ongoing, after the censure vote.

If you mean Trump's ties to Russia and Russian operatives, the basis for that has been demonstrated. There was no criminal indictment for that, though, just an impeachment while he was still in office. As to the evidence for the impeachment vote, the Senate elected not to view any of it before voting.

If you are continuing to claim that Schiff's statement that there is more than circumstantial evidence of Russian collusion is false, then it's up to you to demonstrate that. Good luck!

-- A2SG, know it's tough to prove a negative, but you made the claim, backing it up is your problem......

 

[SimplyMe]

True enough. If you have, would you care to detail that proof for us here?


If you mean Schiff's censure, the investigation seems to be currently ongoing, after the censure vote.

If you mean Trump's ties to Russia and Russian operatives, the basis for that has been demonstrated. There was no criminal indictment for that, though, just an impeachment while he was still in office. As to the evidence for the impeachment vote, the Senate elected not to view any of it before voting.

If you are continuing to claim that Schiff's statement that there is more than circumstantial evidence of Russian collusion is false, then it's up to you to demonstrate that. Good luck!

-- A2SG, know it's tough to prove a negative, but you made the claim, backing it up is your problem......

Just a correction, Trump was never impeached for "Russian collusion." The two impeachments were for the Ukrainian phone call and for Jan. 6.

 

[A2SG]

Just a correction, Trump was never impeached for "Russian collusion." The two impeachments were for the Ukrainian phone call and for Jan. 6.

Good point, thanks!

-- A2SG, and a general thanks for all your excellent, detailed, specific posts...you're a breath of fresh air here!

 

[childeye 2]

the proof is in the Durram report which you obviously have not read. In short there never was a basis for the investigation and no evidence of any potential crime.

How about agreeing to terms? Otherwise, we're not even discussing the same thing as Adam Schiff. Please note that Mueller does not use the term "collusion".

Mueller specifically writes: “Collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law.”

col·lu·sion
NOUN
secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others:

co·op·er·ate
[kōˈäpəˌrāt]
VERB
work jointly toward the same end:

co·or·di·nate
VERB
bring the different elements of (a complex activity or organization) into a relationship that will ensure efficiency or harmony:

Mueller does not use the term "collusion" and he specifically made note of that. Instead, he uses the terms "conspire" and "coordinate". This nuance is probably lost on the general public, but the term "collusion" is about "cooperating" as compared to "coordinating". As pertains to not "coordinating" with the Russian government, please note the qualifier at the end of the following statement "interference activities".

Mueller report:
“Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the [Trump] Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

“we understood coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests.”

“While the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered foreign agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and Wikileaks’s releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.”

Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated — including some associated with the Trump Campaign — deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.

Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.