Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.Pssst.... not everything is about Trump
Not even this thread.
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.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.
He wasn't censured for "exact words". He was censured for a pattern of slander and misinformation.So what are the exact words of this alleged lie?
Doesn't a "pattern of slander and misinformation" need actual words? What are they?He wasn't censured for "exact words". He was censured for a pattern of slander and misinformation.
Post 253Doesn't a "pattern of slander and misinformation" need actual words? What are they?
261 is about defining what a censure is. The other two are just links to biased media such as Biz Pac ReviewPost 253
Post 260
Post 261
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.
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.We can accurately present the information - and that is all we can do.
If you are thoroughly convinced of your position. Go with it.
Respectfully, you're mistaken, they do not say, and they have not been saying it for three years.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.
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.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.....
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.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.
Very well, he lied repeatedly but one example: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?
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)?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
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.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.....
True enough. If you have, would you care to detail that proof for us here?the proof is in the Durram report which you obviously have not read.
If you mean Schiff's censure, the investigation seems to be currently ongoing, after the censure vote.In short there never was a basis for the investigation and no evidence of any potential crime.
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......
Good point, thanks!Just a correction, Trump was never impeached for "Russian collusion." The two impeachments were for the Ukrainian phone call and for Jan. 6.
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".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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?