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

[colfax_m]

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

The constitution says what exactly?

 

[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

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.

I just told you why, they aren’t the courts and no judge

 

[jc456]

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

The constitution says what exactly?

Read it. BTW, post that supposed DOJ policy. Barr said there’s not one.

 

[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.

I just told you why, they aren’t the courts and no judge

The courts don’t have oversight authority over the president. Congress does. Why would Congress need the court’s permission to exercise their authority? This is a basic issue of separation of powers.

 

[colfax_m]

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

The constitution says what exactly?

Read it

I have. How could it be illegal for Biden to get a prosecutor fired to save his son but totally okay for Trump to have a prosecutor fired for investigating him?

I’ve been dying to know.

 

[Terri4Trump]

"Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee claimed in their impeachment inquiry report this week that Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani over the summer had contact with a phone number for the White House budget office where military aid to Ukraine was temporarily being withheld."

When confronted about his claim, when challenged to PROVE the call came from the WH and to identify the WH staff member the phone number belonged to, SCHIFF COULD NOT DO IT:

"The report notes that the committee was unable to identify the specific White House official associated with the phone number."

Gee...no crime, no evidence of a crime, no whistle blower, no witnesses.....NO SURPRISE!

Schiff is a lying sack of filth and everybody knows it

 

[jc456]

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

The constitution says what exactly?

Read it

I have. How could it be illegal for Biden to get a prosecutor fired to save his son but totally okay for Trump to have a prosecutor fired for investigating him?

I’ve been dying to know.

What prosecutor did trump fire?

 

[jc456]

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.

I just told you why, they aren’t the courts and no judge

The courts don’t have oversight authority over the president. Congress does. Why would Congress need the court’s permission to exercise their authority? This is a basic issue of separation of powers.

Because they aren’t a court. That’s why.Courts authorize subpoena’s. What is funny is you don’t think it’s obstruction to bleach bit PCs and destroy evidence under congressional subpoenas

 

[Care4all]

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?

Because Shokin never made the complaint at the time he was fired, because the asst prosecutor General at the time asked about Burisma said that the Burisma investigation was dormant for over a year at the time Shokin was fired, because shocking is working with criminals to push this phony allegation, because the whole made up scandal and propaganda was CREATED by The Russians and Ukrainian Russians.... because firing Shokin, only meant Burisma would be investigated by the replacement prosecutor so firing him did not help Burisma...... there's a lot of reasons, you just need to be able to read......

 

[mudwhistle]

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

Well it seems to be working....Schiff reads off a false statement during a hearing that he later admitted was a parody but the media repeats it as fact and the dickheads on this site repeat it like it's 100% genuine.

It's fraud....slander.....a total hoax....and that is the evidence Nancy Pelosi says forces her to impeach the president. Not the evidence they failed to produce of any of this happening...but their hearsay evidence and perjured testimony by the chairman and his coached witnesses is being used as grounds for impeachment.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

I just told you why, they aren’t the courts and no judge

The courts don’t have oversight authority over the president. Congress does. Why would Congress need the court’s permission to exercise their authority? This is a basic issue of separation of powers.

Because they aren’t a court. That’s why.Courts authorize subpoena’s. What is funny is you don’t think it’s obstruction to bleach bit PCs and destroy evidence under congressional subpoenas

Courts authorize subpoenas for criminal proceedings. This is not a criminal proceeding.

It was definitely obstruction to destroy evidence under Congressional subpoena. Why do you think it is obstruction?

Don’t pretend to know what I think. You don’t.

 

[jc456]

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?

Because Shokin never made the complaint at the time he was fired, because the asst prosecutor General at the time asked about Burisma said that the Burisma investigation was dormant for over a year at the time Shokin was fired, because shocking is working with criminals to push this phony allegation, because the whole made up scandal and propaganda was CREATED by The Russians and Ukrainian Russians.... because firing Shokin, only meant Burisma would be investigated by the replacement prosecutor so firing him did not help Burisma...... there's a lot of reasons, you just need to be able to read......

You have a transcript of the dude’s firing?

Ohhhkay Francis

 

[jc456]

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.

I just told you why, they aren’t the courts and no judge

The courts don’t have oversight authority over the president. Congress does. Why would Congress need the court’s permission to exercise their authority? This is a basic issue of separation of powers.

Because they aren’t a court. That’s why.Courts authorize subpoena’s. What is funny is you don’t think it’s obstruction to bleach bit PCs and destroy evidence under congressional subpoenas

Courts authorize subpoenas for criminal proceedings. This is not a criminal proceeding.

It was definitely obstruction to destroy evidence under Congressional subpoena. Why do you think it is obstruction?

Don’t pretend to know what I think. You don’t.

Sure it is, what else is it?

 

[jc456]

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.

I just told you why, they aren’t the courts and no judge

The courts don’t have oversight authority over the president. Congress does. Why would Congress need the court’s permission to exercise their authority? This is a basic issue of separation of powers.

Because they aren’t a court. That’s why.Courts authorize subpoena’s. What is funny is you don’t think it’s obstruction to bleach bit PCs and destroy evidence under congressional subpoenas

Courts authorize subpoenas for criminal proceedings. This is not a criminal proceeding.

It was definitely obstruction to destroy evidence under Congressional subpoena. Why do you think it is obstruction?

Don’t pretend to know what I think. You don’t.

So hitlery should have been arrested?

 

[colfax_m]

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.

I just told you why, they aren’t the courts and no judge

The courts don’t have oversight authority over the president. Congress does. Why would Congress need the court’s permission to exercise their authority? This is a basic issue of separation of powers.

Because they aren’t a court. That’s why.Courts authorize subpoena’s. What is funny is you don’t think it’s obstruction to bleach bit PCs and destroy evidence under congressional subpoenas

Courts authorize subpoenas for criminal proceedings. This is not a criminal proceeding.

It was definitely obstruction to destroy evidence under Congressional subpoena. Why do you think it is obstruction?

Don’t pretend to know what I think. You don’t.

So hitlery should have been arrested?

Maybe. If there was a good enough case against her. The FBI actually tried to see if there was a case against her but couldn’t.

Are you aware of Republicans saying she should have been arrested for ignoring the subpoena?

 

[Nostra]

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?

There is a reason you didn't provide a link.

What is HEARSAY?
A term applied to that species of testimony given by a witness who relates, not what he knows personally, but what others have told him, or what he has heard said by others.

What is HEARSAY? definition of HEARSAY (Black's Law Dictionary)

 

[jc456]

I just told you why, they aren’t the courts and no judge

The courts don’t have oversight authority over the president. Congress does. Why would Congress need the court’s permission to exercise their authority? This is a basic issue of separation of powers.

Because they aren’t a court. That’s why.Courts authorize subpoena’s. What is funny is you don’t think it’s obstruction to bleach bit PCs and destroy evidence under congressional subpoenas

Courts authorize subpoenas for criminal proceedings. This is not a criminal proceeding.

It was definitely obstruction to destroy evidence under Congressional subpoena. Why do you think it is obstruction?

Don’t pretend to know what I think. You don’t.

So hitlery should have been arrested?

Maybe. If there was a good enough case against her. The FBI actually tried to see if there was a case against her but couldn’t.

Are you aware of Republicans saying she should have been arrested for ignoring the subpoena?

Yep . Jim Jordan, the one involved. But he said, well it isn’t a court like subpoena. Hmmm

 

[colfax_m]

The courts don’t have oversight authority over the president. Congress does. Why would Congress need the court’s permission to exercise their authority? This is a basic issue of separation of powers.

Because they aren’t a court. That’s why.Courts authorize subpoena’s. What is funny is you don’t think it’s obstruction to bleach bit PCs and destroy evidence under congressional subpoenas

Courts authorize subpoenas for criminal proceedings. This is not a criminal proceeding.

It was definitely obstruction to destroy evidence under Congressional subpoena. Why do you think it is obstruction?

Don’t pretend to know what I think. You don’t.

So hitlery should have been arrested?

Maybe. If there was a good enough case against her. The FBI actually tried to see if there was a case against her but couldn’t.

Are you aware of Republicans saying she should have been arrested for ignoring the subpoena?

Yep . Jim Jordan, the one involved. But he said, well it isn’t a court like subpoena. Hmmm

Jim

The courts don’t have oversight authority over the president. Congress does. Why would Congress need the court’s permission to exercise their authority? This is a basic issue of separation of powers.

Because they aren’t a court. That’s why.Courts authorize subpoena’s. What is funny is you don’t think it’s obstruction to bleach bit PCs and destroy evidence under congressional subpoenas

Courts authorize subpoenas for criminal proceedings. This is not a criminal proceeding.

It was definitely obstruction to destroy evidence under Congressional subpoena. Why do you think it is obstruction?

Don’t pretend to know what I think. You don’t.

So hitlery should have been arrested?

Maybe. If there was a good enough case against her. The FBI actually tried to see if there was a case against her but couldn’t.

Are you aware of Republicans saying she should have been arrested for ignoring the subpoena?

Yep . Jim Jordan, the one involved. But he said, well it isn’t a court like subpoena. Hmmm

Can you provide me a source to where Jim Jordan said this about Clinton?

 

[colfax_m]

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?

There is a reason you didn't provide a link.

What is HEARSAY?
A term applied to that species of testimony given by a witness who relates, not what he knows personally, but what others have told him, or what he has heard said by others.

What is HEARSAY? definition of HEARSAY (Black's Law Dictionary)

Has Zelinsky given testimony? No. He hasn’t.

The statement you’re referring to is out of court. Therefore it’s hearsay. It can be used as evidence but it’s weak evidence since it wasn’t said under oath and is not available for cross examination.

 

[Nostra]

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?

There is a reason you didn't provide a link.

What is HEARSAY?
A term applied to that species of testimony given by a witness who relates, not what he knows personally, but what others have told him, or what he has heard said by others.

What is HEARSAY? definition of HEARSAY (Black's Law Dictionary)

Has Zelinsky given testimony? No. He hasn’t.

The statement you’re referring to is out of court. Therefore it’s hearsay. It can be used as evidence but it’s weak evidence since it wasn’t said under oath and is not available for cross examination.

Nope. Schifferbrains wouldn't call him because he actually has first hand knowledge and destroys Adumb's lying narrative.

next?