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

[Dragonlady]

What other lies are you peddling today, you Russian piece of shit?

The only one proven to be connected to the Russians - a Russian-born arms dealer to be exact - is Schiff...

...and the only LIARS in this thread are YOU and Schiff.

YOU and Schiff have lied your ass off and claimed a law exists that affords non-qualifying 'Whistle Blowers' ANONYMITY and IMMUNITY.

When Schiff's fellow LAWYER House members demanded he present this non-existent 'law' he COULD NOT DO IT and ran away.

When I challenged YOU to back up YOUR claim that such a law exists you tucked your tail between your fat ass and ran away, refusing to TRY to provide evidence to support your LIE...like you have every time you pop up....like you will now.

You continue to avoid your LIE...while attempting to defend your fellow LIAR Schiff...and laughably keep throwing out pathetic references. ('Russian POS') to a DEBUNKED false allegation made by ignorant dumbass Democrats and snowflakes like you.

So where is the link to this non-existent law, lil' lying snowflake?

Lord but you're funny. Impeachment doesn't require a crime, my Russian fool. Abuse of power is not a crime, but it is impeachable. If you're resting your hat on the idea that no crime was citied, you're even dumber than you think that the rest of us are.

The articles of impeachment haven't even been drafted and you're still complaining that the process is unfair. First it was because it was secret, even though Republicans were in the room and could ask questions. Then when it was public, it was "no direct evidence, all hearsay". Then when direct evidence was cited, it was "partisans and never Trumpers". When that was proven a lie, it was all about Biden.

You keep trying to move the goal posts as the Democrats march relentlessly down the field, bowling over your opposition, conspiracy theories and false narratives.

The Trump Presidency is dead. Even if he escapes this mess, more of his staffers will go to jail, and the American public is saying "Enough". Get this crook out of the White House.

 

[007]

Then when direct evidence was cited,

What direct evidence?

Evidence of what?

I think you people live in an alternate universe devoid of reality.

Your impeachment FARCE is HIGHLY unpopular with the vast majority of Americans. If anyone or anything is DEAD, it's the demtrash's chance of EVER winning the White House next year, and yes, you're going to LOSE your majority in the house too, BECAUSE of this GARGANTUAN CHARADE you've been cooking up since the DAY TRUMP was ELECTED.

And I hope you're ready to go out and SCREAM HELPLESSLY AT THE SKY, AGAIN, because come MONDAY, when the REAL investigation comes out, it's the beginning of the END for democrats and their UNHINGED BULL SHIT.

Then Durham releases HIS, CRIMINAL investigation findings TOO, and then we're going to see you jacked off corrupt sons a bitches start being INDICTED and SENT TO JAIL.

Glory days. DRAIN THE SWAMP.

 

[colfax_m]

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?

Yup, that's the video where Biden BRAGS about his QUID PRO QUO... yep... that's the one.

Want to toss out anymore moronic denials of quid pro quo quick?

Where does he mention anything about Hunter Biden or Burisma? That’s the allegation. That Biden was doing the bidding of Burisma.

Irrelevant, skippy... he says he's NOT going to give them a BILLION DOLLARS, UNLESS, they FIRE THE PROSECUTOR looking into the company where he got his son a JOB.

QUID... PRO... QUO.

Now DENY it, and make yourself look like an even bigger denying partisan hack.

Shokin wasn’t looking into Burisma. They were demanding bribes from Burisma.

Again, that is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT, not to mention unsubstantiated. It matters NOT, WHY, Biden committed QUID PRO QUO, the FACT REMAINS that he DID.

What part about that is so hard to understand? Are you that DENSE? What is it about Biden that you would go to such great lengths to DENY what Biden HIMSELF BRAGS ABOUT on VIDEO?

From your OWN DEMOCRAT PROPAGANDA WING...
CNN's Chris Cuomo admits Biden 'absolutely' engaged in quid pro quo with Ukraine

Of course it matters why Biden did it. It makes all the difference in the world. If Biden was engaging in a quid pro quo for personal reasons, it’s illegal. If he was doing it for the benefit of the US and it’s foreign policy, then it’s not illegal.

 

[007]

Yup, that's the video where Biden BRAGS about his QUID PRO QUO... yep... that's the one.

Want to toss out anymore moronic denials of quid pro quo quick?

Where does he mention anything about Hunter Biden or Burisma? That’s the allegation. That Biden was doing the bidding of Burisma.

Irrelevant, skippy... he says he's NOT going to give them a BILLION DOLLARS, UNLESS, they FIRE THE PROSECUTOR looking into the company where he got his son a JOB.

QUID... PRO... QUO.

Now DENY it, and make yourself look like an even bigger denying partisan hack.

Shokin wasn’t looking into Burisma. They were demanding bribes from Burisma.

Again, that is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT, not to mention unsubstantiated. It matters NOT, WHY, Biden committed QUID PRO QUO, the FACT REMAINS that he DID.

What part about that is so hard to understand? Are you that DENSE? What is it about Biden that you would go to such great lengths to DENY what Biden HIMSELF BRAGS ABOUT on VIDEO?

From your OWN DEMOCRAT PROPAGANDA WING...
CNN's Chris Cuomo admits Biden 'absolutely' engaged in quid pro quo with Ukraine

Of course it matters why Biden did it. It makes all the difference in the world. If Biden was engaging in a quid pro quo for personal reasons, it’s illegal. If he was doing it for the benefit of the US and it’s foreign policy, then it’s not illegal.

Nope... wrongo.

But just for shits and giggles, why do you think Barisma hired the crack head Biden?

 

[sartre play]

It seems really hard for people to keep a level head ( hard for me also) this whole deal both sides just out of control.

 

[colfax_m]

Where does he mention anything about Hunter Biden or Burisma? That’s the allegation. That Biden was doing the bidding of Burisma.

Irrelevant, skippy... he says he's NOT going to give them a BILLION DOLLARS, UNLESS, they FIRE THE PROSECUTOR looking into the company where he got his son a JOB.

QUID... PRO... QUO.

Now DENY it, and make yourself look like an even bigger denying partisan hack.

Shokin wasn’t looking into Burisma. They were demanding bribes from Burisma.

Again, that is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT, not to mention unsubstantiated. It matters NOT, WHY, Biden committed QUID PRO QUO, the FACT REMAINS that he DID.

What part about that is so hard to understand? Are you that DENSE? What is it about Biden that you would go to such great lengths to DENY what Biden HIMSELF BRAGS ABOUT on VIDEO?

From your OWN DEMOCRAT PROPAGANDA WING...
CNN's Chris Cuomo admits Biden 'absolutely' engaged in quid pro quo with Ukraine

Of course it matters why Biden did it. It makes all the difference in the world. If Biden was engaging in a quid pro quo for personal reasons, it’s illegal. If he was doing it for the benefit of the US and it’s foreign policy, then it’s not illegal.

Nope... wrongo.

But just for shits and giggles, why do you think Barisma hired the crack head Biden?

Can you explain why I’m wrong?

 

[007]

Irrelevant, skippy... he says he's NOT going to give them a BILLION DOLLARS, UNLESS, they FIRE THE PROSECUTOR looking into the company where he got his son a JOB.

QUID... PRO... QUO.

Now DENY it, and make yourself look like an even bigger denying partisan hack.

Shokin wasn’t looking into Burisma. They were demanding bribes from Burisma.

Again, that is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT, not to mention unsubstantiated. It matters NOT, WHY, Biden committed QUID PRO QUO, the FACT REMAINS that he DID.

What part about that is so hard to understand? Are you that DENSE? What is it about Biden that you would go to such great lengths to DENY what Biden HIMSELF BRAGS ABOUT on VIDEO?

From your OWN DEMOCRAT PROPAGANDA WING...
CNN's Chris Cuomo admits Biden 'absolutely' engaged in quid pro quo with Ukraine

Of course it matters why Biden did it. It makes all the difference in the world. If Biden was engaging in a quid pro quo for personal reasons, it’s illegal. If he was doing it for the benefit of the US and it’s foreign policy, then it’s not illegal.

Nope... wrongo.

But just for shits and giggles, why do you think Barisma hired the crack head Biden?

Can you explain why I’m wrong?

Can you answer a question with something other than a question?

You haven't proven a single thing you've said so far. You've only given what appears to be your assumption or opinion, and that's exactly what the democrats have been basing their entire impeachment charade on, assumption and opinion.

Let's have some facts, some links, prove what you're saying instead of just spewing conspiracy theories.

 

[colfax_m]

Shokin wasn’t looking into Burisma. They were demanding bribes from Burisma.

Again, that is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT, not to mention unsubstantiated. It matters NOT, WHY, Biden committed QUID PRO QUO, the FACT REMAINS that he DID.

What part about that is so hard to understand? Are you that DENSE? What is it about Biden that you would go to such great lengths to DENY what Biden HIMSELF BRAGS ABOUT on VIDEO?

From your OWN DEMOCRAT PROPAGANDA WING...
CNN's Chris Cuomo admits Biden 'absolutely' engaged in quid pro quo with Ukraine

Of course it matters why Biden did it. It makes all the difference in the world. If Biden was engaging in a quid pro quo for personal reasons, it’s illegal. If he was doing it for the benefit of the US and it’s foreign policy, then it’s not illegal.

Nope... wrongo.

But just for shits and giggles, why do you think Barisma hired the crack head Biden?

Can you explain why I’m wrong?

Can you answer a question with something other than a question?

You haven't proven a single thing you've said so far.

Just claiming someone is wrong without explaining why is weak.

I’ll answer your question but it’s just a guess since I don’t know why Burisma hired Biden. I suspect they thought it would give them an air legitimacy. That’s probably why they also hired the former president of Poland.

Now that I answered you question, can you explain why you think I’m wrong?

 

[007]

Again, that is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT, not to mention unsubstantiated. It matters NOT, WHY, Biden committed QUID PRO QUO, the FACT REMAINS that he DID.

What part about that is so hard to understand? Are you that DENSE? What is it about Biden that you would go to such great lengths to DENY what Biden HIMSELF BRAGS ABOUT on VIDEO?

From your OWN DEMOCRAT PROPAGANDA WING...
CNN's Chris Cuomo admits Biden 'absolutely' engaged in quid pro quo with Ukraine

Of course it matters why Biden did it. It makes all the difference in the world. If Biden was engaging in a quid pro quo for personal reasons, it’s illegal. If he was doing it for the benefit of the US and it’s foreign policy, then it’s not illegal.

Nope... wrongo.

But just for shits and giggles, why do you think Barisma hired the crack head Biden?

Can you explain why I’m wrong?

Can you answer a question with something other than a question?

You haven't proven a single thing you've said so far.

Just claiming someone is wrong without explaining why is weak.

I’ll answer your question but it’s just a guess since I don’t know why Burisma hired Biden. I suspect they thought it would give them an air legitimacy. That’s probably why they also hired the former president of Poland.

Now that I answered you question, can you explain why you think I’m wrong?

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

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

 

[Nostra]

So you're saying that BIDEN ON VIDEO BRAGGING ABOUT GETTING SHOKIN FIRED is a LIE? Are you calling BIDEN a LIAR NOW?

Dude... you need a wake up call... stop watching the DEMOCRAT PROPAGANDA WING.

I’m saying Biden getting Shokin fired had nothing to do with Hunter Biden and everything to do with US foreign policy combating corruption in Ukraine.

Prove it. Where's the evidence of that?

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

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

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

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

1. The transcript

2. Zelensky saying there was no QPQ.

You lose.

 

[007]

Of course it matters why Biden did it. It makes all the difference in the world. If Biden was engaging in a quid pro quo for personal reasons, it’s illegal. If he was doing it for the benefit of the US and it’s foreign policy, then it’s not illegal.

Nope... wrongo.

But just for shits and giggles, why do you think Barisma hired the crack head Biden?

Can you explain why I’m wrong?

Can you answer a question with something other than a question?

You haven't proven a single thing you've said so far.

Just claiming someone is wrong without explaining why is weak.

I’ll answer your question but it’s just a guess since I don’t know why Burisma hired Biden. I suspect they thought it would give them an air legitimacy. That’s probably why they also hired the former president of Poland.

Now that I answered you question, can you explain why you think I’m wrong?

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

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

And lo and behold... IT WORKED... Biden got the investigator looking into Burisma corruption FIRED, or he wouldn't give them the BILLION DOLLARS.

C'mooon man... wise up. It's all as obvious as the nose on your face.

 

[colfax_m]

I’m saying Biden getting Shokin fired had nothing to do with Hunter Biden and everything to do with US foreign policy combating corruption in Ukraine.

Prove it. Where's the evidence of that?

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

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

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

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

1. The transcript

2. Zelensky saying there was no QPQ.

You lose.

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

2. Hearsay.

 

[colfax_m]

Of course it matters why Biden did it. It makes all the difference in the world. If Biden was engaging in a quid pro quo for personal reasons, it’s illegal. If he was doing it for the benefit of the US and it’s foreign policy, then it’s not illegal.

Nope... wrongo.

But just for shits and giggles, why do you think Barisma hired the crack head Biden?

Can you explain why I’m wrong?

Can you answer a question with something other than a question?

You haven't proven a single thing you've said so far.

Just claiming someone is wrong without explaining why is weak.

I’ll answer your question but it’s just a guess since I don’t know why Burisma hired Biden. I suspect they thought it would give them an air legitimacy. That’s probably why they also hired the former president of Poland.

Now that I answered you question, can you explain why you think I’m wrong?

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

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

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

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

 

[Nostra]

Prove it. Where's the evidence of that?

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

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

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

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

1. The transcript

2. Zelensky saying there was no QPQ.

You lose.

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

2. Hearsay.

1. So?

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

3. You lose again.

 

[007]

Prove it. Where's the evidence of that?

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

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

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

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

1. The transcript

2. Zelensky saying there was no QPQ.

You lose.

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

2. Hearsay.

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

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

 

[007]

Nope... wrongo.

But just for shits and giggles, why do you think Barisma hired the crack head Biden?

Can you explain why I’m wrong?

Can you answer a question with something other than a question?

You haven't proven a single thing you've said so far.

Just claiming someone is wrong without explaining why is weak.

I’ll answer your question but it’s just a guess since I don’t know why Burisma hired Biden. I suspect they thought it would give them an air legitimacy. That’s probably why they also hired the former president of Poland.

Now that I answered you question, can you explain why you think I’m wrong?

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

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

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

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

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

 

[colfax_m]

Can you explain why I’m wrong?

Can you answer a question with something other than a question?

You haven't proven a single thing you've said so far.

Just claiming someone is wrong without explaining why is weak.

I’ll answer your question but it’s just a guess since I don’t know why Burisma hired Biden. I suspect they thought it would give them an air legitimacy. That’s probably why they also hired the former president of Poland.

Now that I answered you question, can you explain why you think I’m wrong?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[007]

Can you answer a question with something other than a question?

You haven't proven a single thing you've said so far.

Just claiming someone is wrong without explaining why is weak.

I’ll answer your question but it’s just a guess since I don’t know why Burisma hired Biden. I suspect they thought it would give them an air legitimacy. That’s probably why they also hired the former president of Poland.

Now that I answered you question, can you explain why you think I’m wrong?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[colfax_m]

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

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

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

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

1. The transcript

2. Zelensky saying there was no QPQ.

You lose.

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

2. Hearsay.

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

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

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

 

[colfax_m]

Just claiming someone is wrong without explaining why is weak.

I’ll answer your question but it’s just a guess since I don’t know why Burisma hired Biden. I suspect they thought it would give them an air legitimacy. That’s probably why they also hired the former president of Poland.

Now that I answered you question, can you explain why you think I’m wrong?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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