Best President ever

[stevil]

Somehow we went from

Adam Schiff said he had proof that Trump colluded with Russia and the media reported on it daily.

To all of a sudden pulling out a Federalist article claiming that Schiff lied in the FISA memo that Schiff released.

To be clear these are two different subjects. The FISA memo does not claim that Schiff has proof of Trump colluding with Russia.

But anyway lets look at the link you provided

https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110281/documents/HHRG-116-JU00-20191204-SD1284.pdf

IG Report Confirms Schiff

First up we should be very weary of anything The Federalist claims. It's is a source that is going to feed you misinformation and propoganda.

The Federalist - Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no

mediabiasfactcheck.com

• Overall, we rate The Federalist Questionable and far-Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that always favor the right and promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, and numerous failed fact checks.

Questionable Reasoning: Conspiracy Theories, Propaganda, Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: RIGHT (7.8)
Factual Reporting: MIXED (6.4)


Here is another website that claims both the Nunes and Schiff memos were questionable

Nunes Memo v Schiff Memo: Neither Were Entirely Right - emptywheel

It turns out the Nunes Memo and the Schiff Memo got stuff wrong and got stuff right. This post uses the IG Report to test the claims made in both.

www.emptywheel.net

Nunes trying to make the Steele dossier stand in for and discredit the entire investigation, and Schiff trying to point out that the Steele dossier did not predicate the entire Russia investigation.

Nunes made dishonest claims about the Ohrs and Comey’s briefing of the Steele dossier to Trump.

Schiff wrongly defended the FBI’s treatment of the September 23, 2016 Michael Isikoff story and overstated the known reliability of the dossier at the time of the memo, to which additional details were added by the IG Report.


Now I'm not sure if it is worth my time or your time to pick apart what either Nunes or Schiff said in their memo's we can agree that that neither are 100% accurate. But these memos don't address your claim that

Adam Schiff said he had proof that Trump colluded with Russia and the media reported on it daily.

and whether that turned out to be true of false.


Ultimately what the running conspiracy is that the Right wing folk think that without the Steele Dossier there never would have been a Russian collusion investigation. And this is demonstrably false.

The FBI opened the investigation on July 31 based off the Australian tip, and the Crossfire Hurricane team only got the Steele dossier information on September 19.

 

[stevil]

Really ? you don’t like cricket?

Perhaps the only thing like talking to a right wing USA person is how their flag has three colours

 

[probinson]

They aren't equal in terms of spreading nonsense propaganda.

Yes, yes they are. in fact, since Trump's election, the left has gone into overdrive in pushing all sorts of nonsense propaganda.

As an independent, I can see the "nonsense propaganda" from both sides clearly. It would appear I'm not alone.

Democrats currently have the lowest approval rating ever recorded at just 27%.

Just over a quarter of registered voters (27%) say they have positive views of the party, which is the party’s lowest positive rating in NBC News polling dating back to 1990. Just 7% say those views are “very” positive.​

​

Democratic Party hits new polling low, while its voters want to fight Trump harder

Unlike in Trump’s first term, Democratic voters say 2-to-1 they want party leaders to fight rather than compromise, even at the risk of not getting things done, per the NBC News poll.

www.nbcnews.com

​

 

[BPPLEE]

Somehow we went from


To all of a sudden pulling out a Federalist article claiming that Schiff lied in the FISA memo that Schiff released.

To be clear these are two different subjects. The FISA memo does not claim that Schiff has proof of Trump colluding with Russia.

But anyway lets look at the link you provided


First up we should be very weary of anything The Federalist claims. It's is a source that is going to feed you misinformation and propoganda.

The Federalist - Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no

mediabiasfactcheck.com

• Overall, we rate The Federalist Questionable and far-Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that always favor the right and promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, and numerous failed fact checks.

Questionable Reasoning: Conspiracy Theories, Propaganda, Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: RIGHT (7.8)
Factual Reporting: MIXED (6.4)


Here is another website that claims both the Nunes and Schiff memos were questionable

Nunes Memo v Schiff Memo: Neither Were Entirely Right - emptywheel

It turns out the Nunes Memo and the Schiff Memo got stuff wrong and got stuff right. This post uses the IG Report to test the claims made in both.

www.emptywheel.net

Nunes trying to make the Steele dossier stand in for and discredit the entire investigation, and Schiff trying to point out that the Steele dossier did not predicate the entire Russia investigation.

Nunes made dishonest claims about the Ohrs and Comey’s briefing of the Steele dossier to Trump.

Schiff wrongly defended the FBI’s treatment of the September 23, 2016 Michael Isikoff story and overstated the known reliability of the dossier at the time of the memo, to which additional details were added by the IG Report.


Now I'm not sure if it is worth my time or your time to pick apart what either Nunes or Schiff said in their memo's we can agree that that neither are 100% accurate. But these memos don't address your claim that

and whether that turned out to be true of false.


Ultimately what the running conspiracy is that the Right wing folk think that without the Steele Dossier there never would have been a Russian collusion investigation. And this is demonstrably false.

The FBI opened the investigation on July 31 based off the Australian tip, and the Crossfire Hurricane team only got the Steele dossier information on September 19.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/21/adam-schiff-collusion-trump-1283786

Schiff: ‘Ample evidence of collusion in plain sight’​

Schiff insisted that his reading of the situation was not wrong.

“The obstruction of justice in particular in this case is far worse than anything that Richard Nixon did,” Schiff told Raddatz, adding: “I would say in every way this is more significant than Watergate.

“And the fact that a candidate for president and now president of the United States would not only not stand up and resist Russian interference in our election but would welcome it goes well beyond anything Nixon did.“

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/521/text

• Whereas for years, Representative Schiff abused this trust by alleging he had evidence of collusion that, as is clear from reports by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, and Special Counsel Durham, never existed;

 

[BPPLEE]

Perhaps the only thing like talking to a right wing USA person is how their flag has three colours

In the USA it's colors

 

[stevil]

In the USA it's colors

I'm sorry you guys have forgotten how to spell English words.

 

[BPPLEE]

I'm sorry you guys have forgotten how to spell English words.

We earned our independence from England a long time ago, we can spell as we choose

 

[stevil]

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/21/adam-schiff-collusion-trump-1283786

Schiff: ‘Ample evidence of collusion in plain sight’​

Schiff insisted that his reading of the situation was not wrong.

“The obstruction of justice in particular in this case is far worse than anything that Richard Nixon did,” Schiff told Raddatz, adding: “I would say in every way this is more significant than Watergate.

“And the fact that a candidate for president and now president of the United States would not only not stand up and resist Russian interference in our election but would welcome it goes well beyond anything Nixon did.“

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/521/text

• Whereas for years, Representative Schiff abused this trust by alleging he had evidence of collusion that, as is clear from reports by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, and Special Counsel Durham, never existed;

There are two things here, right?
1. evidence of collusion
2. evidence of obstruction

Robert Mueller provided accounts of evidence for both in his final report.
There was collusion, but not enough to account for criminal intent. Trump Jr and other members of the campaign team met with the Russians in Trump tower. Paul Manafot was sharing polling data with the Russians.

Trump fired Comey in an attempt to kill the FBI Russian investigation.

 

[stevil]

We earned our independence from England a long time ago, we can spell as we choose

And unfortunately you lost your ability to spell correctly.

 

[BPPLEE]

There are two things here, right?
1. evidence of collusion
2. evidence of obstruction

Robert Mueller provided accounts of evidence for both in his final report.
There was collusion, but not enough to account for criminal intent. Trump Jr and other members of the campaign team met with the Russians in Trump tower. Paul Manafot was sharing polling data with the Russians.

Trump fired Comey in an attempt to kill the FBI Russian investigation.

Read the report on the censure.
Schiff claimed there was evidence that never existed

• Whereas for years, Representative Schiff abused this trust by alleging he had evidence of collusion that, as is clear from reports by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, and Special Counsel Durham, never existed;

 

[stevil]

Read the report on the censure.
Schiff claimed there was evidence that never existed

• Whereas for years, Representative Schiff abused this trust by alleging he had evidence of collusion that, as is clear from reports by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, and Special Counsel Durham, never existed;

Are you specifically talking about evidence of collusion or evidence of criminal intent?

 

[BPPLEE]

Are you specifically talking about evidence of collusion or evidence of criminal intent?

• Whereas for years, Representative Schiff abused this trust by alleging he had evidence of COLLUSION that, as is clear from reports by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, and Special Counsel Durham, never existed;

 

[stevil]

• Whereas for years, Representative Schiff abused this trust by alleging he had evidence of COLLUSION that, as is clear from reports by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, and Special Counsel Durham, never existed;

Do you not think sharing polling data with the Russian's is collusion?
Do you not think meeting with the Russian's in Trump tower to get dirt on Hilary was collusion?

 

[BPPLEE]

Do you not think sharing polling data with the Russian's is collusion?
Do you not think meeting with the Russian's in Trump tower to get dirt on Hilary was collusion?

I think paying a British spy to get dirt on Trump from the Russians is collusion, and using this opposition research to get a FISA warrant is unconscionable.
But you have been shown that Schiff lied yet you continue to try to defend him, as you do any Democrat

 

[stevil]

I think paying a British spy to get dirt on Trump from the Russians is collusion, and using this opposition research to get a FISA warrant is unconscionable.
But you have been shown that Schiff lied yet you continue to try to defend him, as you do any Democrat

USA politics is all about smears. Everyone does opposition research. There is nothing unusual about the Democrats paying for opposition research.

Schiff said there was evidence of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and Russia and there was. I've stated just a couple of instances, and you have refused to address those incidents.
I'm not saying Schiff never lies. But he was correct that there was evidence of collusion.

 

[probinson]

Ironically, the left's campaign in conjunction with the media to claim there were Russian bots interfering in our elections via disinformation in social media posts was itself a disinformation propaganda campaign.

The media fell head over heels for a shoddy propaganda operation spearheaded by an ex-FBI agent. Twitter, internally, understood the operation to be partisan hackery but never spoke out. Organizations full of influential ex-government officials promoted the operation. And it’s only thanks to Matt Taibbi’s most recent contribution to “The Twitter Files” that we know the full extent of institutional corruption in the mind-boggling case of Hamilton 68.​

​

...​

​

As Taibbi wrote, “The secret ingredient in Hamilton 68’s analytic method was a list of 644 accounts supposedly linked ‘to Russian influence activities online.’ It was hidden from the public, but Twitter was in a unique position to recreate Hamilton’s sample by analyzing its Application Program Interface (API) requests, which is how they first ‘reverse-engineered’ Hamilton’s list in late 2017.”​

​

The files unearthed by Taibbi show Twitter’s internal audit of the Hamilton 68 list found it to be, in the words of former executive Yoel Roth, “bulli----.”​

​

“These accounts are neither strongly Russian nor strongly bots,” another employee said. What Hamilton 68 was passing off as foreign disinformation was largely legitimate speech from anti-establishment American tweeters. Here’s Roth again: “Virtually any conclusion drawn from [the dashboard] will take conversations in conservative circles on Twitter and accuse them of being Russian.”​

​

Hamilton 68 Saga Illustrates Scope Of America’s Institutional Rot

Thanks to Taibbi’s recent contribution to 'The Twitter Files,' we know the full extent of institutional corruption wrapped up in Hamilton 68.

thefederalist.com

​

 

[BPPLEE]

USA politics is all about smears. Everyone does opposition research. There is nothing unusual about the Democrats paying for opposition research.

Schiff said there was evidence of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and Russia and there was. I've stated just a couple of instances, and you have refused to address those incidents.
I'm not saying Schiff never lies. But he was correct that there was evidence of collusion.

He was censored for his lies. If there's evidence that Trump colluded with Russia what was he charged with?
And I see you think it's okay for Hillary Clinton to get opposition research from the Russians but a meeting in Trump Tower is collusion

 

[JSRG]

And unfortunately you lost your ability to spell correctly.

Americans didn't change English spellings, at least not any more than the British did. The truth is, spelling was generally not particularly standardized for quite a while, and for words like colo(u)r and hono(u)r, both were used in English. For example, Shakespeare repeatedly used "honor" without the U. Eventually, when there was a greater attempt at standardization in spelling, those in America mostly used the -or spellings whereas the British mostly used the -our spellings, though there are some exceptions (the British, for example, still dropped off the U in "errour").

I would also say that where they differ, the American spellings normally make more sense. Certainly, words like "center" match the pronunciation significantly more than "centre" does. Granted, in the sea of nonsensical English spellings these are a small amount, but the American spellings are at least a step towards something resembling spelling coherence.

 

[stevil]

He was censored for his lies. If there's evidence that Trump colluded with Russia what was he charged with?
And I see you think it's okay for Hillary Clinton to get opposition research from the Russians but a meeting in Trump Tower is collusion

There is a difference between collusion vs criminal conspiracy.

Donald Trump as sitting president was never investigated nor criminally charged.
I really do think many people get confused on this matter. Only non D Trump members of the 2016 presidential campaign were investigated and were in jeopardy of any indictments.

 

[stevil]

He was censored for his lies. If there's evidence that Trump colluded with Russia what was he charged with?
And I see you think it's okay for Hillary Clinton to get opposition research from the Russians but a meeting in Trump Tower is collusion

It is ok to get opposition research, You don't have to be Hilary Clinton. Opposition research is fine for everyone.

It is not ok for foriegn countries to illegally interfere in the USA presidential election and it is not ok for USA citizens to help foriegn countries in illegally interfering in USA presidential elections.