Hunter’s laptop

[TexasTiger 12,846]

😉

[jj3jordan 2,051]

If only the investigative scrutiny were there.

[I_M4_AU 7,804]

There is only one problem with your statement in meme.

Adam Schiff, this man can not be trusted.

 

 

Edited April 25, 2022 by I_M4_AU

[AU9377 4,929]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

There is only one problem with your statement in meme.

Adam Schiff, this man can not be trusted.

 

 

Jim Jordan's record for tweeting truth is non existent.  There was an entire batch released/obtained today that are mind numbing in the way that they differ from what has been stated publicly. 

My question is why would Schiff do this?  What would be the motivation in a closed hearing where everyone has the texts in front of them?  That makes no sense.

Edited April 25, 2022 by AU9377

[I_M4_AU 7,804]

42 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Jim Jordan's record for tweeting truth is non existent.  There was an entire batch released/obtained today that are mind numbing in the way that they differ from what has been stated publicly. 

My question is why would Schiff do this?  What would be the motivation in a closed hearing where everyone has the texts in front of them?  That makes no sense.

Why did Schiff continuously tell the American people he saw evidence of Russian collusion for several years?  Why did Schiff hide the identity of the *whistle blower* in the impeachment trial?  He is a master manipulator of facts.  It makes no sense that people would belief him now.

[AU9377 4,929]

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Why did Schiff continuously tell the American people he saw evidence of Russian collusion for several years?  Why did Schiff hide the identity of the *whistle blower* in the impeachment trial?  He is a master manipulator of facts.  It makes no sense that people would belief him now.

The Whistleblower Protection Act restricted disclosure to protect the confidentiality of the whistleblower.  That whistleblower should be considered an American hero.  He did the right thing when he came forward and everyone acknowledged that other than those that wanted to protect Trump from himself.

[homersapien 11,368]

Apparently, AUFAN78 thinks facts are funny.

Why am I not surprised?

[jj3jordan 2,051]

14 hours ago, AU9377 said:

The Whistleblower Protection Act restricted disclosure to protect the confidentiality of the whistleblower.  That whistleblower should be considered an American hero.  He did the right thing when he came forward and everyone acknowledged that other than those that wanted to protect Trump from himself.

Except that the whistleblower was not actually a witness to the alleged crime.  He was not in the chain of command (did not go to his IG), and because he was not a first hand witness, he could not be the whistleblower, until...wait for it...the rules for whistleblowing were changed to allow him to complain as a second hand hearsay witness to someone else's IG. And he was identified in the public press domain anyway so why not let him testify?  

[DKW 86 7,419]

Hey Admins and Mods...About to commit an admitted Whataboutism here.

All the Adam Schiff Transcripts - WSJ

All the Adam Schiff Transcripts

Newly released documents show he knew all along that there was no proof of Russia-Trump collusion

By The Editorial BoardFollow

 

May 12, 2020 7:29 pm ET

Americans expect that politicians will lie, but sometimes the examples are so brazen that they deserve special notice. Newly released Congressional testimony shows that Adam Schiff spread falsehoods shamelessly about Russia and Donald Trump for three years even as his own committee gathered contrary evidence.

The House Intelligence Committee last week released 57 transcripts of interviews it conducted in its investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election. The committee probe started in January 2017 under then-Chair Devin Nunes and concluded in March 2018 with a report finding no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin. Most of the transcripts were ready for release long ago, but Mr. Schiff oddly refused to release them after he became chairman in 2019. He only released them last week when the White House threatened to do it first.

Now we know why. 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.”

The question we’d ask our friends in the media is when are they going to stop playing the fool by putting him on the air? Mr. Schiff is a powerful figure with access to secrets that the rest of us don’t have and can’t check. He misled the country repeatedly on an issue that consumed American politics.

President Trump often spreads falsehoods and invents facts, but at least he’s paid a price for it in media criticism and public mistrust. An industry of media fact checkers is dedicated to parsing his every word. As for Mr. Schiff, no one should ever believe another word he says.

[CoffeeTiger 5,106]

On 4/25/2022 at 1:44 PM, I_M4_AU said:

There is only one problem with your statement in meme.

Adam Schiff, this man can not be trusted.

 

 

 

 

Did you read the article? The entire text message isn't any better than the edited one Schiff showed on the PowerPoint. The point and intention of the text is exactly the same. Jordan was sending Meadows an obscure "case law" summary that suggested that Pence and Trump could "legally" turn away electors they didn't like because Alexander Hamilton said you can ignore unconstitutional statutes...so all Pence had to do was say the electors were "unconstitutional" and thus could be turned away and Trump could be declared President....Jackpot! 

 

 

This isn't the "GOTTCHA" moment that The Federalist is trying to make it out to be. 

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,804]

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

 

Did you read the article? The entire text message isn't any better than the edited one Schiff showed on the PowerPoint. The point and intention of the text is exactly the same. Jordan was sending Meadows an obscure "case law" summary that suggested that Pence and Trump could "legally" turn away electors they didn't like because Alexander Hamilton said you can ignore unconstitutional statutes...so all Pence had to do was say the electors were "unconstitutional" and thus could be turned away and Trump could be declared President....Jackpot! 

 

 

This isn't the "GOTTCHA" moment that The Federalist is trying to make it out to be. 

 

 

The whole point is that Schiff EDITED the comments as if those comments came directly from Rep Jim Jordan and it didn’t.  He is lying again to promote his narrative. He is a Rep from California and does this type of thing repeatedly and should be called out for it.  No one should believe a thing he says.

[CoffeeTiger 5,106]

49 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The whole point is that Schiff EDITED the comments as if those comments came directly from Rep Jim Jordan and it didn’t.  He is lying again to promote his narrative. He is a Rep from California and does this type of thing repeatedly and should be called out for it.  No one should believe a thing he says.

The fact that Jordan was passing that along with no other comments or commentary indicates an agreement with the message and direction he was passing along.

That's really no better than him typing it out himself and sending it. You're splitting hairs and completely ignoring that he was sending suggestions on how to overturn the election and try to make it look "constitutional". Whether the original idea he was citing is his own original text or not is irrelevant. 

 

Schiff can be the biggest liar on the planet...that doesn't suddenly make Jim Jordan's text message any less important or damning. 
 

[DKW 86 7,419]

On 4/27/2022 at 11:48 AM, CoffeeTiger said:

The fact that Jordan was passing that along with no other comments or commentary indicates an agreement with the message and direction he was passing along.

That's really no better than him typing it out himself and sending it. 
 

Now wait just a dang minute here. We have been told by homey that he posts up things without commentary that he 1000% disagrees with even though he never said a word about it. 

Edited April 28, 2022 by DKW 86

[homersapien 11,368]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

The whole point is that Schiff EDITED the comments as if those comments came directly from Rep Jim Jordan and it didn’t.  He is lying again to promote his narrative. He is a Rep from California and does this type of thing repeatedly and should be called out for it.  No one should believe a thing he says.

By "EDIT" do you mean leaving out anything substantive or that would change the meaning?

It's not unusual at all to edit stuff one puts into a Powerpoint presentation, which is after all, formatted as a bullet point summary.

I suspect you're totally miss characterizing this.

[I_M4_AU 7,804]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

By "EDIT" do you mean leaving out anything substantive or that would change the meaning?

It's not unusual at all to edit stuff one puts into a Powerpoint presentation, which is after all, formatted as a bullet point summary.

I suspect you're totally miss characterizing this.

Not only did he leave out substantive material the header of the slide was “Lawmaker’s text to Meadows” which implies Jordan typed and sent the statement to Meadows and in reality Jordan forwarded the text to Meadows.  Jordan was not the author of the text.

6 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

The fact that Jordan was passing that along with no other comments or commentary indicates an agreement with the message and direction he was passing along.

That's really no better than him typing it out himself and sending it. You're splitting hairs and completely ignoring that he was sending suggestions on how to overturn the election and try to make it look "constitutional". Whether the original idea he was citing is his own original text or not is irrelevant. 

 

Schiff can be the biggest liar on the planet...that doesn't suddenly make Jim Jordan's text message any less important or damning. 
 

You may call it splitting hairs, but if you are going to hang a guy for treason hairs are going to be split by the defense.  Again Schiff is trying to create the narrative and people are falling for it all over again.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

On 4/26/2022 at 10:16 AM, homersapien said:

Apparently, AUFAN78 thinks facts are funny.

Why am I not surprised?

I laughed at debunked facts homey. Why am I not surprised you didn't know the difference? 

[homersapien 11,368]

On 4/27/2022 at 7:20 PM, I_M4_AU said:

You may call it splitting hairs, but if you are going to hang a guy for treason hairs are going to be split by the defense.  Again Schiff is trying to create the narrative and people are falling for it all over again.

That's pretty funny considering the MAGAs said they wanted to hang Pence.

(And who knows, they might have given the chance, that's the way mobs work.)

Forwarding a text without a statement or qualifier saying he disagreed with it certainly implies he did agree with it. That's common sense.  Schiff doesn't need to "create" a narrative, Jordan has done that all on his own, with his history of supporting Trump.

(If this were a trial, it wound be amusing to see how Jordan answered a question asking if he supported Trump in his attempt to overturn the election.)

You can mewl all you want about Jordan forwarding a text instead of creating said text himself, but you and I - and everyone else in the country - knows exactly what Jordan's narrative is - Trump should overturn a legitimate election and he would support that. 

And of course you would cling to such a pitiful technical argument as you are doing in order to forgive Jordan. 

Hell, you would forgive Trump for instigating the whole thing.

 

 

Edited April 29, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,368]

14 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Not only did he leave out substantive material the header of the slide was “Lawmaker’s text to Meadows” which implies Jordan typed and sent the statement to Meadows and in reality Jordan forwarded the text to Meadows.  Jordan was not the author of the text.

 

The question was what was the substantive material that was left out of the text Jordan forwarded?

Was there anything left out that would indicate Jordan did not disagree with it?

Edited April 28, 2022 by homersapien

[DKW 86 7,419]

7 hours ago, homersapien said:

Forwarding a text without a statement or qualifier saying he disagreed with it certainly implies he did agree with it. That's common sense.  

Edited April 28, 2022 by DKW 86