Adam Schiff censured by House for 'false' allegations on Trump-Russia collusion
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • last year • 312 commentsBy: Elizabeth Elkind (Fox News)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to censure Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., for pushing claims that former President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign colluded with Russia — a vote that made Schiff just the third member of the House to be censured since the turn of the century.
The resolution passed 213-209 in a vote — every Republican voted for it except for six who voted "present," and every Democrat voted against it.
Immediately following the vote, Democrats gathered on the floor and chanted "Shame!" and "Disgrace!" as House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., tried to gavel the House in order for several minutes. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., was heard calling McCarthy a "spiteful coward" and accusing him of "weak leadership."
McCarthy then asked Schiff to present himself in the well of the House, and Democrats clapped and cheered as he approached. After being interrupted several times by Democrats, McCarthy said, "I have all night."
Schiff then stood in well of the House as required by the resolution, and was hugged and cheered by dozens of Democrats who surrounded him. The measure also requires the House Committee on Ethics to investigate Schiff's "falsehoods, misrepresentations, and abuses of sensitive information."
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., was censured by the House of Representatives on Wednesday.(Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
It was the second time the House tried to pass a resolution censuring Schiff from Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla. A resolution from Luna failed on the House floor last week because it recommended a fine against Schiff of $16 million, which Democrats and 20 Republicans opposed.
With that language removed, the resolution was able to pass on a party-line vote, which Luna said was needed to fight back against Schiff's "lies" about Trump.
"As chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff launched an all-out political campaign built on baseless distortions against a sitting U.S. president, at the expense of every single citizen in this country and the honor of the House of Representatives," Luna said before the vote. "With access to sensitive information unavailable to most members of Congress and certainly not accessible to the American people, Schiff abused his privileges, claiming to know the truth while leaving Americans in the dark about his web of lies… lies so severe that they altered the course of the country forever."
Schiff spoke in his own defense on the House floor, and thanked Republicans for bringing the resolution forward again.
"To my Republican colleagues who introduced this resolution, I thank you. You honor me with your enmity, you flatter me with this falsehood," Schiff said.
"You, who are the authors of a big lie about the last election, must condemn the truth tellers," he said. "And I stand proudly before you. Your words tell me that I have been effective in the defense of our democracy, and I am grateful."
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., introduced the resolution over Schiff's work on the Trump impeachment.(Win McNamee)
Schiff was a leader of Trump's first impeachment proceeding, which was launched over a phone call made to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in which he tried to leverage U.S. military aid in a bid to get him to announce an investigation of now-President Biden.
Democrats tried to table the resolution to censure Schiff on Wednesday but failed in a 218-208 vote along party lines.
Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not mince words when she accused Republicans of doing Trump's bidding and told them they looked "miserable" in the process.
Schiff was the lead House impeachment manager for Trump's first trial in the Senate.(Scott Olson/Getty Images)
"The other side has turned this chamber where slavery was abolished, where Medicare and Social Security and everything were instituted, they've turned it into a puppet show," Pelosi said. "And you know what? The puppeteer, Donald Trump, is shining a light on the strings. You look miserable. You look miserable… you're wasting time."
The vote is not the first time House Republicans have used their majority in this Congress to target Schiff. McCarthy pulled Schiff off the Intelligence Committee this year for promoting claims that the 2016 Trump campaign was working with Russia, an allegation that was never proven.
Tags
Who is online
416 visitors
Hours ago. You wouldn't know it by watching left wing news!
Listen to the hate filled assholes yelling "Adam!"
oh look, an article about schiff's censure concerning false allegations about trump-russia collusion. too bad republicans still can't cite any of them. I wonder now much this rwnj stunt had to do with durham getting his face rubbed in trump's shit on c-span, or the business of the american taxpayers for that matter...
You must recall the lie about evidence in plain sight?
Don't you know what a lie is anymore?
Your boy Schiff should produce the evidence he CLAIMED he had at the very least or maybe he should just STFU.
... oh, the irony ...
where is Schiffs proof?
? They have no plans or vision.
All one has to do is read the Mueller Report.
Trump and his jailed crew are guilty as sin.
Why would Schiff claim to have evidence if he didn't and was relying on a public document to 'prove' himself?
You mean the report that has been based completely in fiction?
Schiff could have avoided censorship if only he had disclosed all of the damning evidence he had on Trump that he claimed the DOJ/FBI weren't privy to.
How many times did he tell that damn lie?
The only person guilty of colluding with Russia was Schiff. Who was pranked by two Russian content creators into thinking he was going to get the infamous (and fictitious) Trump naked photos.
So take your butt hurt elsewhere. Seems Democrats can't live by the rules they made regarding censorship in the House.
But Comer is ok because his witnesses are dead?
What an interpretation!
You mean the report that couldn't identify any collusion between Trump and Russia. The one that then switched to obstruction.
The one base off of evidence gathered by an illegal investigation started from illegal FISA warrants using the Steele Dossier (fake as hell and they knew it).
How many times did Mueller have to walk back statements on that supposed obstruction during Congressional testimony?
Only TDS driven leftists still trot out the Mueller report. Soon the Jan 6th committee will be filed in the same circular bin of Democrat partisan waste of taxpayer dollar BS.
Better than some we get...
Let's say they've been intimidated.
Who killed them?
Care to answer that question?
Who was intimidated? A lot of accusations one makes without being able to back it up.
OMG. Is this a joke? Don't tell me, the deep state...
Schiff never made any false allegations regarding the former 'president'.
I was just watching the former 'president' talking about the latest indictment and saying it was one of the most horrific abuses of power in the history of the US.
Talk about projection, deflection, and denial - he is describing his former 'presidency' and criminal enterprise of an 'administration'.
And all he has to do is simply show us the evidence he CLAIMED he had.
Easy peasy.
That is what most of us have been asking for all along!
Listen to all the hate filled assholes who support/enable the former 'president'.
[removed]
Here he makes a very good point.
Lies to the American people (and to the world) about very important matters (such as a posited presidential scandal or the integrity of the US electoral system) should be dealt with harshly.
Funny (sickness, not humor) how partisans can only see it in a polarized fashion.
He lied, leaked and abused his position as Chair of the House Intelligence Committee.
Funny how some support the injustice of the big blue state.
It is pathetic how some are so blinded by partisan bias that they constantly engage in one-sided presumption.
You apparently presume that I support Schiff's lying in spite of the fact that I wrote this:
Which posited presidential scandal lies do you think I was referring to?
You seem unable to believe (or even imagine) that someone could find fault on both sides of the aisle.
Get a clue Vic.
Adam "Shifty" Schiff could/would not recognize truth even if he was slapped up side the head with it. Wait a minute, he already has been multiple times and still could not recognize it!
Which lies are you referring to?
Read the seed Greg.
I did. I'm asking specifically the lies you are referring to.
I am referring to the lies indicated by the seed. Lies ≡ false-allegations.
I will rewrite the operative portion of my comment @2:
Lies to the American people (and to the world) about very important matters (such as false allegations underlying a posited presidential scandal or lies about the integrity of the US electoral system) should be dealt with harshly.
Now I want you to lay out every lie or false allegation that you think you see (and please be sure to pick a side)....s/
I see. So you agree with the seed.
What do you think "dealt with harshly " should be?
That is too vague.
I agree that the posited Russia Collusion presidential scandal was found to be false and that allegations based on false facts are false allegations.
I agree that it is wrong to engage in half-baked partisan attacks and that politicians who engage in same are not properly doing their jobs for the people.
And I note that those who recognize how bad it is to make false allegations against a PotUS due to the damage to the nation, should ALSO recognize the damage made by a sitting PotUS who lies that our nation's electoral system is rigged, Biden is not a legitimate PotUS, and countless millions of voters were disenfranchised (for starters).
Clear?
This is a partisan litmus test. Can one recognize wrongs in both cases or only one?
Depends on the circumstances. Obviously. That is why I used abstract language (i.e. "dealt with harshly" vs. "slapped on the wrist").
Not completely, let's try for a little more clarity...
This is a partisan litmus test. Can one recognize that the Mueller report and the Steele dossier it was based on were a construct of a wrong?
Abstract? That's kinda vague don't you think?...
Okay, you clearly are trolling so I am done giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Flag it, answer it or ignore it...
What is it that drives people like you to engage in trolling? There is nothing to be established by offering examples of proven wrongdoing and false allegations and asking me about them when I have already stated, categorically, that these are wrong.
My point is quite clear. Schiff was wrong in what he did and likewise Trump was wrong in what he did. If you can only see Schiff's wrongdoing and cannot see Trump's (or vice-versa) you have a partisan problem.
A lot of people have let me down lately.
It sure does get annoying being asked the same questions over and over.
I never said I couldn't see Trump's wrongdoing, you're the one that seemed to have an issue saying one was wrong without condemnation of the other....
Awww,
When a question was answered in my opening comment and every one since, it is of no value to keep asking.
If a question is avoided because the individual cannot stand to express the truth, then they should be continually challenged every time they make a comment that denies the truth.
So, for example, if someone denies that Trump did wrong in his Big Lie they can expect to be challenged on that point. When someone finally admits that Trump has done wrong (as you finally did) then there is no point to asking the question.
Then you have failed to comprehend my comments here. Or you are lying. Either way, that is your problem.
So you think only Schiff engaged in wrongdoing?
We are done. Get a life, Greg.
Exactly!
Mind if I throw in an quarter? To me Schiff was being like people are now. For me it is either put up or shut up. Not particularly fond of the man myself, yet because I do not condemn him one is supporting him and being partisan, blah blah.
He has done no more than that Comer and several others in congress are doing now.
Yet somehow that is justified. Not one side has a leg to stand on.
[deleted]
Yes, exactly.
Just like many of us here have been told we are supporting Trump unless we denounce him every waking minute!
I get your point yet a senator from another state is still different than the supposed president of us all.
The principle is the same
And I don't think I have ever done that to you. I cannot make people change their minds.
My point still stands, neither side is innocent. If we can agree on that, when can we agree to condemn them all and not keep silent or try to pick sides.
When someone does something that is wrong it should not matter which party they belong to.
Our nation has grown entirely too partisan and thus driven emotionally. The natural result of that is divisiveness.
Sad day when divisiveness is a political tool. Though I guess it has always kinda been that way in some form or another.
There are always differing circumstances. But one thing that remains possible is to call out (significant, relevant) wrongdoing when we see it. If a D engages in such wrongdoing, then Ds should call it out; same with Rs. That, in most cases, simply does not happen. What happens more often than not is the partisans engage in sometimes truly stupid 'arguments' to defend wrongdoing of their own and, conversely, leap on a whiff of truth to total condemnation of someone from the other party.
It is childish, counterproductive and pathetic. But that is where we are.
Sometimes I think the politicians and their donors start these culture wars and things themselves. Keep the masses fighting among themselves and not pay attention to what they are actually doing.
Just root for the side...
Oops friend flagged your post by mistake.
Meant to flag a far-right wingers lies instead.
My screen went and flipped at the last second.
Haha. No problem.
Putin's propaganda machine is responsible for most of this.
Splitting Americans is what his propaganda machine strives for.
[Deleted]
Exactly, Americans are just sheep that are herded by Russian dogs.
Oh, it's both sides of the aisle?
You know, TiG, it's like when I want to watch the news. The only people I demand tell the truth are those who are entrusted with reporting facts. It is the same with a Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He is privy to facts the public can't always see. He must not leak cherry picked secrets or embellish any item from a closed Committee session. He must not say there is evidence in plain sight when there is not a shred of evidence. I don't place such a high bar on others. When somebody says it was the biggest crowd in history I just laugh.
I hope you understand.
I don't.
So other people are allowed to say it just not the speaker?
Dogs seem to dump and run.
The Speaker?
I thought we were talking about the former House Intelligence Committee Chairman?
The point I'm trying to make, as usual, is that all things are not equal.
Don't you just love the blatant hypocrisy.
When Have they ever been?
Point it out, I would love to see it.
What do we do if those we entrusted with protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution commit wrongdoing? Who calls them out? How do we hold them accountable?
Keep up with the comments and you'll see it.
Why is it one sided?
So once again you cannot tell me yourself. Need to work on that...
Living large..right up until the last election.
It is time for the reckoning"
And they aren't going to like it one bit!
And what reckoning is that Vic? Do you all have something in the works?
Wasn't Schiff just censured? Will he not go before the ethics committee?
Isn't that the reckoning for his malfeasance?
Yep. He got called a bad boy. Hahaha
So all of this accomplishes what exactly?
No. Once again your inability to keep up with things is causing your problems. You should work on that.
So tell me oh wise sir what exactly I am missing...
That's a long list and I'm not going to waste the time to explain the obvious knowing your are just going to troll everybody anyway.
So once again, nothing. Par for the course.
Yes Vic, there are D partisans and there are R partisans. And in both parties there are those (many) who will attack the other side on a whiff of truth while defending their side against even the indefensible. You are not aware of this??
I definitely understand. You operate as a pure partisan. You criticize a clear wrongdoing of a D (as in Schiff) yet your example of wrongdoing for an R is a meaningless lie. You offer the lie about a "biggest crowd in history" and bypass the outrageous and damaging lies such as claiming the USA electoral system is rigged, that countless millions were disenfranchised and that the elected PotUS is illegitimate.
Your examples were woefully unbalanced; are you aware of that?
I did not claim all things are equal. I stated that partisans attacking the other side with lies is unfortunately common and, in direct contrast to your implication, that it is not exclusively Ds lying about Rs but also Rs lying about Ds. Pure partisan behavior sucks.
The people call them out. Ideally the media calls them out (as in the past). We hold them accountable through the mechanisms of justice and by our votes.
Depends on their walker.
I think that the moon is just fine.
Shhhhh, don't let on you know ...just smile and walk towards the exit
Indeed Schiff himself undoubtedly intended the comment in a wholly partisan fashion.
He's just yet another in a long line of complete shitheads.
I wish it were possible to fire the entire lot and reboot.
The thing is.... we DO reboot. We just do it badly.
Every 2 years, every member of the House of Representatives has to fight for their job, and every 2 years we send most of those reprehensible shitheads right back to DC.
No doubt. There are certainly plenty of them on both sides to go around.
Maybe we'll all get lucky and Schiff won't win his Senate race. He's in a tight one with Katie Porter.
Kind of thinking this censure of him will give him a boost at least among Democrats.
We have a different meaning for 'reboot'.
I guess.
But.. I mean... we have the chance every 24 months to throw every one of these bastards out, and we just don't do it. The reboot button is right there. We just won't use it.
Yes, I agree. We do not reboot. We could, but we do not.
I wish we would reboot.
Read something like that last week and proposed a Mahomes/Kelce ticket.
At least we'd have a great leader and some humor in the mix.
Letting Andy loose on the WH kitchen, however, could be problematic.
So you are defending Schiff's lies and the damage they did to this country with his "But Trruuummmmppppp!!!!!" argument?
What Trump did or did not do doesn't condone bobblehead boy lies and leaks of falsehoods trying to damage a sitting president.
Your hypocrisy is glaring.
'Your hypocrisy is glaring'.
Did you not read what I have written?? I have stated (starting @2) that Schiff's behavior is an example of wrongdoing. Get a clue Ronin.
And this applies to Just Jim, RDTM and Jeremy who also apparently did not read what I wrote.
Maybe it is impossible for you as partisans to imagine, but some of us are able to be critical of behavior regardless of party.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[TiG is not the topic]
The problem is that you somehow never see my criticism of people like Biden or Schiff even when blatantly obvious.
For example, I have been critical of Schiff in this entire seed and you cannot see it. And I recently criticized Biden for his Xi blunder. I just do not criticize every D on every count like you, et. al. tend to do. Further, I rarely criticize Rs or Ds. My focus has been on the R Trump because of his outrageous and nation-damaging behavior.
You (and Bugsy, Monster and Texan, et. al.) need to learn how to set aside your preconceived notions and actually read what people write.
Your blind partisanship apparently makes it impossible for you to comprehend that not everyone is partisan like you.
In result, yet again, you do not know what you are talking about.
I have asked you before to leave me out of your posts unless you are replying to me. I am not the topic here.
Good advice which I fervently hope you will start applying so you don't falsely accuse me of saying stuff I never do again..
When you vote up a post you are stating agreement. Thus my rebuttal will apply to you too. Get used to it.
Once AGAIN, the post you referenced didn't say one thing about you defending Schiff. Epic fail there.
You assumed something not in evidence and no amount of pedaling will get you to where you want to be.
You have to read the post, Texan. (hint) scan for the name 'Schiff'.
Oh, FFS. Get real and get a clue.
HERE is the post YOU referred to me:
Please actually read it and then you'll be able to quote the part where someone---anyone---said anything about defending Schiff in it.
And then maybe you'll get how ludicrous your crazy claim about me is.
And when you make false claims involving me, I will call you out on it. Get used to it.
Do you agree with the post?
If so, then my rebuttal is spot on.
And Texan, the post is about criticizing Schiff, not defending him. So get that straight too.
Here is what you wrote to me that started this whole shitshow off.
I told you that the post I voted up didn't say one word about defending Schiff.
NOT criticizing, DEFENDING was ALL YOU.
So GET IT STRAIGHT, INDEED!
You seem to want to argue that but you just can't because it is right there in black and white.
Your attempt to tell me what I think was rebutted and you were told how wrong you were. Just about everything else is just you being you because you got called out.
That seems pretty fucking clear.
Okay Texan.
You have no room to talk because you are one of the Rs who thinks I am not criticizing Schiff in this seed.
Just. Get. The. Facts. Straight. Before. Accusing. Me. Of. Saying. Stuff. Or. Doing. Things. I. Don't.
Thanks.
I did notice you still couldn't resist erroneously telling me what I think.
We've gone through all this before. You are horrible at guessing and should cease doing so.
Do you recognize that I have been critical of Schiff in this seed?
YES.
Do you recognize you have now twice falsely claimed to know what I am thinking?
Then you voted up a comment that you do not agree with.
This is the post you are talking about.
Seems this is all a little confusing for you.
I agree with the post. I voted it up. Will do it again because I agree with what he wrote.
Please note that there is a difference between aggressively attacking and merely criticizing someone.
Had nothing to do with you defending Schiff, try as you did to make it that way.
Make up your mind Texan. You cannot agree with a post (claiming I do not criticize Ds) and disagree with it (stating I do criticize Ds) at the same time.
Also, who are these public Rs / conservatives that I routinely criticize? The only one that I can recall criticizing is Trump.
If you vote up a post most people take that as agreement. So get used to me taking your votes as agreement.
My mind has not changed, nor my words.
I have told you I voted it up, I have told you I agree with the post, I QUOTED the post in question to you, and I told you I would vote it up again if I could.
What part doesn't seem clear?
There just isn't one damn thing in the post about you defending anybody.
You really should reread all the posts. You seem to be unclear of what you are writing about.
And if you continue to misrepresent what I think because you are guessing poorly at something you don't have a clue about, expect to get called out on it.
Now you are back to playing semantic games of defend vs. not criticize.
If you vote up a post, I will include you in my rebuttal. As I noted, get used to it.
Defend and not criticize are two totally different things and I really don't know how you think semantics plays a role in this. But I do have my suspicions:
I will always call you out when you erroneously accuse me of saying or thinking that which I have not.
Well, Texan, if one is making critical comments about Schiff in the context of him being censured then one is either defending or criticizing him.
Do the math.
Get a clue about what you keep harping on.
Okay, let me see if I read this right.
You are saying that if one makes critical comments about someone, then you are defending them or criticizing them.
I never heard anyone say that before or even heard of someone thinking of that before. How exactly do critical comments about someone defend that someone? Can you give an example?
Sure. Schiff was stating facts as he understood them. In matters such as these it is rare to have 100% reliable information so one is usually forced to interpret the evidence in the most reasonable fashion. Given Trump was dealing with the Russians (fact) and Trump is demonstrably a shady operator (fact), and the Russians did try to influence the election (fact), it is reasonable to view this as evidence that Trump would attempt to use his Russian ties to benefit his campaign.
That, Texan, is critical analysis (I do not buy all that but it was merely an example). It is critically considering Schiff's behavior and presenting it in a net positive manner ... a defense of Schiff's behavior.
Critical analysis is not necessarily negative. It is analysis; it can be positive or negative. Think of movie critics. Do you think criticism of movies is always negative? No? Good, then you understand how this works now.
In this seed, I was making critical comments of Schiff that were obviously negative. At least to anyone capable of objectively reading what I wrote. The Ds (and one or two Rs) recognized that my critical comments about Schiff were negative. Others like you (before you were forced to realize it) thought that my critical analysis of Schiff was NOT negative.
This is hopeless and you certainly don't need me around for you to tell me what I think.
Since you already "know" what I am going to think, just imagine what I am saying and rebut it.
Damn if Reagan wasn't exactly right.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[TiG is not the topic.]
[deleted]
Why does The Trump Show have to be protected at all costs? To quote Trump on a different subject, "What was in it for them?" What is the payoff the GOP expects?
It is the old story of the end justifying the means. Take a gander at our "critical thinker."
And here you go making indirect but obvious derisive comments about me based on your totally wrong, blindly-partisan misread of my post.
What is the end? What government and society will emerge?
I have no idea, but the Republic is gone.
Isn't it funny that some people want the end of government if not the end of times then complain when people call them against the status quo...
Everything must seem so normal to you. Like a college campus?
Never been to one aye?
No thanks.
So then you cannot say can you...
Isn't that hilarious? Those who frown on education?
That is what the MAGA wants? Forget the question mark. That is what the MAGA wants.
It is only step one!
Step two would be?
Impeaching Garland.
And that is going to solve the right wing's problems? Don't know, man. The Second Amendment is for everybody.
Are you going to start the Inquisition before or after that? Ohhhh, that's right! It has already begun. That's what step #1with your framing of Schiff is.
Are you sure you can rationalize all of that lying?
No one except Schiff had anything to do with framing the jackass.
Time to get rid of all of those who dared to take their turd hero to account. Good luck with that right Thomas?
Why does it have to be attacked at all costs?
Schiff fabricated a collusion.
Feinstein tried to submarine a SCOTUS appointment by exploiting a mentally ill woman who wanted to remain anonymous, and two other people actually went to jail for the lies they made up about the issue.
Why do people make up lies about him? Isn't the truth bad enough?
Nowadays the truth is more than enough. This seed goes back to 2016 before he was able to log a history of crap behavior as PotUS.
Great question. I doubt it is really about his personality flaws, which were absolutely outweighed by his performance as President. If you look at the extreme policies of Joe Biden it kind of tells us something. They thought that the two Obama terms settled something. The direction of the country would be a more "progressive" one. The 2016 election interrupted all of that. They struck back hard and they have exposed how powerful they have become throughout the government and in the media.
If I'm right they are going to come just as hard against DeSantis, who is their true ideological enemy.
You really do have some strange conspiracy theories.
Do you trust TiG?
Ask him if Schiff abused his position of Intell Committee Chairman.
I am not going to bring other people into my beef with you. Shame you cannot do the same.
The question is what fabrication will they come up with for DeSantis? We know Biden doesn't have a damn thing to run on so the democrats will have to fabricate something to make DeSantis look bad.
What do you think my answer would be? First, ensure you have read my comments here.
DeSantis has already done that for them by announcing that he will intentionally / strategically pursue anti-liberal policies. Not a smart move if one wants to prevail in the general election.
Hell, nothing has to be fabricated he is a wealth of culture war BS and no policy points.
He lost another court case yesterday.
So you are going with willful ignorance.
Probably so.
I agree Trump wasn't a disaster from a policy perspective, but none of them were his policies. He left that to more capable people.
The furor around Trump's bellicosity was interesting to watch. I was surprised to see how many people were so emotionally weak that a single shit-talker sent them running for their anxiety meds every time he tweeted.
DeSantis is an interesting situation. The stuff he gets blasted for the most is really just pushback on emboldened nutjobs seeing how far through the looking glass they can drag the rest of us.
There really isn't any plausible mainstream defense for teaching kids about sodomy in school or teaching them about sex at all in 1st grade. There absolutely isn't any plausible defense for drag shows in front of kids, any more than there is a defense for striptease shows in front of kids.
None of that is remotely controversial unless you're already in such an emotional state that you refuse to acknowledge basic social norms, yet they're going to try to paint DeSantis as some raging homophobe.
The term homophobe itself is another fascinating piece of emotional rat's nest. What precisely do these people think anybody is afraid of? Is this just a situation where they're afraid all the time so they think everybody else must be also? It just seems strange.
No, that would be you as I pointed out yesterday.
So you honestly think Biden stands a chance of being re-elected with a zero balance accomplishment list. That's hilarious.
What lies have been 'made up' about the former 'president'??
[deleted]
If Trump is the nominee, Biden is a shoe-in (barring unforeseen events of course).
Do you think that Trump could win in a general election nowadays?
His core supporters are MAGA (less than ½ of the GOP). They are strong enough to get him nominated but that is then the end of it.
He will get almost no D votes, likely a small minority of independent votes and maybe ½ of the non MAGA vote.
That does not look like a path to victory to me.
Further, I think most people recognize that Trump is an abysmal character who should never be allowed political power, much less the presidency. People who continue to defend and support Trump, like you, are a minority.
Oh that is gonna get some folks excited!!!
Russian collusion is the subject lie of this seed. That has been proved false.
But you said they found nothing at all!! I'm going with that. Smooth as a Ken doll... LOL!
Oh, gee, I didn't realize anyone had trouble following my comment.
Here is the comment I responded TO:
Here is my response:
Your comment has zero to do with what I said.
Was Trump negotiating with Vlad Putin to build a new Trump Tower in Moscow right across the street from the Kremlin right up to election day in 2016 while he lied to the American people about it, "Not Colluding with Russia and Putin"? Because, he did!
So the business negotiations weren't public?
Oh, My, string them UP!!!!!!
Bullshit AGAIN!!
"Nope. For the 1,000 time. Trump never planned to build any tower in Russia. Michael Cohen and the Trump co had preliminary discussions about licensing the name "Trump Tower" to Russian developers who would build, own and operate the tower. Putin wasn't involved. Trump himself wasn't involved in the discussions."
The thing is, even if Trump was involved, there was nothing illegal about it.
JBB, Mueller found no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired to influence the election based on Russian help. That is what this topic is about .. the Steele dossier. Conspiracy by the campaign to influence the election has been determined to be a falsehood.
As an aside, is it not remarkable how you and other Ds can correctly recognize my criticism of Schiff yet most every R on this seed somehow thinks I am defending Schiff.
What is wrong with these folks?
You're no fun... pftttt!
From experience, he won't believe you, either.
And the same lie will be repeated in a week, It is no longer surprising how comfortable the left is following Nazi Joseph Goebbels.
partisanship is synonymous with hypocrisy.
Yet, Mueller determined that the FBI and CIA investigations (plural) into Trump's Russian dealings were legally predicated based on Trump's secretive relationships with multiple clandestine agents of Putin's Russian State Intelligence Services!
Only by your exclusion of everything except for ironclad recorded proof that Trump specifically asked Putin for the election help that Putin did give to Trump as "evidence of Russian collision" was Trump not colluding with Putin in the lead up to the 2016 US Presidential elections...
You have no room to talk since you are one of the Rs who thinks I am defending Schiff in this seed.
Good luck TIG.
See how many absolute falsehoods he can cram into a single sentence....
That was not a conclusion of the Mueller report. Mueller did not exonerate Trump (and even suggests that Trump probably engaged in wrongdoing but could not prove it) but he also did not produce conclusive results that showed Trump's campaign acted with Russia to influence the election.
This is a messy business with plenty of gray areas and unknowns, and I think Ds will see it one way and Rs the other.
There you go again, telling me what I think.
Why do you feel the need to make stuff up?
QUOTE ME OR RETRACT THE LIE.
A bipartisan Congressional nvestigation found evidence Trump did collude with the Russians by asking Russia to help him to beat Hillary!
You voted up comments that falsely and stupidly claim I never criticize Ds like Schiff.
Do you normally vote up comments with which you disagree?
Oh FFS - you really need some lessons on reading comprehension. That is NOT what Mueller said and you've been admonished numerous times for your false statements.
That was not a conclusion of the Mueller investigation. Do you have a link substantiating your position?
Note, JBB, I would not put this past Trump. This certainly fits his character. But I need persuasive facts to draw a conclusion and until those facts arise a reasonable hypothesis remains just that.
Show us where Mueller said that the CIA and FBI probes of Trump's Russian dealings were not legally predicated?
There are many reputable sources that reported on the findings of the Senate probe into Trump's Russian collusion...
Durham claimed to be unaware of this!
Apparently you were also as unaware...
Mueller noted interactions with Russian operatives but concluded that the campaign did not act to influence the election based on this interaction.
Like I said, lots of gray areas; I dislike debates where there exists so much subjectivity and unknowns. There is no end.
My position is based on the conclusions of the Mueller report.
Would that be from the "bipartisan" investigating committee that considered of Democrats and only two anti-trump RINO Republicans hand picked by Nancy Pelosi?
May have been bipartisan but hardly in biased and impartial.
since you have failed to quote me, now would be a good time to stop guessing about what I think. it is obvious you aren't very good at it.
The justice system fails when the guy at the top is corrupt: Mueller convicted about half a dozen people in Trump’s orbit of lying to the FBI about their contacts with Russia. That is why Mueller said his report does not exonerate Trump from collusion. Anyone who knew about Russian contact lied because they knew they worked for a corrupt President who would and did pardon them. As someone is wont to say "Sad".
You deny voting up @2.3.3?
read carefully.
I deny you know what I think .
that post doesn't say anything about you defending anyone at all!
Predictable denial.
Okay, Texan, we are going to mark you down as an individual who explicitly recognizes that I do indeed criticize Ds.
No, this was the US Senate Intelligence Committee report on Trump and Russia.
You'd know if you read the attached link.
predictable denial? what are you IMAGINING i am denying?
please stop the silliness.
Boy o boy here we go again with the lies that have never been proven.
Can you do it this time? s/
of course not.
That doesn't make any sense. If Mueller could prove they were lying, than he knew the truth of their dealings and could have charged them colluding, if they had done so. Of course, he didn't charge any American with colluding with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election. For instance, Mueller wrote “The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation"
The fact that Muller charged and convicted those witnesses of lying undercuts the actual argument you think you are making.
hat is why Mueller said his report does not exonerate Trump from collusion
No, he didn't say that. He didn't exonerate Trump because prosecutors don't exonerate.
That zero balance sheet is your opinion, which seems to be limited to ''Biden bad'' and you complain about others, fricking hilarious.
Expecting Mueller to exonerate anyone is dumb.
almost as dumb as the Democrat yesterday who told Durham that he didn't indict Biden's son!
lmao
From the Report:
The word that you are both looking for is "establish", meaning that evidence that they did have was not enough to say with certainty that the Trump Campaign did indeed collude. It doesn't say that the Trump Campaign did not collude.
Sean, they were "convicted of lying to the FBI" that means there was enough proof to convince a jury. Mueller was investigating collusion -- he was asking questions about that and some of their answers were provable lies. My argument is not being undercut.
The people who would have had knowledge of collusion were convicted of lying to the FBI.
Trump was the one who claimed he was exonerated. When Mueller was asked if his report cleared Trump of criminal wrongdoing, he said simply "no". That's why Mueller was upset with Barr's 'interpretation' of the report.
When Sessions told Trump that Mueller was appointed we have this from the notes of Sessions' Chief of Staff Jody Hunt: "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked ." Innocence personified in the Sean universe I presume.
Exactly. In order to prove someone is lying, you have to have access to the truth to show they are lying. So Mueller, having evidence of what those defendants did, knew not only that they lied, but had enough proof of what they actually did to convict them of lying. And the lies at issue, of course, did not involve colluding with Russians to interfere in the 2016 election.
So Mueller knew what they actually did, and knew they didn't collude. Hence, zero indictments for colluding.
who would have had knowledge of collusion were convicted of lying to the FBI.
Read what he wrote. He said they did not identify evidence, which means an absence of evidence. Mueller knew what they lied about, which is why he could charge them with lying.
h my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked
Yeah, that's what special prosecutors do. It doesn't matter if someone is guilty or not. It's the process itself that destroys a Presidency by sucking up all the oxygen in the room. The press spent three years obsessing, lying and claiming his downfall was imminent without any justification for it. The way it played out could not prove Trump's point anymore perfectly . Zero prosecutions of any Americans (let alone Trump officials) for conspiring, but years of bad press and lies.
Amen!
Mueller to congress
Why would he have been censured for something that he had no part of? From the seed
As chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff launched an all-out political campaign built on baseless distortions against a sitting U.S. president, at the expense of every single citizen in this country and the honor of the House of Representatives
You see where it says House of Representatives?
You'd know if you read the attached link.
Just taking a page out of the liberal playbook. Besides I did read the seeded link and it didn't even mention the Senate. Your comment did not provide a link either.
LMAO!
Why would he have been censured for something that he had no part of? From the seed
You see where it says House of Representatives?
Just taking a page out of the liberal playbook. I did read the seeded article and there was not even a mention of the Senate and I went back to several of your comments and you never gave any links either.
No, he didn't. Some evidence was there but conspiracy couldn't be proven. Which is why I believe that the Republicans in congress are committing political suicide. The supposed justification for this censure is supported by very little actual fact and opens virtually any politician to censure. The Party line vote accentuates this. It is all shit and we need to throw every last person who occupies a political seat to side and start over.
well gee why didn't Schiff provide the evidence he claimed to have?
Vic said:
Yes, Vic. That is what I am doing.
If you read the post and understand it, you would know that.
Schiff lied. He never had any evidence.
He got called out for it.
Too bad for that clown.
For the same good reasons the House of Representatives voted to impeach Biden today. None! This is a New McCarthy Era!
Lol. Read his charging document. Mueller was instructed to prosecute anyone engaged in collusion. As Mueller wrote in his report, "as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as
that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute." It's impossible to collude to interfere in a election without conspiring.
ase against Trump on 10 obstruction of justice charges that should have been used but were not.
Obstruction is a process crime that has nothing to do with collusion.
They follow the laws and rules, which is why Durham was a big whiff.
Lol. He had more convictions of Americans for what he was charged to investigate than Mueller did. But if you don't think special counsels hamstring a Presidency, you lack familiarity with basic history. Ask Nixon or Clinton.
From the evidence presented, your statement is false.
That's nonsensical. Of course its true.
Give it up, Sean. Trump is going to come to a fair and fitting end in prison.
Maybe. He'll still be innocent of colluding with Russia to interfere in the election.
While you are better suited for memes than trying to make arugments, you seem to forget 50 some Democrats voted to impeach Trump for disrespecting football players.
why do you bother to make stuff up? you know other people are informed and aware of the facts, right??
the House DID NOT VOTE TO IMPEACH BIDEN TODAY FFS
I expect a couple of other posters to start repeating that lie. It squares with their M.O.
I know!
It is almost like they think only liberals will read some of the outlandish and false claims so they know they won't get called on it.
They know their audience, they aren’t afraid of getting called out, that requires integrity, they think other leftest will believe and repeat it. Goebbels messaging.
That is funny coming from someone that belongs to a group that has been trying to pin nothings on Trump for years.
So bribing a foreign government in order to get his son off the hook when he was VP, getting $1000000 from the Chinese government, unauthorized keeping and hiding classified documents in in secure locations is not a reason to impeach him? Those are all better reasons than why the Democrats impeached Trump.
For what?
For financial frauds in New York, for illegal possession of top secret documents and refusing to surrender them when asked in Florida, for election interference in Georgia and for seditious conspiracy on Jan 6th!
Since you asked nicely /s attached are the findings of the US Senate Intelligence Committee of Trump's Russian collusion.
He can't. No one can because the 'evidence' doesn't exist.
But I will bet you'll get the usual litany:
The investigations into Trump were legally predicated and went on for years.
And I will provide THE REST OF THE STORY:
They didn't find shit.
Yet, you refused to look at my evidence!
You cannot say I didn't provide it to you.
So, who is really being willfully ignorant?
I would say the person clinging to debunked theories and having to repost years-old articles and the one who falsely stated that the GOP voted to impeach Biden today.
You mean like Clinton and Biden have done?
And other than having a rally that day starting a peaceful march what exactly did he do. I read a transcript of his speech that day and nowhere does it tell anyone to engage in violence.
Like Hillary did by attempting to turn electoral college electors by offering to pay their fines for being faithless?
Which I believe were brought under civil statutes and to not incur under any jail time.
Biden should be jailed for receiving bribes from the Chinese government via his son, (to Biden, Right big guy?) For extorting the Ukrainian government to get Hunter out of a jam in that country. For illegal and storage of classified information dating back to his days in the Senate.
What does a Senate committees finding have to do with a member of the House of Representatives. And no I did not read your link because it is irrelevant to this seed and things about Schiff? He is/was a member of the house after all
I just don't get the continued and endless defense of the indefensible by some here. It's mind boggling and dumbfounding. I don't get it.
Okay?
All they have jbb in their enabling/support of the former 'president'
Money and influence would be my guess.
Probably nothing to do with good government for the masses.
Lol ….. is that what the the left and mass media has been doing all these years? Protecting Trump? Hilarious!
Hard to believe any thinking person will buy that horseshit. Meanwhile Goober really does get a free pass from the mass media and his Bidenettes. Most every time.
Testified.
Because that's what adults do.
About half of what the Democrats "Big Lie" cost tax payers.
This hag is just as guilty as Schiff. A cockroach has more credibility.
Why didn't Republicans do that to them with their two bogus impeachments? The Republicans should have surrounded Pelosi and chanted USA..USA...USA!
About half of what the Democrats "Big Lie" cost tax payers.
I wish we could have done that. Now it's time to see if the ethics committee is worth anything.
This hag is just as guilty as Schiff. A cockroach has more credibility.
Two rats.
That would be the difference between adults and children pretending to be adults.
"That hag is just as guilty as Schiff. A cockroach has more credibility."
That's insulting to a cockroach!
I'd take either of them over Feinstein.
Age limits, term limits? Some kind of limit is clearly needed.
Both are very much needed. Especially for those politicians that homestead in office lining their pockets with taxpayer dollars.
I can see your point. No Fienstein, the less Chinese spies working in DC.
Democrat politicians are like a child refused a cookie.
Temper tantrums, acting out, the works.
Nothing but little babies
And they've been like this for over 7 years now.
Good. He did a lot of damage to this country with his blatant lies about FISA and the collusion. Maybe, going forward, politicians will think about their reputation before lying to the public.
This is going to be the only thing Schiff is remembered for.
Isn't Schiff talking about running for Dianne Feinstein's seat in the Senate? I thought I had heard that. Afraid this won't have much impact and only be viewed as partisan in nature. Schiff's lies and leads of misinformation IMO hurt the Democrats in Congress.
Yes.
And maybe I'll turn into a unicorn and marry Taylor Swift.
Sorry. That's a bit excessive.
Maybe I'll turn into a unicorn OR marry Taylor Swift.
the irony and incongruity of this action is off the charts.
most of these same republicans who voted to censure schiff voted on jan 6 2021 in accordance with trump's traitorus wishes.
they voted against schiff today because they say there was lying involved.
they voted for trump on jan 6 even though it is known there was lying involved
I wonder if some can even hold that thought in their minds without having it discarded by partisan bias.
The irony of your comment is also off the charts.
did Democrats vote for Schiff today because they like lying?
They all do it so often I am not sure they can recognize their lies anymore.
The denial at play here from the left is off the chart.
Completely off the chart.
The cheese seems to have finally slid completely off their collective cracker.
Those who are for this bullshit were in on 1/6 the planning and plotting and inciting and the 'tours' the day before the former 'president' incited insurrection/failed coup - that's the truth here
But you can't prove any of those allegations.
Well, it's nothing but PD and D
you forgot delusion
a vote that made Schiff just the third member of the House to be censured since the turn of the century.
Couldn't have happened to a more deserving shithead. And all the demoncraps showing support for this lying sack of shit should be ashamed.
And what does that accomplish? A footnote in a wikipage?
An * on his career. Don't bother trying to convince anyone that is doesn't matter to a megalomaniac like Adam
Oh the horrors!!!
HA! Shiff seems to be taking it as a badge of honor. Non-partisans don't give a shit except for the waste of time. I would think conservatives would rather want their members to force fixes to the boarder and the FBI, but this is what they get instead.
If people ever think of Schiff, it will be as the liar who got censured. Much like Swalwell is the guy who slept with a Chinese spy.
He's not going to make any other mark or accomplish anything worth remembering , no matter how long he serves.
And you are buying that? What else would you expect him to do?
That and $4 will get you a cup of latte. Big whoop... the entirety of Congress these days is thought of as a bunch of liars.
The border problem is Biden's. We will continue to let him 'lead' on his disaster.
Despite some Democratic rhetoric to the contrary, the GOP just can't pass whatever they want into law. That isn't how it works.
I really don't pay that much attention to what these fuckers actually say, but what they do.
His fucking job - lawmaking. It's what I expect them all to do, but they aren't doing much of that lately are they.
How can they find the time when their priority is to see how many times they can have soundbites or interviews on cable "news" and the only way that will happen is to say some outrageous shit about the other guys to to promote division (ratings)?
Sure.... Biden all by himself can clone more border guards, repair decaying barriers and oversee the increased asylum cases... /s
It requires both sides to work together. Something anathema to modern partisans fully on display with the likes of Shiff and McCarthy
Perhaps when partisans stop watching those interviews and those ratings plumet? Perhaps when we stop clicking on these partisan tit-for-tat political articles?
Actually, the Court's task is to interpret the meaning of a law, to decide whether a law is relevant to a particular set of facts, or to rule on how a law should be applied ensuring compliance of the laws with the Constitution.
They don't "make laws" - they interpret application of the laws.
FYI
You remember how everybody condemned Trump for saying COVID wasn't real? Remember how they blamed him for every single COVID death... even the ones Cuomo was directly responsible for... and ignoring the fact that every other country was losing millions of people also?
This is like that.
It's not all Biden's fault, but he has absolutely denied that there is a problem, despite a massive increase in illegal immigration. So in that sense, yeah, the border problem is Biden's.
Frankly, it's an easy problem to solve. Like....super easy. But if they solve it, they can't campaign on it next year.
I didn't say Biden could fix it all by himself.
As President, I do expect him to lead, though.
Who's talking about the Court? Not me.
That's beyond the scope of my post. I'm talking about Congress. Fuck Biden.
Or raise money on it this year... So why do partisans keep enabling them? Why do partisans keep cheering them on? As long as we do we get shit like 1/6 Commission and current Oversite Commission. Bullshit partisan circuses..
That's good.
As do I. He's not doing it (I'm hoping someone better comes along) and since he can't fix it by himself then we should put more pressure on him AND those who can.
Sounds like a much better topic.
We could say the same about all social media, but I don't really think it would be the demise. I think we'd actually bring people closer together if we focused more on things we have in common rather than things that divide us.
The Executive branch is in charge of enforcing laws.
You're still so hung up on what Presidents can do, but leave Congress to fuck around? Okay...
I believe actually enforcing the current laws would go a long way to 'fixing' the problem.
When you have a President who steadfastly and resolutely claims there is no border crisis, it is unreasonable to expect him to do anything about the border.
Thus, enforcement suffers.
How is that working out?
Pretty damn shitty under this Democratic President.
It still seems like a waste of time the House could use something actually productive, so can someone explain to me what this accomplishes? They didn't fine him and Shiff looks like he's taking it as a badge of honor, so what's here to make anyone feel like their tax dollars are being spent as they should? What's here that makes it so the Dems can't turn around and do this to current GoP members when the Dems are in charge next?
Partisans eat this tit-for-tat bullshit up, but the rest of us just want them to do their fucking jobs...and that ain't running for re-election 24/7.
If it's pointless, how the hell will it affect them and make them lose their seats. Doesn't make sense. And just how many people in the voting public do you think actually know what censure even means?
If you were a Republican congressman in a district which voted Democrat for Biden in 2020, would you want to have to defend this censure vote to people who probably think it was foolish?
Remember. every single House Republican voted for censure.
It was pointless because the censure vote will fail in the senate.
yeah, I remember telling you that about impeachment.
GOP won't suffer because of the censure, and to be honest, neither will Schiff--he became even more of a left wing hero because of it, now he can play the poor victim card!
Maybe it will give him a boost in his race for the Senate.
You know they are blathering on for the sake of blathering on. They are trying to save what little integrity they perceive themselves to have.
Do you believe for a single minute that anybody will remember this a year from now?
Let me help you, they won't.
Our 24/7/365 news media will have thrown so much more clickbait in front of all of us by then that Schiff himself will have forgotten about this.
It doesn't have to pass in the Senate does it? He is censured in the House and that is all that need be done. The Senate censures their own...............correct me if I am wrong please.
This could easily be part of a package of incidents and votes that could be used against Republicans who won in a district Biden won. Those Republicans will be vulnerable to charges they are overly MAGA. They made their bed, and will probably continue to do so, and will have to lie in it.
I read that the Senate needed to vote on it also, but on further looking you are right, each chamber can censure on their own.
It won't be. Nobody will care.
Schiff is a nobody in every district other than his own. 95% of Americans couldn't tell you his name if you showed them a photo of him, and 99.9% couldn't tell you which district he represents.
What special kind of idiot would base their vote solely on the one censure?
I think Schiff deserves censure, but I also agree that the people in the House who supported Trump’s 2020 election lies are not the ones to deliver that censure. There’s not much value in liars pointing their fingers at each other.