Schiff BUSTEd For Producing False Evidence / Lying Again To Push Impeachment / False Narrative

[007]

Why does trump need to prove his innocence? Pelosi said he did. So which is it?

No, they have plenty of evidence against Trump. He has the right to provide evidence against it. Until he does, the only narrative that makes sense is the one laid out by Democrats.

1. The transcript

2. Zelensky saying there was no QPQ.

You lose.

1. “Do us a favor though” is in the transcript. And the story doesn’t end at that phone call. Far from it.

2. Hearsay.

No matter how this debate turned out... I THANK YOU for a rather MATURE, VOID of numerous PERSONAL INSULTS conversation, colfax, and I appreciate that, and I'll remember it.

It's worth mentioning in this viper pit of insults.

That’s very nice of you to say. Thanks. I’ll try to keep it that way. I appreciate your posts as well.

It just goes to show, disagreeing isn't really a bad thing. People disagree about every possible issue. It doesn't mean you have to gouge the other person's eye balls out. That never got anyone anywhere with solving a problem.

 

[Bush92]

SORRY, WRONG NUMBER
Rudy phone log released by Schiff wrongly claims calls to budget office amid Ukraine aid holdup: report

Enough is enough - this proven Russian-born arms dealer / Burisma-compromised, self-admitted classified leaking, seditious piece of $hit needs to be walked out of his office in handcuffs RIGHT NOW!

For 2 years this coup-obsessed lying POS intentionally falsely claimed to have personal evidence of crimes committed by the President...which was exposed as a LIE intended to incite insurrection and a call to remove the President of the United States from office without just cause...based on his LIES! That's called - SEDITION!

The traitor then recently attempted to submit a fictional account of the phone call between the President and the Ukraine PM - which he wrote himself - as 'evidence' of a non-existent crime. After it was quickly exposed as a Lie (Giving false testimony under oath before Congress, Sedition...), he and the MSM attempted to cover his ass by claiming it was a 'parody' meant as humor.

Now THIS $HIT!

The criminal Schiff has ZERO Credibility any more. This latest proven case of Lying / Sedition only undermines his already-failed recent Impeachment / Coup circus during which he was not able to prove a crime was committed, provide evidence of a crime committed by Trump, and could not offer up 1 REAL witness, as no one who testified ever 'witnessed' anything personally!

This is further - unnecessary - evidence that Schiff is a committed enemy of this state who continued to engage in Sedition, giving false testimony, and doing whatever he has to do in an attempt to remove the President from office.

His place is not within the walls of the House of Representatives. he should be sitting in a cell in GITMO!


Doubts raised after Schiff claims phone records prove Giuliani’s White House budget office calls

Schiff is a goddamn common criminal.

 

[007]

But I think you DO know why Burisma hired Biden jr. It was because they believed that would get them INSIDE INFLUENCE with the White House. A direct link to one BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA. There is NO OTHER LOGICAL REASON WHY they would have hired him... NONE... PERIOD.

With that, it's self explanatory why you're wrong.

Let’s say you’re right. Let’s say they did hire him to get access to the administration. Did Burisma actually get what they wanted? Is there any evidence of it?

Im sorry, but you still haven’t explained why you think I’m wrong. Why Biden helped get Shokin dismisses makes a huge difference.

They got the person looking into their corruption fired, and Ukraine got the billion dollars... so... I'd say they got their influence.

Where is the evidence that Burisma asked anyone to get Shokin fired?

They didn't, Biden did, on video, to protect his son.

But your allegation is that Burisma wanted Shokin fired and was working through Biden to make it happen. Where is evidence of that?

That's what I believe the Barr and Durham investigation will have proof of.

In any case, what possible other reason could there be? Logic points all the fingers at Biden protecting his son and the gravy train, high paying job he got him that he had no business being hired for in the first place.

 

[Bush92]

No, they have plenty of evidence against Trump. He has the right to provide evidence against it. Until he does, the only narrative that makes sense is the one laid out by Democrats.

1. The transcript

2. Zelensky saying there was no QPQ.

You lose.

1. “Do us a favor though” is in the transcript. And the story doesn’t end at that phone call. Far from it.

2. Hearsay.

No matter how this debate turned out... I THANK YOU for a rather MATURE, VOID of numerous PERSONAL INSULTS conversation, colfax, and I appreciate that, and I'll remember it.

It's worth mentioning in this viper pit of insults.

That’s very nice of you to say. Thanks. I’ll try to keep it that way. I appreciate your posts as well.

It just goes to show, disagreeing isn't really a bad thing. People disagree about every possible issue. It doesn't mean you have to gouge the other person's eye balls out. That never got anyone anywhere with solving a problem.

Schiff eyeballs are easy targets.

 

[colfax_m]

George Kent’s testimony to the intelligence committee shows that Shokin was fired because State Dept diplomas in Ukraine determined that was the best US policy.

More importantly, you don’t have to prove your innocence. You have no evidence that links Hunter Biden with the firing of Shokin. Zero.

Why does trump need to prove his innocence? Pelosi said he did. So which is it?

No, they have plenty of evidence against Trump. He has the right to provide evidence against it. Until he does, the only narrative that makes sense is the one laid out by Democrats.

1. The transcript

2. Zelensky saying there was no QPQ.

You lose.

1. “Do us a favor though” is in the transcript. And the story doesn’t end at that phone call. Far from it.

2. Hearsay.

1. So?

2. Direct testimony. Hearsay is what impeachment is based on.

3. You lose again.

1. So you’re not telling the whole story which gives you an incomplete picture.

2. Zelensky was not giving testimony. He was making a statement outside of court. That’s the legal definition of hearsay.

 

[colfax_m]

Let’s say you’re right. Let’s say they did hire him to get access to the administration. Did Burisma actually get what they wanted? Is there any evidence of it?

Im sorry, but you still haven’t explained why you think I’m wrong. Why Biden helped get Shokin dismisses makes a huge difference.

They got the person looking into their corruption fired, and Ukraine got the billion dollars... so... I'd say they got their influence.

Where is the evidence that Burisma asked anyone to get Shokin fired?

They didn't, Biden did, on video, to protect his son.

But your allegation is that Burisma wanted Shokin fired and was working through Biden to make it happen. Where is evidence of that?

That's what I believe the Barr and Durham investigation will have proof of.

In any case, what possible other reason could there be? Logic points all the fingers at Biden protecting his son and the gravy train, high paying job he got him that he had no business being hired for in the first place.

The DoJ has disavowed any participation in this scandal. I wouldn’t look towards Durham for this. This is entirely separate from his stated mission of investigating the Russian investigation.

What other reason could there be? How about the reasons that George Kent testified to under oath? That Shokin was not assisting in the mission of improving the justice system of Ukraine, protecting corrupt prosecutors, failing to investigate powerful criminals. He needed to go. So says our State Dept, our allies, the IMF.

 

[easyt65]

The US IG has already recommended for Indictment Comey, McCabe, Strzok, has now identified an FBI lawyer as having manipulated evidence / altered reports in the investigations of Cartet Page, and now Adam Schiff has engaged in Sedition, trying to push fake 'evidence', for the 3rd time now - his ass should be indicted.

.

 

[S.J.]

He's putting out fake information in an attempt to bolster his illegitimate case for impeachment.

It was a minor point, and if he got it wrong it should be corrected. Maybe the administration could actually participate in the investigation these things wouldn’t happen.

But it has zero to do with falsifying documents, which is essentially forgery and is an idiotic charge to make.

Got it wrong? No, Schiff has lied numerous times to justify this obvious attempt to overthrow the President. And why should Republicans participate in an investigation that is based on a manufactured offense?

Because they have a constitutional requirement to participate.

Yeah, IF the accusers can produce some solid evidence to back up their allegations, which they have yet to do.

What gives you the impression the executive gets to decide when it will allow oversight?

When there's a conflict, the court decides, and when Congress doesn't have a case the court isn't going to rule in their favor.

 

[colfax_m]

It was a minor point, and if he got it wrong it should be corrected. Maybe the administration could actually participate in the investigation these things wouldn’t happen.

But it has zero to do with falsifying documents, which is essentially forgery and is an idiotic charge to make.

Got it wrong? No, Schiff has lied numerous times to justify this obvious attempt to overthrow the President. And why should Republicans participate in an investigation that is based on a manufactured offense?

Because they have a constitutional requirement to participate.

Yeah, IF the accusers can produce some solid evidence to back up their allegations, which they have yet to do.

What gives you the impression the executive gets to decide when it will allow oversight?

When there's a conflict, the court decides, and when Congress doesn't have a case the court isn't going to rule in their favor.

Do you think Congress has a case?

 

[easyt65]

Do you think Congress has a case?

Zero crime.

Zero evidence of a crime.

Zero witnesses.

And Schiff has now been busted 3 times lying / attempting to push fake 'evidence' / committing Sedition.

'nuff said.

.

 

[colfax_m]

Do you think Congress has a case?

Zero crime.

Zero evidence of a crime.

Zero witnesses.

And Schiff has now been busted 3 times lying / attempting to push fake 'evidence' / committing Sedition.

'nuff said.

.

Bribery is a crime. Plenty of reasonable suspicion for that.

 

[Ame®icano]

Why are the republicans sitting on their asses?......bring him up on charges...censure.....something......don't just cry that they won't let us.....where is the department of JUSTICE??????

Arresting the political opposition.

How Stalinist of you.

By that standard, no politician in US can ever be arrested, since they're always opposition to somebody.

This is not political opponent, this is traitor who is trying to overthrow the president by lying and fabricating "evidence" to attempt the coup. He deserve noose, not jail.

 

[easyt65]

Bribery is a crime. Plenty of reasonable suspicion for that.

Bwuhahahaha....after 4 years Ann Democrats and snowflakes have is their own 'suspicions'...

Schiff once again proved, though, they have no crime, no evidence of a crime, no witnesses, and are forced to push fake evidence and engage in Sedition.

The DEMOCRAT Constitutional Scholar - Turley - was the only witness during Nadlwr's failed Impeachment coup hearing to give actual Constitutional testimony instead of proven past / current biased Opinion...

...and Turley testified that there was NO CRIME & NO ABUSE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY/ POWER...by the PRESIDENT, that the only Abuse of power has been perpetrated by the DEMOCRATS, calling their personal political party 4-year crusade to remove the President without a crime, without evidence, and without witnesses 'DANGEROUS' to our national security / to the Republic.

....but please, tell us how much more of a Constitutional expert you are than he is....

 

[colfax_m]

Bribery is a crime. Plenty of reasonable suspicion for that.

Bwuhahahaha....after 4 years Ann Democrats and snowflakes have is their own 'suspicions'...

Schiff once again proved, though, they have no crime, no evidence of a crime, no witnesses, and are forced to push fake evidence and engage in Sedition.

The DEMOCRAT Constitutional Scholar - Turley - was the only witness during Nadlwr's failed Impeachment coup hearing to give actual Constitutional testimony instead of proven past / current biased Opinion...

...and Turley testified that there was NO CRIME & NO ABUSE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY/ POWER...by the PRESIDENT, that the only Abuse of power has been perpetrated by the DEMOCRATS, calling their personal political party 4-year crusade to remove the President without a crime, without evidence, and without witnesses 'DANGEROUS' to our national security / to the Republic.

....but please, tell us how much more of a Constitutional expert you are than he is....

Turley said the House needed more evidence before convicting. I don’t necessarily disagree. The question is why won’t Trump allow that evidence to be seen?

Probably because he knows he’s screwed if he does.

 

[jc456]

I would post Biden's videotaped confession, but I don't want to help this proven liar's attempt to hijack the thread...

You mean the video where Burisma and Hunter Biden are never mentioned? That’s the confession that Joe Biden was working on behalf of them?

Gotcha. Any other stupid ideas you want to toss out quick?

The video where he admitted getting the prosecutor fired and that prosecutor stated he was investigating burisma. It’s called evidence

 

[easyt65]

Turley said the House needed more evidence before convicting. I don’t necessarily disagree. The question is why won’t Trump allow that evidence to be seen?

Probably because he knows he’s screwed if he does.

That is an extremely long-winded way to admit Turley testified for the Democrats to continue with the Impeachment without having a crime, evidence, and witnesses is dangerous...and the most painful attempt not to admit Schiff proved the Democrats have no crime, no evidence, and no witnesses...before being busted now for the 3rd time attempting to present LIES and manufactured fake 'evidence' as legitimate evidence...

Turley testified the Democrats' rush to Impeach is the fastest in US history and their case is the WEAKEST in US history.

 

[colfax_m]

I would post Biden's videotaped confession, but I don't want to help this proven liar's attempt to hijack the thread...

You mean the video where Burisma and Hunter Biden are never mentioned? That’s the confession that Joe Biden was working on behalf of them?

Gotcha. Any other stupid ideas you want to toss out quick?

The video where he admitted getting the prosecutor fired and that prosecutor stated he was investigating burisma. It’s called evidence

Do you believe Viktor Shokin?

 

[colfax_m]

Turley said the House needed more evidence before convicting. I don’t necessarily disagree. The question is why won’t Trump allow that evidence to be seen?

Probably because he knows he’s screwed if he does.

That is an e extremely long-winded way to admit Turley testified for the Democrats to continue with the Impeachment without having a crime, evidence, and witnesses is dangerous...and the most painful attempt not to admit Schiff proved the Democrats have no crime, no evidence, and no witnesses...before being busted now for the 3rd time attempting to present LIES and manufactured fake 'evidence' as legitimate evidence...

Turley testified the Democrats' rush to Impeach is the fastest in US history and their case is the WEAKEST in US history.

So why not end the matter and stop obstructing them?

 

[easyt65]

So why not end the matter and stop obstructing them?

Obstructing WHAT? The proven NEVER-ENDING COUP ATTEMPT?!

What part of 'NO CRIME, NO EVIDENCE OF A CRIME, NO WITNESSES' & the fact that Schiff just got busted for the THIRD time now attempting to claim and / or submit manufactured fake evidence as 'legitimate' evidence...which is a crime / Sedition?!

Americans are INNOCENT until proven guilty and do not have to prove their innocence when falsely accused or criminally target as it has been proven the Democrats have done for 4 years now.

 

[colfax_m]

So why not end the matter and stop obstructing them?

Obstructing WHAT? The proven NEVER-ENDING COUP ATTEMPT?!

What part of 'NO CRIME, NO EVIDENCE OF A CRIME, NO WITNESSES' & the fact that Schiff just got busted for the THIRD time now attempting to claim and / or submit manufactured fake evidence as 'legitimate' evidence...which is a crime / Sedition?!

Americans are INNOCENT until proven guilty and do not have to prove their innocence when falsely accused or criminally target as it has been proven the Democrats have done for 4 years now.

There’s reasonable suspicion. When Americans are subpoenaed, they have to comply. Trump thinks he’s above the law and doesn’t have to comply with subpoenas.