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.
This is what I like to call 'manufactured outrage'It was the information that was deleted from the supposed screen shot that changed the meaning, you have the free will to choose whether to be honest or pretend it didn't happen. Certainly disbarment and heavy sanctions are warranted against Schiff. It wasn't the committee, it was Schiff. He's an attorney who doctored evidence in order to make it look like the text was authored by Jordan and that Pence was simply told not to count votes he didn't like instead of those that may have been un-Constitutional. If the Democrats fail to take action against Schiff I think more people will realize just what a sham investigation it is. We have Americans abandoned in Afghanistan, out of control inflation, cartels increasing sex trafficking and drugs through the border, rampant crime, and all these people want to do is attack those who dare to disagree with their radical agenda.
How did it change the meaning? If you make that claim you have to be wiling and able to show a difference. So far no one has even tried to do so on the Republican side. And even with the explanation and the idea that he copied it from someone else does not change the fact that he did try to support an unconstitutional rejection of votes. Didn't he even vote to do that?It was the information that was deleted from the supposed screen shot that changed the meaning, you have the free will to choose whether to be honest or pretend it didn't happen. Certainly disbarment and heavy sanctions are warranted against Schiff. It wasn't the committee, it was Schiff. He's an attorney who doctored evidence in order to make it look like the text was authored by Jordan and that Pence was simply told not to count votes he didn't like instead of those that may have been un-Constitutional. If the Democrats fail to take action against Schiff I think more people will realize just what a sham investigation it is. We have Americans abandoned in Afghanistan, out of control inflation, cartels increasing sex trafficking and drugs through the border, rampant crime, and all these people want to do is attack those who dare to disagree with their radical agenda.
This is what I like to call 'manufactured outrage'
It was the information that was deleted from the supposed screen shot that changed the meaning, you have the free will to choose whether to be honest or pretend it didn't happen. Certainly disbarment and heavy sanctions are warranted against Schiff. It wasn't the committee, it was Schiff. He's an attorney who doctored evidence in order to make it look like the text was authored by Jordan and that Pence was simply told not to count votes he didn't like instead of those that may have been un-Constitutional. If the Democrats fail to take action against Schiff I think more people will realize just what a sham investigation it is. We have Americans abandoned in Afghanistan, out of control inflation, cartels increasing sex trafficking and drugs through the border, rampant crime, and all these people want to do is attack those who dare to disagree with their radical agenda.
He did it to own the cons!He's an attorney, OBVIOUSLY that thought it would be a good idea to manufacture evidence. Because every attorney knows how good of an idea that is. And certainly, he's clever enough to realize that what he's doing isn't going to be highly scrutinized by barely reasonable people. So OBVIOUSLY he did that.
I mean, it
just
makes
sense!
I think that those that are making the claims against Schiff are now merely following Republican rhetoric. The repeat claims that they hear from others on their side, but no one seems to be able to justify those claims. It is still crickets when we ask how the meaning of the post was changed at all by editing out the fact that it was a bogus legal argument from an attorney that should have known better.This is the post:
"On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all the electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all "
In your critique of what was written about Pence, you indicate he was:
"... told not to count votes he didn't like instead of those that may have been un-Constitutional"
My emphasis for both.
It seems a dereliction of reason to become angry at someone when you don't even recognize what they are saying. Do you not understand what was said Shiff's summary post?
We have a corrupt government, and it's not going to get better until our servants in Washington are held accountable. Transparency and accountability are the keys. When a politician breaks the law he or she should be held to the same standard as everyone else. Due process should apply to everyone. As to legislation, we should demand that the bills are made public and examined before voted upon. Our two party system is broken.Anger is all some have left and they’ll gin it up over anything.
“Get the money out of politics,” was abandoned in Citizens United.We have a corrupt government, and it's not going to get better until our servants in Washington are held accountable. Transparency and accountability are the keys. When a politician breaks the law he or she should be held to the same standard as everyone else. Due process should apply to everyone. As to legislation, we should demand that the bills are made public and examined before voted upon. Our two party system is broken.
Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. We are still waiting for the change in meaning by Schiff.We have a corrupt government, and it's not going to get better until our servants in Washington are held accountable. Transparency and accountability are the keys. When a politician breaks the law he or she should be held to the same standard as everyone else. Due process should apply to everyone. As to legislation, we should demand that the bills are made public and examined before voted upon. Our two party system is broken.
As I said, you can pretend if you want to or be truthful. If the Democrats have integrity they will sanction him.Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. We are still waiting for the change in meaning by Schiff.
You should not even imply that people are "pretending". That is a clear personal attack. Why can't you explain how leaving out that quote meaningfully changed the message. It is not a good sign that you cannot support the Republican rhetoric.As I said, you can pretend if you want to or be truthful. If the Democrats have integrity they will sanction him.
People indeed have a choice, you decided to acknowledge that words were left out. The words left out were a legal reason was left out, and the other problem that the words were attributed to someone who was not the author. There is a huge difference between saying, for example, don't count votes for Joe Smith and saying don't count votes for Joe Smith that were not legally cast. Schiff was not making a comment, Schiff was presenting a supposed screenshot as evidence before a select Congressional committee--evidence that Schiff had doctored. No matter what the impact on the committee the crime is in the doctoring evidence to misrepresent the author of the text and the meaning.You should not even imply that people are "pretending". That is a clear personal attack. Why can't you explain how leaving out that quote meaningfully changed the message. It is not a good sign that you cannot support the Republican rhetoric.
You don't seem to understand what shiffs post even said.People indeed have a choice, you decided to acknowledge that words were left out. The words left out were a legal reason was left out, and the other problem that the words were attributed to someone who was not the author. There is a huge difference between saying, for example, don't count votes for Joe Smith and saying don't count votes for Joe Smith that were not legally cast. Schiff was not making a comment, Schiff was presenting a supposed screenshot as evidence before a select Congressional committee--evidence that Schiff had doctored. No matter what the impact on the committee the crime is in the doctoring evidence to misrepresent the author of the text and the meaning.
No, the words left out were not a legal reason. They were a failed argument. One should try to learn the difference. So the action he wanted to take was based upon a failed argument. So what? How does leaving out the bogus argument change the message?People indeed have a choice, you decided to acknowledge that words were left out. The words left out were a legal reason was left out, and the other problem that the words were attributed to someone who was not the author. There is a huge difference between saying, for example, don't count votes for Joe Smith and saying don't count votes for Joe Smith that were not legally cast. Schiff was not making a comment, Schiff was presenting a supposed screenshot as evidence before a select Congressional committee--evidence that Schiff had doctored. No matter what the impact on the committee the crime is in the doctoring evidence to misrepresent the author of the text and the meaning.
To tamper with evidence he would have had to have significantly changed the meaning of the message. No one has shown that he did that, even though we have requested that many times over.You don't seem to understand the gravity of an attorney, sworn to follow the law, tampering with evidence.
False, I just did. Look, the committee should be focusing on why the Capitol was breached and seeing that the instigators and the those who committed acts of violence are prosecuted. Why haven't they done this? Why hasn't the person with the bullhorn who directed people to move toward the Capitol after it was breached been prosecuted? Or the guy who removed the barricades and warning signs so that people did not know they had trespassed? You can see them on the recordings.! Along with the copy who gunned down an unarmed 110 lb woman!To tamper with evidence he would have had to have significantly changed the meaning of the message. No one has shown that he did that, even though we have requested that many times over.
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?