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

[S.J.]

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?

No. They're trying to invent a case.

 

[colfax_m]

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?

No. They're trying to invent a case.

Is Trump trying to get the truth out or is he impeding it?

 

[S.J.]

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?

No. They're trying to invent a case.

Is Trump trying to get the truth out or is he impeding it?

He cooperated with Mueller for two years. How long do you expect him to keep indulging them?

 

[colfax_m]

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?

No. They're trying to invent a case.

Is Trump trying to get the truth out or is he impeding it?

He cooperated with Mueller for two years. How long do you expect him to keep indulging them?

He refused to be interviewed. I wouldn’t call that cooperation.

He cooperates as long as he is president of the United States. That’s how the government works. Checks and balances.

Now, is Trump trying to get the truth out or is he trying to impede it?

 

[Nostra]

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.

No it isn’t the definition of hearsay, Dummy.
They are HIS words.


hear·say
/ˈhirˌsā/
noun

1. information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
   "according to hearsay, Bob had managed to break his arm"
   
   • LAW
     the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.

 

[Nostra]

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.

They are being challenged in court. Nothing above the law about that.

 

[Nostra]

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?

No. They're trying to invent a case.

Is Trump trying to get the truth out or is he impeding it?

The truth is out. He released the transcript.

 

[S.J.]

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?

No. They're trying to invent a case.

Is Trump trying to get the truth out or is he impeding it?

He cooperated with Mueller for two years. How long do you expect him to keep indulging them?

He refused to be interviewed. I wouldn’t call that cooperation.

He cooperates as long as he is president of the United States. That’s how the government works. Checks and balances.

Now, is Trump trying to get the truth out or is he trying to impede it?

Trump turned over more than 1.5 million documents. I would call that cooperating. He knew it was never going to end. We all knew it. They had nothing, Mueller couldn't find anything so they just moved on to another false allegation hoping it might stick. Did you expect him to spend his entire presidency defending himself against false allegations for four years instead of doing the work he was ELECTED to do?
In this thread I've noticed how you demand absolute proof that Biden abused his power, even to the point of denying that his bragging about holding back money unless Ukraine did what he told them to do was not proof but you think hearsay and opinions are enough to warrant impeaching and removing Trump from office. Double standard? Sure looks that way.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

No it isn’t the definition of hearsay, Dummy.
They are HIS words.


hear·say
/ˈhirˌsā/
noun

1. information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
   "according to hearsay, Bob had managed to break his arm"
   • LAW
     the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.

You need the legal definition of hearsay.


Hearsay
Definition
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts.

Zelinsky’s statement was out of court. Was it not?

 

[colfax_m]

Do you think Congress has a case?

No. They're trying to invent a case.

Is Trump trying to get the truth out or is he impeding it?

He cooperated with Mueller for two years. How long do you expect him to keep indulging them?

He refused to be interviewed. I wouldn’t call that cooperation.

He cooperates as long as he is president of the United States. That’s how the government works. Checks and balances.

Now, is Trump trying to get the truth out or is he trying to impede it?

Trump turned over more than 1.5 million documents. I would call that cooperating. He knew it was never going to end. We all knew it. They had nothing, Mueller couldn't find anything so they just moved on to another false allegation hoping it might stick. Did you expect him to spend his entire presidency defending himself against false allegations for four years instead of doing the work he was ELECTED to do?
In this thread I've noticed how you demand absolute proof that Biden abused his power, even to the point of denying that his bragging about holding back money unless Ukraine did what he told them to do was not proof but you think hearsay and opinions are enough to warrant impeaching and removing Trump from office. Double standard? Sure looks that way.

Mueller clearly found evidence of obstruction in Trump’s effort to dismiss the prosecutor investigating him.

He has turned over zero documents and attempted to prevent any cooperation with the current investigation.

I don’t demand any absolute proof of anything. I just want any amount of evidence to show that Biden got Shokin fired in order to help Burisma as opposed to fulfilling US foreign policy aimed at helping the US interests. Anything at all would be fine. You’re little video that everyone totes around does not show a personal motive.

 

[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

Do you believe Viktor Shokin?

Sure, why not? He lost his job. I know he knows what he was doing. If you have doubts, investigate it

 

[jc456]

No. They're trying to invent a case.

Is Trump trying to get the truth out or is he impeding it?

He cooperated with Mueller for two years. How long do you expect him to keep indulging them?

He refused to be interviewed. I wouldn’t call that cooperation.

He cooperates as long as he is president of the United States. That’s how the government works. Checks and balances.

Now, is Trump trying to get the truth out or is he trying to impede it?

Trump turned over more than 1.5 million documents. I would call that cooperating. He knew it was never going to end. We all knew it. They had nothing, Mueller couldn't find anything so they just moved on to another false allegation hoping it might stick. Did you expect him to spend his entire presidency defending himself against false allegations for four years instead of doing the work he was ELECTED to do?
In this thread I've noticed how you demand absolute proof that Biden abused his power, even to the point of denying that his bragging about holding back money unless Ukraine did what he told them to do was not proof but you think hearsay and opinions are enough to warrant impeaching and removing Trump from office. Double standard? Sure looks that way.

Mueller clearly found evidence of obstruction in Trump’s effort to dismiss the prosecutor investigating him.

He has turned over zero documents and attempted to prevent any cooperation with the current investigation.

I don’t demand any absolute proof of anything. I just want any amount of evidence to show that Biden got Shokin fired in order to help Burisma as opposed to fulfilling US foreign policy aimed at helping the US interests. Anything at all would be fine. You’re little video that everyone totes around does not show a personal motive.

Then why didn’t he say so in his report?

 

[jc456]

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.

No it isn’t the definition of hearsay, Dummy.
They are HIS words.


hear·say
/ˈhirˌsā/
noun

1. information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
   "according to hearsay, Bob had managed to break his arm"
   • LAW
     the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.

You need the legal definition of hearsay.


Hearsay
Definition
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts.

Zelinsky’s statement was out of court. Was it not?

And I don’t believe it

 

[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?

Sure, why not? He lost his job. I know he knows what he was doing. If you have doubts, investigate it

Because Shokin is only spinning this story of Biden and Burisma in the last few months. That doesn’t strike you as awfully convenient?

 

[jc456]

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.

The congress is not a court, you just said so. Their subpoena doesn’t have authority. Even Turly said that. Want to subpoena someone, go get one from the courts

 

[colfax_m]

Is Trump trying to get the truth out or is he impeding it?

He cooperated with Mueller for two years. How long do you expect him to keep indulging them?

He refused to be interviewed. I wouldn’t call that cooperation.

He cooperates as long as he is president of the United States. That’s how the government works. Checks and balances.

Now, is Trump trying to get the truth out or is he trying to impede it?

Trump turned over more than 1.5 million documents. I would call that cooperating. He knew it was never going to end. We all knew it. They had nothing, Mueller couldn't find anything so they just moved on to another false allegation hoping it might stick. Did you expect him to spend his entire presidency defending himself against false allegations for four years instead of doing the work he was ELECTED to do?
In this thread I've noticed how you demand absolute proof that Biden abused his power, even to the point of denying that his bragging about holding back money unless Ukraine did what he told them to do was not proof but you think hearsay and opinions are enough to warrant impeaching and removing Trump from office. Double standard? Sure looks that way.

Mueller clearly found evidence of obstruction in Trump’s effort to dismiss the prosecutor investigating him.

He has turned over zero documents and attempted to prevent any cooperation with the current investigation.

I don’t demand any absolute proof of anything. I just want any amount of evidence to show that Biden got Shokin fired in order to help Burisma as opposed to fulfilling US foreign policy aimed at helping the US interests. Anything at all would be fine. You’re little video that everyone totes around does not show a personal motive.

Then why didn’t he say so in his report?

Because the DoJ policy prevents Trump from being prosecuted. Only Congress can make that determination. Mueller was very clear he was going to lay out the facts as he found them but not make a determination of whether those facts constituted a crime. It’s clear from the report that Trump did attempt to obstruct justice by attempting to fire Mueller.

 

[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.

The congress is not a court, you just said so. Their subpoena doesn’t have authority. Even Turly said that. Want to subpoena someone, go get one from the courts

Of course their subpoena has authority. Why wouldn’t it?

There is only one body that has oversight of the executive. That body is Congress, not the courts.

 

[jc456]

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.

That fker is two faced. What a legacy to own

 

[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

Do you believe Viktor Shokin?

Sure, why not? He lost his job. I know he knows what he was doing. If you have doubts, investigate it

Because Shokin is only spinning this story of Biden and Burisma in the last few months. That doesn’t strike you as awfully convenient?

How do you know?

 

[jc456]

He cooperated with Mueller for two years. How long do you expect him to keep indulging them?

He refused to be interviewed. I wouldn’t call that cooperation.

He cooperates as long as he is president of the United States. That’s how the government works. Checks and balances.

Now, is Trump trying to get the truth out or is he trying to impede it?

Trump turned over more than 1.5 million documents. I would call that cooperating. He knew it was never going to end. We all knew it. They had nothing, Mueller couldn't find anything so they just moved on to another false allegation hoping it might stick. Did you expect him to spend his entire presidency defending himself against false allegations for four years instead of doing the work he was ELECTED to do?
In this thread I've noticed how you demand absolute proof that Biden abused his power, even to the point of denying that his bragging about holding back money unless Ukraine did what he told them to do was not proof but you think hearsay and opinions are enough to warrant impeaching and removing Trump from office. Double standard? Sure looks that way.

Mueller clearly found evidence of obstruction in Trump’s effort to dismiss the prosecutor investigating him.

He has turned over zero documents and attempted to prevent any cooperation with the current investigation.

I don’t demand any absolute proof of anything. I just want any amount of evidence to show that Biden got Shokin fired in order to help Burisma as opposed to fulfilling US foreign policy aimed at helping the US interests. Anything at all would be fine. You’re little video that everyone totes around does not show a personal motive.

Then why didn’t he say so in his report?

Because the DoJ policy prevents Trump from being prosecuted. Only Congress can make that determination. Mueller was very clear he was going to lay out the facts as he found them but not make a determination of whether those facts constituted a crime. It’s clear from the report that Trump did attempt to obstruct justice by attempting to fire Mueller.

No, the constitution says so