Utopia Talk / Politics / Surprise! Schiff was lying all along

Rugian Member	Wed May 13 10:25:13 All the Adam Schiff Transcripts Newly released documents show he knew all along that there was no proof of Russia-Trump collusion. https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/all-the-adam-schiff-transcripts-11589326164 This scumbag spent years flat out LYING about Trump despite knowing for a fact that he was innocent. And CNN, NYT and WaPo amplified his message with blatantly biased and uncritical reporting, allowing his lies to heavily influence public opinion. Dems and the media should be destroyed for shit like this.
jergul large member	Wed May 13 10:31:56 Ruggy What is your fixation with the so-called "truth". How do you combine that with your unabashed support of Trump? At least have the decency to remain consistent and accept lies from everyone.
Rugian Member	Wed May 13 10:34:36 Jergul Trump gets destroyed by the media every time he says something that could potentially be considered even slightly inaccurate. Where is the same scrutiny for the competition?
jergul large member	Wed May 13 10:40:56 Ruggy Trump gets a pass on about 98% of the crap he spouts. And gets a pass on the rest because oversaturation makes his lies barely newsworthy.
Paramount Member	Wed May 13 10:49:17 ” This scumbag spent years flat out LYING about Trump” Got any proof that he was lying? Besides, I think everyone knows that there was collusion. Trump is just slippery as an eel and gets away with it.
Paramount Member	Wed May 13 10:50:38 ” Trump gets a pass on about 98% of the crap he spouts. And gets a pass on the rest because oversaturation makes his lies barely newsworthy. ” Yup. How do you hide a lie? In an ocean of lies.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed May 13 11:45:24 i saw when Trump retweeted that headline: "Newly released documents show he knew all along that there was no proof of Russia-Trump collusion." an incredibly stupid & meaningless statement he never said there was 'proof' (-obviously-)... he said 'evidence' (& there was). a report by Devin Nunes is meaningless certain individuals saying they don't have conclusive proof may support the headline, but doesn't counter anything Schiff said garbage opinion article now go analyze the bullshit being spread about 'obamagate'
Rugian Member	Wed May 13 12:00:14 Tw Your personal opinion doesnt constitute reality. "From the earliest days of the collusion narrative, Mr. Schiff insisted that he had evidence proving the plot. In March 2017 on MSNBC, Mr. Schiff teased that he couldn’t “go into particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now.” In December 2017 he told CNN that collusion was a fact: “The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help and the President made full use of that help.” In April 2018, Mr. Schiff released his response to Mr. Nunes’s report, stating that its finding of no collusion “was unsupported by the facts and the investigative record.” None of this was true, and Mr. Schiff knew it. In July 2017, here’s what former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Mr. Schiff and his colleagues: “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.” Three months later, former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch agreed that while she’d seen “concerning” information, “I don’t recall anything being briefed up to me.” Former Deputy AG Sally Yates concurred several weeks later: “We were at the fact-gathering stage here, not the conclusion stage.” The same goes for the FBI agents who started the collusion probe in 2016. Most remarkable, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe admitted the bureau’s reason for opening the case was nonsense. Asked in December 2017 why the FBI obtained a secret surveillance warrant on former Trump aide Carter Page, rather than on George Papadopoulos (whose casual conversation with a foreign diplomat was the catalyst for the probe), Mr. McCabe responded: “Papadopoulos’ comment didn’t particularly indicate that he was the person that had had—that was interacting with the Russians.” No one else was either. On it went, a parade of former Obama officials who declared under oath they’d seen no evidence of collusion or conspiracy—Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Samantha Power. Interviews with Trump campaign or Administration officials also yielded no collusion evidence. Mr. Schiff had access to these transcripts even as he claimed he had “ample” proof of collusion and wrote his false report. He’s still making it up. Last week he said the transcripts contain “evidence of the Trump campaign’s efforts to invite, make use of, and cover up Russia’s help in the 2016 presidential election.”"
Rugian Member	Wed May 13 12:06:01 Jergul What news site are you reading? Coverage of Trump is overwhelming slanted negative.
Dukhat Member	Wed May 13 12:07:12 *yawn* a Murdoch rag. WSJ is toilet paper now.
Rugian Member	Wed May 13 12:10:55 WSJ being owned by News Corp: Dukhat automatically writes it off as trash NYT literally coming it and saying how they intend to negatively cover the president, while simultaneously going on an SJW crusade to rewrite American history with its 1619 Project: Dukhat considers them to be trustworthy Fucking idiot.
Rugian Member	Wed May 13 12:11:20 *coming out
jergul large member	Wed May 13 12:11:57 Ruggy What lie in particular do you feel is getting excessive coverage?
Rugian Member	Wed May 13 12:15:22 "Trump and Russia colluded to steal the election." -Entire MSM, 2017-2019
Dakyron Member	Wed May 13 12:23:58 Direct empirical evidence is a fairly high standard, but it has become increasingly clear that the MSM, mainly CNN, have made it their mission to destroy Donald Trump.
kargen Member	Wed May 13 12:26:18 "he never said there was 'proof' (-obviously-)... he said 'evidence' (& there was)." Well sure there is evidence. I have evidence you are a spy for North Korea. It is on a sticky note I found in my desk drawer. I'll admit now the evidence is flimsy because I wrote the not myself earlier but it is still evidence. Schiff relied on the same kind of evidence. Even worse he relied on biased opinions based on feelings for much of his case. Oh and the mind reading. There was a lot of mind reading. Schiff did say if the Mueller report didn't have some bombshell proof he wouldn't want to see the impeachment process go forward. He also kept announcing he had "damning" evidence or was just about to release a bombshell that couldn't be disputed. Neither ever surfaced no matter how many times he said it. Schiff knew he had nothing. He knew the impeachment would be a waste of time as he himself said so before it started. He did it anyway and lied while doing it.
Habebe Member	Wed May 13 12:45:21 Here is the issue with Trump hetting a pass on things by his supporters. The media attavks him for any and everything, its the boy who cried wolf syndrome on steroids.
hood Member	Wed May 13 12:51:30 It wasn't the boy who cried wolf when everything Trump was doing on the campaign trail was brought up. The near-nazi right have been willfully ignoring everything Trump has said or done since the beginning.
Habebe Member	Wed May 13 13:05:06 Because we get plastered with attavks against everything he does. It's like how Fox went after Obama, how many lefties took that serious?
Habebe Member	Wed May 13 13:06:47 Now some have argued that Trump intentionally taunts the media so they do this and he can claim " look they're always attacking me" I could see that.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed May 13 13:31:03 " Mr. Schiff teased that he couldn’t “go into particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now.” " <<that's true... see Don Jr if nothing else>> --------- " “The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help and the President made full use of that help.” ... None of this was true, and Mr. Schiff knew it. " << WRONG... again was all true... first 3 elements just by Don Jr alone... if you add in wikileaks, Trump repeatedly touted the releases (w/o knowing ANYTHING that was in them, of course), i'd say it satisfies all elements fully >> -------------- " here’s what former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Mr. Schiff and his colleagues: “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.” Three months later, former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch agreed that while she’d seen “concerning” information, “I don’t recall anything being briefed up to me.” Former Deputy AG Sally Yates concurred several weeks later: “We were at the fact-gathering stage here, not the conclusion stage.” " <<um... so what for all of that... doesn't counter anything Schiff actually said... and "concerning info" actually helps Schiff>> ======================== from kargen: " Even worse he relied on biased opinions based on feelings for much of his case. Oh and the mind reading. There was a lot of mind reading. " <<are you talking about Trump & Fox News about the treason/obamagate (built entirely on biased opinion & mind-reading... w/ a healthy dose of made-up bullshit)? >> ------------------- " Schiff did say if the Mueller report didn't have some bombshell proof he wouldn't want to see the impeachment process go forward. ... He did it anyway and lied while doing it. " << hmm... so you, like Trump, have merged Russia & Ukraine?... he actually was NOT impeached over Russia/Mueller... plus Mueller -did- include strong evidence of crimes by Trump - see Vol 2, there is absolutely no way to interpret the report other than others were to take up the case as he couldn't due to DOJ rules >>
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed May 13 13:48:45 'Schiff said there was evidence... but Mueller found 'insufficient evidence'.... oh no, what a liar!!!!... sorta... not really' Trump: "The Russia Hoax is the biggest political scandal in American history. Treason!!!" "My Campaign for President was conclusively spied on. Nothing like this has ever happened in American Politics. A really bad situation. TREASON means long jail sentences, and this was TREASON!" "DIRTY COP JAMES COMEY GOT CAUGHT!" (a tiny sampling) --------------- who is closer to the truth? ...your answer will make me sad
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed May 13 14:17:35 actually let me hammer it home a bit better... Schiff's comments were before the investigation finished Trump's comments are after some investigations finished (which found none of that, even though he lied about the conclusions) plus still some investigations going on by his corrupt AG... so, in both cases, technically no final conclusions... who is coloring them more unfairly? (Schiff wasn't even wrong, but i don't need you to concede that) if you ponder honestly, then ponder how is Trump fit to be in that office, when you want Schiff gone also Fox News is backing up Trump on most of it, so how are their premature accusations & smears any better than what you are complaining about the 'mainstream' media of having done? (although again, i'd say the Russia stories were based far more in fact)
smart dude Member	Wed May 13 14:38:13 I would be very careful about triggering the snowflake cuck Rugian. He is as we speak sitting next to a glass (or more likely paper cup) of whisky and a handgun. His sole purpose in life is "pwning the libs." Let him live in peace and stop tormenting this shell of a human. Have mercy ffs.
hood Member	Wed May 13 14:50:17 "Because we get plastered with attavks against everything he does." Trump is objectively a terrible person, a terrible politician, and failing wildly at everything but "getting the dems" (which ends up translating to "fucking over the country" back in reality land). Yes, when the only successful thing you do is troll, everything will be attacked.
kargen Member	Wed May 13 15:37:08 "are you talking about Trump & Fox News" In your world obviously I am. In the real world no not even close. " hmm... so you, like Trump, have merged Russia & Ukraine?... he actually was NOT impeached over Russia/Mueller.." were you not watching the hearing? Was rhetorical. I know you were glued to the tv or whatever and watched every minute. You just processed it different than most because of your derangement. You mind read all the time. Not surprising you see no problem with Schiff mind reading.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed May 13 18:26:03 @kargen, i don't even know what point you're trying to make as far as i'm concerned i've 100% won this argument you have an article claiming Schiff knew there was no proof of collusion... during the investigation... (um, how often do you investigate when you already have the proof?)... and you'd think the article would have a quote of Schiff claiming to have proof when it's suggesting he lied about having proof, but nope plus team Trump is doing far worse... including more today, they're back on 'unmasking!!!' hoax/treason!, guess hoping people forget dirtbag Nunes already used that one a long time ago... & it was nothing... as usual not the first time they reused the same outrage story... pathetic... (omg, Steele dossier was unverified!!) speaking of dirtbag Nunes... as they mention a report by the committee when Nunes led it in the OP article (not sure if in same report or different one), but that Nunes-led committee couldn't establish that Russia wanted Trump to win in 2016 fellow dirtbag Ratcliffe noted that when saying he also couldn't conclude if Russia preferred Trump ... noting that the Nunes report conflicted w/ the Senate report (also led by an R) which found Russia DID prefer Trump... so both those reports are entirely equal in value i guess, to our next DNI but wait... what other evidence is there that Russia preferred Trump it wasn't just the Senate investigation (led by an R)... also the intel community concluded it... also Putin admitted it... also common sense suggests it in about a dozen different ways... what suggests Russia might not have? just Devin Nunes (& kargen)... shocking Nunes could find no evidence of collusion either (that retarded moron even claimed the Trump Moscow tower deal was fake news... -during- a hearing... not just to media where lying is all well & good) the 'right' is happily embracing idiocy
kargen Member	Thu May 14 22:41:49 "as far as i'm concerned i've 100% won this argument" Of course you have. In your current mental state there is no other outcome that keeps you from curling up in a fetal position whimpering and crying. And I know this will never sink in through that firewall you put up between your world and the real one but Russia preferring President Trump does not equate to President Trump colluding with Russia.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Thu May 14 23:59:08 "Russia preferring President Trump does not equate to President Trump colluding with Russia" thanks for the info... no one suggested it did... ever Nunes (the top R on the House intelligence committee) can't say Russia preferred Trump Ratcliffe (our next DNI) can't say Russia preferred Trump a bonehead obvious fact, but Trump doesn't like it, so it's not a fact anymore
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri May 15 00:07:01 ...btw, the "I" in DNI stands for "intelligence" too should those two be anywhere near a position w/ "intelligence" in the title? only in this total absurdity we are living in
patom Member	Fri May 15 04:18:58 SURPRISE!!! McConnell admits to being mistaken about his claim that Obama left the country defenseless. Admits that there was a Pandemic play book left for the Republicans to use. Bad sign for Trump when your lapdog in the Senate slips off his leash.
kargen Member	Fri May 15 10:21:36 "thanks for the info... no one suggested it did... ever" Then why do you always bring it up when we are on the subject of impeachment? You and about every Democrat out there. The answer obviously is because there is nothing else so no matter how stupid you play the Russia card.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri May 15 11:47:06 i barely know what you are talking about... if you're referring to my Nunes comments: the OP article cites a Nunes-led committee report not finding collusion as having some kind of meaning, and i was noting that a Nunes-led committee report (possibly same report) couldn't even determine Russia preferred Trump, thus a Nunes-led committee report is WORTHLESS also... you seem to dodge how Trump is flat out claiming crimes against multiple people (for years) mostly w/ no evidence at all, others with lying about report findings Schiff said there was evidence of collusion (& there was, but even going w/ your weird belief that there was no evidence & even no reason to investigate at all or whatever other bullshit beliefs that have been injected into you from repeated nonsense claims) who is FAR FUCKING WORSE? where are the Fox articles on Trump being a constant shitbag liar? who is in a higher position in government? why does Trump get a pass on all behavior? plus Fox way worse than 'mainstream media' by joining him & quoting him... like w/ headlines of 'unmasking bombshell'... why wouldn't you unmask someone chatting w/ the Russian ambassador about American policy, including telling them to ignore the Obama admin's actions as soon the mysteriously Russia-loving Trump coming in? ...& this was a 'scandal' in 2017... created by Devin Nunes!... on the exact same unmasking... and NOTHING determined to be wrong then... why is everyone forgetting... a couple more names added to list who knew, but NONE suspicious... even the Fox article i read didn't suggest it was unusual, just insinuated shocking somehow
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri May 15 11:55:47 as someone noted elsewhere the real question is what all was Flynn saying that caused these unmasking requests in all the insinuations on all 'obamagate/hoax/treason' allegations there still remains nothing showing that everyone was not merely concerned about the activity & doing their jobs a Trump or Fox viewer would never notice that
kargen Member	Sat May 16 00:21:12 "as someone noted elsewhere the real question is what all was Flynn saying that caused these unmasking requests" According to the hearings and reports nothing illegal. The unmasking requests were unusual IE not normal using past such requests. The unmasking in and of itself though isn't the story really. The story is somebody committed a serious felony leaking the identity after the unmasking. That is the thing the press should but will not put any time into. CNN and others don't give a shit who committed a felony because they see it as something that might somehow harm the president. Simple as that. In fact I surprised they haven't suggested the felon be awarded the Nobel Prize and given a parade after a grand ceremony announcing who it was.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat May 16 01:24:11 weird, the two Fox articles i read on it mentioned nothing about the leaking being the focus (which was known back in 2017... the first time this 'scandal' popped up) safe to say Trump hasn't ever noted it either in his sea of tweets & retweets, but he never knows anything about anything, so not surprising so if the leaking is the focus (hidden between the lines), that's quite likely one person... doesn't seem like evidence of a massive conspiracy between media, intel agencies, the Hillary campaign, the Obama administration, & various private firms to frame Trump for collusion w/ Russia (which wasn't even leaked to the media before the election where it would've been more useful) then after the election, this hoax/coup frame job didn't even target Trump... but i'm sure it all makes sense if you don't think about it
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat May 16 01:33:24 speaking of leaking names... kinda what the current Trump shill DNI did by declassifying this list of names it's legal leaking... but was it done in a helpful way to the public? sure doesn't seem to be getting used that way... just heavy insinuations being tossed around & as to your claim of it being unusual, i'd like to see who claimed so... i've seen more than one person say the opposite, including those who have been involved in the process of unmasking
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat May 16 01:55:03 ...and i just looked at the actual release docs... there are 39 names on it (doc noting all were authorized & requests reviewed via standard practice including justifications)... how many of those names have you heard mentioned by the Trump propaganda media? you can draw a nice Venn diagram of all the people on the list in one circle & and all the people Trump has attacked in another (huge) circle & the matching set is who you've heard about in relation to this 'scandal' if it's all about finding a leaker (as is extremely unclear by the articles) there's no reason to be focusing on just those people Trump attacks
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: