Schiff faces mounting GOP calls for resignation over collusion claims

[Dragonlady]

Ohhhh......you say he's lying because he says he has "proof" of something.....but he hasn't told you what it is yet, so he's lying.

Chairman Adam Schiff has said for two years that he had EVIDENCE of President Donald Trump in collusion with Russia. If he had evidence, didn't it behoove him to share that evidence with the Special Investigator? NOT doing so, wouldn't that be obstruction of justice? Another term would be spoliation of evidence. Both are crimes, are they not?

"The spoliation of evidence is the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding."

If Adam Schiff really does have EVIDENCE of collusion by President Donald Trump, especially as Chairman of the INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, shouldn't he be arrested? Try to be honest. Shouldn't he be arrested? Not just step down from his chairmanship but be arrested?

Markle, that is silly as heck!

First, 'collusion' is not a crime. Trump and acolytes have been saying such for years...

Schiff spelled out what collusion took place in the hearing yesterday.... every single thing he mentioned, HAPPENED... maybe they are not a criminal conspiracy, but seemingly WRONG none the less... witting or unwittingly.

Right HERE are the things they did that are just shocking, and as said, we need to know what Mueller found out on them, and if he had determined why they did all of these things, whether criminal or not:

My colleagues might think it’s OK that the Russians offered dirt on the Democratic candidate for president as part of what’s described as the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign. You might think that’s OK.

“My colleagues might think it’s OK that when that was offered to the son of the president, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the president’s son did not call the FBI; he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help – no, instead that son said that he would ‘love’ the help with the Russians.

“You might think it’s OK that he took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns, also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that they concealed it from the public. You might think it’s OK that their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better. You might think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that when it was discovered, a year later, that they then lied about that meeting and said that it was about adoptions. You might think that it’s OK that it was reported that the president helped dictate that lie. You might think that’s OK. I don’t.

“You might think it’s OK that the campaign chairman of a presidential campaign would offer information about that campaign to a Russian oligarch in exchange for money or debt forgiveness. You might think that’s OK, I don’t.

“You might think it’s OK that that campaign chairman offered polling data to someone linked to Russian intelligence. I don’t think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that the president himself called on Russia to hack his opponent’s emails, if they were listening. You might think it’s OK that later that day, in fact, the Russians attempted to hack a server affiliated with that campaign. I don’t think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law sought to establish a secret back channel of communication with the Russians through a Russian diplomatic facility. I don’t think that’s OK.


“You might think it’s OK that an associate of the president made direct contact with the GRU through Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks, that is considered a hostile intelligence agency. You might think it’s OK that a senior campaign official was instructed to reach that associate and find out what that hostile intelligence agency had to say in terms of dirt on his opponent.

“You might think it’s OK that the national security adviser designate secretly conferred with the Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions, and you might think it’s OK that he lied about it to the FBI.

“You might say that’s all OK, that’s just what you need to do to win. But I don’t think it’s OK. I don’t think it’s OK. I think it’s immoral, I think it’s unethical, I think it’s unpatriotic and, yes, I think it’s corrupt – and evidence of collusion.”

“Now I have always said that the question of whether this amounts to proof of conspiracy was another matter. Whether the special counsel could prove beyond a reasonable doubt the proof of that crime would be up to the special counsel, and I would accept his decision, and I do. He’s a good and honorable man, and he is a good prosecutor.

“But I do not think that conduct, criminal or not, is OK. And the day we do think that’s OK is the day we will look back and say that is the day that America lost its way.”
Under partisan fire, Adam Schiff presents his case without apology

WE ALL have a great public interest in knowing why all of these things occurred, why oh why oh why, did the Trump team, do all of those things that appear to be extremely, unethical and simply un-American, imo?

These are ALL THINGS known to the public through excellent reporting... they are not things Schiff released, these are knowns, not made up lies...

Adam Schiff stated, several times that he had evidence of collusion.

Today, Chairman Adam Schiff knows he is in deep trouble and is spinning furiously to bail himself out.

Your desperation is duly noted!

YOU are the ones who are spinning furiously to try to turn Trump's lies into truth. We've all seen the evidence of collusion, over and over. Did it cross the line of criminal conspiracy? Mueller says it didn't but we still haven't seen anything of what Mueller said, only what Barr said he said. And Barr was hired to cover Trump's ass so it's not like he has much credibility.

 

[The Original Tree]

Adam Schiff
Has Naked Trump!!!

 

[The Original Tree]

You got naked Trump?

Ohhhh......you say he's lying because he says he has "proof" of something.....but he hasn't told you what it is yet, so he's lying.

Chairman Adam Schiff has said for two years that he had EVIDENCE of President Donald Trump in collusion with Russia. If he had evidence, didn't it behoove him to share that evidence with the Special Investigator? NOT doing so, wouldn't that be obstruction of justice? Another term would be spoliation of evidence. Both are crimes, are they not?

"The spoliation of evidence is the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding."

If Adam Schiff really does have EVIDENCE of collusion by President Donald Trump, especially as Chairman of the INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, shouldn't he be arrested? Try to be honest. Shouldn't he be arrested? Not just step down from his chairmanship but be arrested?

Markle, that is silly as heck!

First, 'collusion' is not a crime. Trump and acolytes have been saying such for years...

Schiff spelled out what collusion took place in the hearing yesterday.... every single thing he mentioned, HAPPENED... maybe they are not a criminal conspiracy, but seemingly WRONG none the less... witting or unwittingly.

Right HERE are the things they did that are just shocking, and as said, we need to know what Mueller found out on them, and if he had determined why they did all of these things, whether criminal or not:

My colleagues might think it’s OK that the Russians offered dirt on the Democratic candidate for president as part of what’s described as the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign. You might think that’s OK.

“My colleagues might think it’s OK that when that was offered to the son of the president, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the president’s son did not call the FBI; he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help – no, instead that son said that he would ‘love’ the help with the Russians.

“You might think it’s OK that he took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns, also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that they concealed it from the public. You might think it’s OK that their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better. You might think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that when it was discovered, a year later, that they then lied about that meeting and said that it was about adoptions. You might think that it’s OK that it was reported that the president helped dictate that lie. You might think that’s OK. I don’t.

“You might think it’s OK that the campaign chairman of a presidential campaign would offer information about that campaign to a Russian oligarch in exchange for money or debt forgiveness. You might think that’s OK, I don’t.

“You might think it’s OK that that campaign chairman offered polling data to someone linked to Russian intelligence. I don’t think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that the president himself called on Russia to hack his opponent’s emails, if they were listening. You might think it’s OK that later that day, in fact, the Russians attempted to hack a server affiliated with that campaign. I don’t think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law sought to establish a secret back channel of communication with the Russians through a Russian diplomatic facility. I don’t think that’s OK.


“You might think it’s OK that an associate of the president made direct contact with the GRU through Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks, that is considered a hostile intelligence agency. You might think it’s OK that a senior campaign official was instructed to reach that associate and find out what that hostile intelligence agency had to say in terms of dirt on his opponent.

“You might think it’s OK that the national security adviser designate secretly conferred with the Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions, and you might think it’s OK that he lied about it to the FBI.

“You might say that’s all OK, that’s just what you need to do to win. But I don’t think it’s OK. I don’t think it’s OK. I think it’s immoral, I think it’s unethical, I think it’s unpatriotic and, yes, I think it’s corrupt – and evidence of collusion.”

“Now I have always said that the question of whether this amounts to proof of conspiracy was another matter. Whether the special counsel could prove beyond a reasonable doubt the proof of that crime would be up to the special counsel, and I would accept his decision, and I do. He’s a good and honorable man, and he is a good prosecutor.

“But I do not think that conduct, criminal or not, is OK. And the day we do think that’s OK is the day we will look back and say that is the day that America lost its way.”
Under partisan fire, Adam Schiff presents his case without apology

WE ALL have a great public interest in knowing why all of these things occurred, why oh why oh why, did the Trump team, do all of those things that appear to be extremely, unethical and simply un-American, imo?

These are ALL THINGS known to the public through excellent reporting... they are not things Schiff released, these are knowns, not made up lies...

Adam Schiff stated, several times that he had evidence of collusion.

Today, Chairman Adam Schiff knows he is in deep trouble and is spinning furiously to bail himself out.

Your desperation is duly noted!

YOU are the ones who are spinning furiously to try to turn Trump's lies into truth. We've all seen the evidence of collusion, over and over. Did it cross the line of criminal conspiracy? Mueller says it didn't but we still haven't seen anything of what Mueller said, only what Barr said he said. And Barr was hired to cover Trump's ass so it's not like he has much credibility.

 

[BWK]

Ohhhh......you say he's lying because he says he has "proof" of something.....but he hasn't told you what it is yet, so he's lying.

Chairman Adam Schiff has said for two years that he had EVIDENCE of President Donald Trump in collusion with Russia. If he had evidence, didn't it behoove him to share that evidence with the Special Investigator? NOT doing so, wouldn't that be obstruction of justice? Another term would be spoliation of evidence. Both are crimes, are they not?

"The spoliation of evidence is the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding."

If Adam Schiff really does have EVIDENCE of collusion by President Donald Trump, especially as Chairman of the INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, shouldn't he be arrested? Try to be honest. Shouldn't he be arrested? Not just step down from his chairmanship but be arrested?

Markle, that is silly as heck!

First, 'collusion' is not a crime. Trump and acolytes have been saying such for years...

Schiff spelled out what collusion took place in the hearing yesterday.... every single thing he mentioned, HAPPENED... maybe they are not a criminal conspiracy, but seemingly WRONG none the less... witting or unwittingly.

Right HERE are the things they did that are just shocking, and as said, we need to know what Mueller found out on them, and if he had determined why they did all of these things, whether criminal or not:

My colleagues might think it’s OK that the Russians offered dirt on the Democratic candidate for president as part of what’s described as the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign. You might think that’s OK.

“My colleagues might think it’s OK that when that was offered to the son of the president, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the president’s son did not call the FBI; he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help – no, instead that son said that he would ‘love’ the help with the Russians.

“You might think it’s OK that he took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns, also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that they concealed it from the public. You might think it’s OK that their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better. You might think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that when it was discovered, a year later, that they then lied about that meeting and said that it was about adoptions. You might think that it’s OK that it was reported that the president helped dictate that lie. You might think that’s OK. I don’t.

“You might think it’s OK that the campaign chairman of a presidential campaign would offer information about that campaign to a Russian oligarch in exchange for money or debt forgiveness. You might think that’s OK, I don’t.

“You might think it’s OK that that campaign chairman offered polling data to someone linked to Russian intelligence. I don’t think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that the president himself called on Russia to hack his opponent’s emails, if they were listening. You might think it’s OK that later that day, in fact, the Russians attempted to hack a server affiliated with that campaign. I don’t think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law sought to establish a secret back channel of communication with the Russians through a Russian diplomatic facility. I don’t think that’s OK.


“You might think it’s OK that an associate of the president made direct contact with the GRU through Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks, that is considered a hostile intelligence agency. You might think it’s OK that a senior campaign official was instructed to reach that associate and find out what that hostile intelligence agency had to say in terms of dirt on his opponent.

“You might think it’s OK that the national security adviser designate secretly conferred with the Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions, and you might think it’s OK that he lied about it to the FBI.

“You might say that’s all OK, that’s just what you need to do to win. But I don’t think it’s OK. I don’t think it’s OK. I think it’s immoral, I think it’s unethical, I think it’s unpatriotic and, yes, I think it’s corrupt – and evidence of collusion.”

“Now I have always said that the question of whether this amounts to proof of conspiracy was another matter. Whether the special counsel could prove beyond a reasonable doubt the proof of that crime would be up to the special counsel, and I would accept his decision, and I do. He’s a good and honorable man, and he is a good prosecutor.

“But I do not think that conduct, criminal or not, is OK. And the day we do think that’s OK is the day we will look back and say that is the day that America lost its way.”
Under partisan fire, Adam Schiff presents his case without apology

WE ALL have a great public interest in knowing why all of these things occurred, why oh why oh why, did the Trump team, do all of those things that appear to be extremely, unethical and simply un-American, imo?

These are ALL THINGS known to the public through excellent reporting... they are not things Schiff released, these are knowns, not made up lies...

Adam Schiff stated, several times that he had evidence of collusion.

Today, Chairman Adam Schiff knows he is in deep trouble and is spinning furiously to bail himself out.

Your desperation is duly noted!

YOU are the ones who are spinning furiously to try to turn Trump's lies into truth. We've all seen the evidence of collusion, over and over. Did it cross the line of criminal conspiracy? Mueller says it didn't but we still haven't seen anything of what Mueller said, only what Barr said he said. And Barr was hired to cover Trump's ass so it's not like he has much credibility.

And now we don't know what Barr is saying, because he walked back some of what he wrote in the summary on Sunday. He said he didn't mean for the public to take it as the full summary. Really? Then what did you mean to say, and why didn't you hand deliver this report straight to Congress? Are you covering for Trump and his criminal lackeys?

 

[Markle]

Gee, I wonder if it has to do with LEAKING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

Senate sources suspect Nunes behind leak of Warner texts - CNN.co
Watchdog group files ethics complaint against Nunes after report of ...

Senate Intelligence Leaders Say House G.O.P. Leaked a Senator's ...

All three of your links are about the same allegation from over a year ago.

Time to catch up nat4900, time to catch up.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Ohhhh......you say he's lying because he says he has "proof" of something.....but he hasn't told you what it is yet, so he's lying.

Chairman Adam Schiff has said for two years that he had EVIDENCE of President Donald Trump in collusion with Russia. If he had evidence, didn't it behoove him to share that evidence with the Special Investigator? NOT doing so, wouldn't that be obstruction of justice? Another term would be spoliation of evidence. Both are crimes, are they not?

"The spoliation of evidence is the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding."

If Adam Schiff really does have EVIDENCE of collusion by President Donald Trump, especially as Chairman of the INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, shouldn't he be arrested? Try to be honest. Shouldn't he be arrested? Not just step down from his chairmanship but be arrested?

Markle, that is silly as heck!

First, 'collusion' is not a crime. Trump and acolytes have been saying such for years...

Schiff spelled out what collusion took place in the hearing yesterday.... every single thing he mentioned, HAPPENED... maybe they are not a criminal conspiracy, but seemingly WRONG none the less... witting or unwittingly.

Right HERE are the things they did that are just shocking, and as said, we need to know what Mueller found out on them, and if he had determined why they did all of these things, whether criminal or not:

My colleagues might think it’s OK that the Russians offered dirt on the Democratic candidate for president as part of what’s described as the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign. You might think that’s OK.

“My colleagues might think it’s OK that when that was offered to the son of the president, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the president’s son did not call the FBI; he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help – no, instead that son said that he would ‘love’ the help with the Russians.

“You might think it’s OK that he took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns, also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that they concealed it from the public. You might think it’s OK that their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better. You might think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that when it was discovered, a year later, that they then lied about that meeting and said that it was about adoptions. You might think that it’s OK that it was reported that the president helped dictate that lie. You might think that’s OK. I don’t.

“You might think it’s OK that the campaign chairman of a presidential campaign would offer information about that campaign to a Russian oligarch in exchange for money or debt forgiveness. You might think that’s OK, I don’t.

“You might think it’s OK that that campaign chairman offered polling data to someone linked to Russian intelligence. I don’t think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that the president himself called on Russia to hack his opponent’s emails, if they were listening. You might think it’s OK that later that day, in fact, the Russians attempted to hack a server affiliated with that campaign. I don’t think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law sought to establish a secret back channel of communication with the Russians through a Russian diplomatic facility. I don’t think that’s OK.


“You might think it’s OK that an associate of the president made direct contact with the GRU through Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks, that is considered a hostile intelligence agency. You might think it’s OK that a senior campaign official was instructed to reach that associate and find out what that hostile intelligence agency had to say in terms of dirt on his opponent.

“You might think it’s OK that the national security adviser designate secretly conferred with the Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions, and you might think it’s OK that he lied about it to the FBI.

“You might say that’s all OK, that’s just what you need to do to win. But I don’t think it’s OK. I don’t think it’s OK. I think it’s immoral, I think it’s unethical, I think it’s unpatriotic and, yes, I think it’s corrupt – and evidence of collusion.”

“Now I have always said that the question of whether this amounts to proof of conspiracy was another matter. Whether the special counsel could prove beyond a reasonable doubt the proof of that crime would be up to the special counsel, and I would accept his decision, and I do. He’s a good and honorable man, and he is a good prosecutor.

“But I do not think that conduct, criminal or not, is OK. And the day we do think that’s OK is the day we will look back and say that is the day that America lost its way.”
Under partisan fire, Adam Schiff presents his case without apology

WE ALL have a great public interest in knowing why all of these things occurred, why oh why oh why, did the Trump team, do all of those things that appear to be extremely, unethical and simply un-American, imo?

These are ALL THINGS known to the public through excellent reporting... they are not things Schiff released, these are knowns, not made up lies...

Adam Schiff stated, several times that he had evidence of collusion.

Today, Chairman Adam Schiff knows he is in deep trouble and is spinning furiously to bail himself out.

Your desperation is duly noted!

YOU are the ones who are spinning furiously to try to turn Trump's lies into truth. We've all seen the evidence of collusion, over and over. Did it cross the line of criminal conspiracy? Mueller says it didn't but we still haven't seen anything of what Mueller said, only what Barr said he said. And Barr was hired to cover Trump's ass so it's not like he has much credibility.

And now we don't know what Barr is saying, because he walked back some of what he wrote in the summary on Sunday. He said he didn't mean for the public to take it as the full summary. Really? Then what did you mean to say, and why didn't you hand deliver this report straight to Congress? Are you covering for Trump and his criminal lackeys?

Bullshit, he didn't walk back anything. From the beginning he said he would release everything in the report he was legally able to, but the Democrats, being exposed as liars and frauds are pretending that Barr is trying to hold back something only because they are, let's face it, such outrageous liars and frauds.

 

[BWK]

Adam Schiff
Has Naked Trump!!!

Too bad the members in Congress never took the opportunity to defend Trump or rebuke Schiff. Schiff is spot on. "It is not okay." for Trump to have done the mountains of corrupt, unethical, immoral, unpatriotic crap they did, and the whole country knows it.

Republicans might think they hold some moral high ground, but as of today, they can't even hold the bags of shit in their britches with the abominable things they have done to this country.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Mueller report did find evidence of collusion just not beyond a reasonable doubt.

What crime were they colluding on? Mueller said there was no crime at all.. S who is lying you or Mueller?

 

[BWK]

Chairman Adam Schiff has said for two years that he had EVIDENCE of President Donald Trump in collusion with Russia. If he had evidence, didn't it behoove him to share that evidence with the Special Investigator? NOT doing so, wouldn't that be obstruction of justice? Another term would be spoliation of evidence. Both are crimes, are they not?

"The spoliation of evidence is the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding."

If Adam Schiff really does have EVIDENCE of collusion by President Donald Trump, especially as Chairman of the INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, shouldn't he be arrested? Try to be honest. Shouldn't he be arrested? Not just step down from his chairmanship but be arrested?

Markle, that is silly as heck!

First, 'collusion' is not a crime. Trump and acolytes have been saying such for years...

Schiff spelled out what collusion took place in the hearing yesterday.... every single thing he mentioned, HAPPENED... maybe they are not a criminal conspiracy, but seemingly WRONG none the less... witting or unwittingly.

Right HERE are the things they did that are just shocking, and as said, we need to know what Mueller found out on them, and if he had determined why they did all of these things, whether criminal or not:

My colleagues might think it’s OK that the Russians offered dirt on the Democratic candidate for president as part of what’s described as the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign. You might think that’s OK.

“My colleagues might think it’s OK that when that was offered to the son of the president, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the president’s son did not call the FBI; he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help – no, instead that son said that he would ‘love’ the help with the Russians.

“You might think it’s OK that he took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns, also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that they concealed it from the public. You might think it’s OK that their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better. You might think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that when it was discovered, a year later, that they then lied about that meeting and said that it was about adoptions. You might think that it’s OK that it was reported that the president helped dictate that lie. You might think that’s OK. I don’t.

“You might think it’s OK that the campaign chairman of a presidential campaign would offer information about that campaign to a Russian oligarch in exchange for money or debt forgiveness. You might think that’s OK, I don’t.

“You might think it’s OK that that campaign chairman offered polling data to someone linked to Russian intelligence. I don’t think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that the president himself called on Russia to hack his opponent’s emails, if they were listening. You might think it’s OK that later that day, in fact, the Russians attempted to hack a server affiliated with that campaign. I don’t think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law sought to establish a secret back channel of communication with the Russians through a Russian diplomatic facility. I don’t think that’s OK.


“You might think it’s OK that an associate of the president made direct contact with the GRU through Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks, that is considered a hostile intelligence agency. You might think it’s OK that a senior campaign official was instructed to reach that associate and find out what that hostile intelligence agency had to say in terms of dirt on his opponent.

“You might think it’s OK that the national security adviser designate secretly conferred with the Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions, and you might think it’s OK that he lied about it to the FBI.

“You might say that’s all OK, that’s just what you need to do to win. But I don’t think it’s OK. I don’t think it’s OK. I think it’s immoral, I think it’s unethical, I think it’s unpatriotic and, yes, I think it’s corrupt – and evidence of collusion.”

“Now I have always said that the question of whether this amounts to proof of conspiracy was another matter. Whether the special counsel could prove beyond a reasonable doubt the proof of that crime would be up to the special counsel, and I would accept his decision, and I do. He’s a good and honorable man, and he is a good prosecutor.

“But I do not think that conduct, criminal or not, is OK. And the day we do think that’s OK is the day we will look back and say that is the day that America lost its way.”
Under partisan fire, Adam Schiff presents his case without apology

WE ALL have a great public interest in knowing why all of these things occurred, why oh why oh why, did the Trump team, do all of those things that appear to be extremely, unethical and simply un-American, imo?

These are ALL THINGS known to the public through excellent reporting... they are not things Schiff released, these are knowns, not made up lies...

Adam Schiff stated, several times that he had evidence of collusion.

Today, Chairman Adam Schiff knows he is in deep trouble and is spinning furiously to bail himself out.

Your desperation is duly noted!

YOU are the ones who are spinning furiously to try to turn Trump's lies into truth. We've all seen the evidence of collusion, over and over. Did it cross the line of criminal conspiracy? Mueller says it didn't but we still haven't seen anything of what Mueller said, only what Barr said he said. And Barr was hired to cover Trump's ass so it's not like he has much credibility.

And now we don't know what Barr is saying, because he walked back some of what he wrote in the summary on Sunday. He said he didn't mean for the public to take it as the full summary. Really? Then what did you mean to say, and why didn't you hand deliver this report straight to Congress? Are you covering for Trump and his criminal lackeys?

Bullshit, he didn't walk back anything. From the beginning he said he would release everything in the report he was legally able to, but the Democrats, being exposed as liars and frauds are pretending that Barr is trying to hold back something only because they are, let's face it, such outrageous liars and frauds.

He should have never released anything. It should have gone straight to Congress. He has no stake in this game. Already making an opinion on obstruction over a year ago, cancels out any credibility from Barr.

 

[Markle]

And now we don't know what Barr is saying, because he walked back some of what he wrote in the summary on Sunday. He said he didn't mean for the public to take it as the full summary. Really? Then what did you mean to say, and why didn't you hand deliver this report straight to Congress? Are you covering for Trump and his criminal lackeys?

Prior to opening your mouth, perhaps you should check the law.

NO COLLUSION!

 

[BWK]

The Mueller report did find evidence of collusion just not beyond a reasonable doubt.

What crime were they colluding on? Mueller said there was no crime at all.. S who is lying you or Mueller?

He did? Have you read the report? And by the way, no one needs Mueller to say Trump colluded or not. There was tons of collusion. My personal favorite is him asking Russia to find the emails, and the next day they did. The stolen emails as a matter of fact. That is the definition of collusion, whether you and your ilk like it or not.

 

[BWK]

And now we don't know what Barr is saying, because he walked back some of what he wrote in the summary on Sunday. He said he didn't mean for the public to take it as the full summary. Really? Then what did you mean to say, and why didn't you hand deliver this report straight to Congress? Are you covering for Trump and his criminal lackeys?

Prior to opening your mouth, perhaps you should check the law.

NO COLLUSION!

Dude, get out of here. Gowdy got caught trying to frame Clinton, and you are resting your argument on Gowdy? Lol!

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Mueller report did find evidence of collusion just not beyond a reasonable doubt.

What crime were they colluding on? Mueller said there was no crime at all.. S who is lying you or Mueller?

He did? Have you read the report? And by the way, no one needs Mueller to say Trump colluded or not. There was tons of collusion. My personal favorite is him asking Russia to find the emails, and the next day they did. The stolen emails as a matter of fact. That is the definition of collusion, whether you and your ilk like it or not.

The item was in quotes, in Barr's summery...Do You understand what that means retard?

 

[Markle]

The Mueller report did find evidence of collusion just not beyond a reasonable doubt. I suspect that Democrats are going to have plenty to talk about. It is a sad day when a President CANNOT be exonerated from conspiring with a foreign power to win a election.

Yes, actually he did.

Read Attorney General William Barr's Letter to Congress on the Mueller Report

 

[toomuchtime_]

Markle, that is silly as heck!

First, 'collusion' is not a crime. Trump and acolytes have been saying such for years...

Schiff spelled out what collusion took place in the hearing yesterday.... every single thing he mentioned, HAPPENED... maybe they are not a criminal conspiracy, but seemingly WRONG none the less... witting or unwittingly.

Right HERE are the things they did that are just shocking, and as said, we need to know what Mueller found out on them, and if he had determined why they did all of these things, whether criminal or not:

My colleagues might think it’s OK that the Russians offered dirt on the Democratic candidate for president as part of what’s described as the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign. You might think that’s OK.

“My colleagues might think it’s OK that when that was offered to the son of the president, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the president’s son did not call the FBI; he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help – no, instead that son said that he would ‘love’ the help with the Russians.

“You might think it’s OK that he took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns, also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that they concealed it from the public. You might think it’s OK that their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better. You might think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that when it was discovered, a year later, that they then lied about that meeting and said that it was about adoptions. You might think that it’s OK that it was reported that the president helped dictate that lie. You might think that’s OK. I don’t.

“You might think it’s OK that the campaign chairman of a presidential campaign would offer information about that campaign to a Russian oligarch in exchange for money or debt forgiveness. You might think that’s OK, I don’t.

“You might think it’s OK that that campaign chairman offered polling data to someone linked to Russian intelligence. I don’t think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that the president himself called on Russia to hack his opponent’s emails, if they were listening. You might think it’s OK that later that day, in fact, the Russians attempted to hack a server affiliated with that campaign. I don’t think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law sought to establish a secret back channel of communication with the Russians through a Russian diplomatic facility. I don’t think that’s OK.


“You might think it’s OK that an associate of the president made direct contact with the GRU through Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks, that is considered a hostile intelligence agency. You might think it’s OK that a senior campaign official was instructed to reach that associate and find out what that hostile intelligence agency had to say in terms of dirt on his opponent.

“You might think it’s OK that the national security adviser designate secretly conferred with the Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions, and you might think it’s OK that he lied about it to the FBI.

“You might say that’s all OK, that’s just what you need to do to win. But I don’t think it’s OK. I don’t think it’s OK. I think it’s immoral, I think it’s unethical, I think it’s unpatriotic and, yes, I think it’s corrupt – and evidence of collusion.”

“Now I have always said that the question of whether this amounts to proof of conspiracy was another matter. Whether the special counsel could prove beyond a reasonable doubt the proof of that crime would be up to the special counsel, and I would accept his decision, and I do. He’s a good and honorable man, and he is a good prosecutor.

“But I do not think that conduct, criminal or not, is OK. And the day we do think that’s OK is the day we will look back and say that is the day that America lost its way.”
Under partisan fire, Adam Schiff presents his case without apology

WE ALL have a great public interest in knowing why all of these things occurred, why oh why oh why, did the Trump team, do all of those things that appear to be extremely, unethical and simply un-American, imo?

These are ALL THINGS known to the public through excellent reporting... they are not things Schiff released, these are knowns, not made up lies...

Adam Schiff stated, several times that he had evidence of collusion.

Today, Chairman Adam Schiff knows he is in deep trouble and is spinning furiously to bail himself out.

Your desperation is duly noted!

YOU are the ones who are spinning furiously to try to turn Trump's lies into truth. We've all seen the evidence of collusion, over and over. Did it cross the line of criminal conspiracy? Mueller says it didn't but we still haven't seen anything of what Mueller said, only what Barr said he said. And Barr was hired to cover Trump's ass so it's not like he has much credibility.

And now we don't know what Barr is saying, because he walked back some of what he wrote in the summary on Sunday. He said he didn't mean for the public to take it as the full summary. Really? Then what did you mean to say, and why didn't you hand deliver this report straight to Congress? Are you covering for Trump and his criminal lackeys?

Bullshit, he didn't walk back anything. From the beginning he said he would release everything in the report he was legally able to, but the Democrats, being exposed as liars and frauds are pretending that Barr is trying to hold back something only because they are, let's face it, such outrageous liars and frauds.

He should have never released anything. It should have gone straight to Congress. He has no stake in this game. Already making an opinion on obstruction over a year ago, cancels out any credibility from Barr.

Barr's credibility in intact because he made a logical case for why there couldn't have been any obstruction of justice, no matter how hard those words make you salivate, but the credibility of the Democrats, after more than two years of ceaseless lying about the investigation, is in tatters.

Of course the Democrats don't want the report released to the public because it exposes the massive fraud they perpetrated on the American people, and you claim that the AG should not release the report to cover the Democrats' fraud and possible crimes, is truly bizarre. Indeed, a strong case can be made that the AG should appoint a special counsel to investigate if any crimes where committed by the Obama administration, the Clinton campaign or others in perpetrating this fraud on the American people in an effort to influence the elections in 2016 and 2018, and if Mueller already knew the report would clear the President and conspired with Democrats to withhold the report until after the midterm elections to aid the Democrats.

 

[BWK]

Barr in his letter yesterday said to not call it a summary? Really? You called it no collusion, and no exoneration on obstruction, then you took it upon yourself to decide obstruction, when Congress is supposed to do that. If that isn't a summary, I do not know what is?

Also, why is Barr talking about redacting the embarrassing parts. Really? Why? Is Barr trying to cover for bad behavior by Trump and his team? This thing stinks to high heaven.

Congress does all that.

This is corruption by Bill Barr in real time.

As for collusion and the law, collusion is not a crime, but conspiracy is. Are you telling me that Manafort and Gates handing off polling data to the Russian government is not a conspiracy? Is that investigation into that even over? What about Roger Stone and his dealings with stolen emails, Wikileaks, and Gucifer 2.0? We know that isn't over. If what the FBI claims happened, that is a conspiracy.

 

[Dragonlady]

The Mueller report did find evidence of collusion just not beyond a reasonable doubt.

What crime were they colluding on? Mueller said there was no crime at all.. S who is lying you or Mueller?

If Mueller said there was "no crime at all", what were those 22 indictments all about? You idiots keep pretending there was no crime. There were lots of crimes - over 100 of them, involving 8 different people who plead guilty.

As for the evidence, we don't know what Mueller's evidence says because WE HAVEN'T SEEN IT.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Barr in his letter yesterday said to not call it a summary? Really? You called it no collusion, and no exoneration on obstruction, then you took it upon yourself to decide obstruction, when Congress is supposed to do that. If that isn't a summary, I do not know what is?

Also, why is Barr talking about redacting the embarrassing parts. Really? Why? Is Barr trying to cover for bad behavior by Trump and his team? This thing stinks to high heaven.

Congress does all that.

This is corruption by Bill Barr in real time.

As for collusion and the law, collusion is not a crime, but conspiracy is. Are you telling me that Manafort and Gates handing off polling data to the Russian government is not a conspiracy? Is that investigation into that even over? What about Roger Stone and his dealings with stolen emails, Wikileaks, and Gucifer 2.0? We know that isn't over. If what the FBI claims happened, that is a conspiracy.

Barr's letter was not a summary of the whole report, most of which will deal is matters of law and evidence collected, but only a report on the conclusions Mueller reached on the basis of the evidence he collected. It is entirely up to the AG to decide if a crime has been committed or not, and Barr had previously laid out a cogent argument for why no obstruction of justice could have taken place. Congress will receive the report by mid April and the Democrats will have a fresh opportunity to make fools of themselves with their ridiculous lies, but polls show 75% of voters want to see the full report, so releasing it to the public so they can make informed decisions on the actions of both parties is certainly the right thing to do.

 

[BWK]

Adam Schiff stated, several times that he had evidence of collusion.

Today, Chairman Adam Schiff knows he is in deep trouble and is spinning furiously to bail himself out.

Your desperation is duly noted!

YOU are the ones who are spinning furiously to try to turn Trump's lies into truth. We've all seen the evidence of collusion, over and over. Did it cross the line of criminal conspiracy? Mueller says it didn't but we still haven't seen anything of what Mueller said, only what Barr said he said. And Barr was hired to cover Trump's ass so it's not like he has much credibility.

And now we don't know what Barr is saying, because he walked back some of what he wrote in the summary on Sunday. He said he didn't mean for the public to take it as the full summary. Really? Then what did you mean to say, and why didn't you hand deliver this report straight to Congress? Are you covering for Trump and his criminal lackeys?

Bullshit, he didn't walk back anything. From the beginning he said he would release everything in the report he was legally able to, but the Democrats, being exposed as liars and frauds are pretending that Barr is trying to hold back something only because they are, let's face it, such outrageous liars and frauds.

He should have never released anything. It should have gone straight to Congress. He has no stake in this game. Already making an opinion on obstruction over a year ago, cancels out any credibility from Barr.

Barr's credibility in intact because he made a logical case for why there couldn't have been any obstruction of justice, no matter how hard those words make you salivate, but the credibility of the Democrats, after more than two years of ceaseless lying about the investigation, is in tatters.

Of course the Democrats don't want the report released to the public because it exposes the massive fraud they perpetrated on the American people, and you claim that the AG should not release the report to cover the Democrats' fraud and possible crimes, is truly bizarre. Indeed, a strong case can be made that the AG should appoint a special counsel to investigate if any crimes where committed by the Obama administration, the Clinton campaign or others in perpetrating this fraud on the American people in an effort to influence the elections in 2016 and 2018, and if Mueller already knew the report would clear the President and conspired with Democrats to withhold the report until after the midterm elections to aid the Democrats.

It's not for Barr to decide. He also made the opinion over a year ago when he was not AG. It is for Congress to decide, not Barr.

Also, why is Barr trying to hold back intelligence information to the intelligence committee in this new letter, he he said last week he would release to them? Protecting Trump? The intelligence committee is privy to that information, and all grand jury information. This thing stinks like rotten meat.

 

[Markle]

Dude, get out of here. Gowdy got caught trying to frame Clinton, and you are resting your argument on Gowdy? Lol!

Really? Please reveal to us your reliable source and the working link showing that Trey "Gowdy got caught trying to frame Clinton".

Here’s a full transcript of the exchange:

Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?

Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.

Gowdy: It was not true?

Comey: That’s what I said.

Gowdy: OK. Well, I’m looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?

Comey: That’s not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said “I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material.” That is true?

Comey: There was classified information emailed.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?

Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?

Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.

Comey: That’s a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there’s no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?

Comey: No.

Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I’m not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?

Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.

Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?

Comey: That is right.

Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'