Anyone Watching The Q & A In The Senate?

[jimnyc]

Does anyone expect Schiff to be honest about anything anymore?

--

Schiff Claims It’s Wrong for President to Investigate Rival — After Defending Obama Investigating Trump

Lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) told the Senate that it would be wrong for a president to ask the Department of Justice to investigate a political rival. But Schiff defended then-President Barack Obama doing just that to then-candidate Donald Trump.

The remark came during the first of two days of questions and answers in President Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate.

Schiff was responding to a query osed by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Ted Cruz (R-TX), asking a hypothetical question about whether Obama would have had the authority to investigate suspected corruption by a son of Mitt Romney, Obama’s rival in his 2012 re-election campaign.

The lead House manager dismissed the hypothetical, then went on to argue that a president should not ask the DOJ to investigate a rival.

But as Breitbart News noted last week, Schiff wrote in the Washington Post in April 2019 (emphasis added):

Counterintelligence investigations differ from criminal investigations in their means, scope and ultimate disposition. Their goal is not successful prosecutions, but to identify and mitigate threats to national security. If a foreign power possessed compromising information on a U.S. government official in a position of influence, that is a counterintelligence risk. If a foreign power possessed leverage, or the perception of it, over the president, that is a counterintelligence nightmare.

Later on, White House attorney Jay Sekulow noted that Trump had been a victim of exactly the kind of investigation that the Obama administration had initiated under Operation Crossfire Hurricane.

Schiff is on record backing that investigation, as above.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...igating-trump/

[NightTrain]

FTR, it's not the firings that are the problem, it's his choice on what he says, tweets before and after. He's petty and vindictive, not good qualities for a leader.

This is exactly why the Democrats have proceeded with this ill-advised misadventure. He tweaked them on Twitter and goaded them until they launched.

That, and he's been incredibly effective as a President... this also served to possibly smear him and have at least a chance at 2020.

It backfired, predictably, and now Pelosi curses the day she went along with intellectual giants such as Maxine Waters and Al Green. Too late now, though,there's no turning back.

Schumer's the smartest of the lot, and I'd give anything to hear his ranting behind closed doors about this no-win trap he's been handed. He's a dirtbag, though, and deserves this.

Yeah, I wish Trump wouldn't kick a guy when he's down, but that's not what I hired him for. I didn't vote for a polite, affable gentleman.

I knew he was an outsider, unafraid to call a spade a spade, and to get shit done. Deregulate, kick terrorist ass, move the embassy, support Israel, stop illegals, stop voter fraud, make rogue dictators rightly fear us, make us energy independent again, annull the countless unconstitutional actions of 0bama, etc. This is all I care about.

Sure, I'll admit that I would much prefer a version of Trump that has all these qualities without unnecessary humiliation of his opponents - even if it's well deserved, it's not necessary. However, his extreme competitive streak that gives us such drive also gives us this. It's the way he is.

You can't buy a 500hp engine without paying the price of vastly increased fuel consumption. This is much the same. We want big results, but there's a downside in less... genteel-ness. In our case, it's the other side anyway so no big loss!

The losers on the other end of Twitter eventually bite back, and that's what this whole thing is about : ego. Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler finally got pissed enough to engage in this farce of an impeachment. The other two aren't overly smart, so no surprise... but Nancy, as much as I dislike her, is smart. There was a tweet that triggered her over the edge and she was committed - I can't help wonder if there was booze involved.

Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that Trump certainly isn't perfect - but he's the best candidate for the job to straighten shit out after 8 years of incompetence.

He was the best in 2016 and he's hands down the best on the field in 2020.

[jimnyc]

This is exactly why the Democrats have proceeded with this ill-advised misadventure. He tweaked them on Twitter and goaded them until they launched.

Perhaps that, and you also had the squad folks who have demanded impeachment from day one. Then yeps, Waters and Green, 2 useless bastards, but of course they pressured. Blumenthal pressured. Manchin and Murphy also from CT. Hell, then some started to accuse her of abuse of power for refusing to submit the articles.

But I think you are referring to even prior to their inquiry in the house? There, no doubt, he did basically goad them, and even daring them at one point.

That, and he's been incredibly effective as a President... this also served to possibly smear him and have at least a chance at 2020.

This I believe became a part of their plans from day one when their prior plans didn't pan out and he won out anyway over their anointed one. They knew they were screwed for 8 years unless they could find a way to take this away from Trump. one way or another.

Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that Trump certainly isn't perfect - but he's the best candidate for the job to straighten shit out after 8 years of incompetence.

He was the best in 2016 and he's hands down the best on the field in 2020.

Can you imagine ANY of them in the field actually winning? We would be screwed, almost as bad as we would have been if Hillary had won. And might be just as bad if they keep the house and take the senate.

[jimnyc]

Just reading now that Schiff is still claiming to not know who the whistleblower is. If the (R) has anything at all to prove that wrong, then they need to nail him with that.

IMO, it's obvious that this man is lying. If they know or can prove otherwise, can they not do anything at all about all of his lies/shenanigans?

--

GOP Accuses Serial Liar Adam Schiff of Misleading Public After He Brazenly Claims on Senate Floor He Doesn’t Know Identity of the Whistleblower

He did it again!

Impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff on Wednesday brazenly claimed on the Senate floor that he has no clue who the whistleblower is.

Everyone knows Eric Ciaramella is the whistleblower.

Ciaramella’s name was in one of the transcripts Schiff released a few months ago, but he has ‘no clue’ who he is.

Several lawmakers including Rep. Gohmert and Senator Rand Paul have publicly dropped the whistleblower’s name.

But Schiff, with a straight face lied to Senators and claimed, “First of all, I don’t know who the whistleblower is. I haven’t met them or communicated with them in any way.”

Schiff continued to lie: “The committee staff did not write the complaint or coach the whistleblower what to put in the complaint.”

House Republicans called out liar Schiff after he claimed once again that he does not know the identity of the whistleblower.

Why is Schiff continually getting away with this lie?

Rest - https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...eblower-video/

[Kathianne]

This is exactly why the Democrats have proceeded with this ill-advised misadventure. He tweaked them on Twitter and goaded them until they launched.

That, and he's been incredibly effective as a President... this also served to possibly smear him and have at least a chance at 2020.

It backfired, predictably, and now Pelosi curses the day she went along with intellectual giants such as Maxine Waters and Al Green. Too late now, though,there's no turning back.

Schumer's the smartest of the lot, and I'd give anything to hear his ranting behind closed doors about this no-win trap he's been handed. He's a dirtbag, though, and deserves this.

Yeah, I wish Trump wouldn't kick a guy when he's down, but that's not what I hired him for. I didn't vote for a polite, affable gentleman.

I knew he was an outsider, unafraid to call a spade a spade, and to get shit done. Deregulate, kick terrorist ass, move the embassy, support Israel, stop illegals, stop voter fraud, make rogue dictators rightly fear us, make us energy independent again, annull the countless unconstitutional actions of 0bama, etc. This is all I care about.

Sure, I'll admit that I would much prefer a version of Trump that has all these qualities without unnecessary humiliation of his opponents - even if it's well deserved, it's not necessary. However, his extreme competitive streak that gives us such drive also gives us this. It's the way he is.

You can't buy a 500hp engine without paying the price of vastly increased fuel consumption. This is much the same. We want big results, but there's a downside in less... genteel-ness. In our case, it's the other side anyway so no big loss!

The losers on the other end of Twitter eventually bite back, and that's what this whole thing is about : ego. Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler finally got pissed enough to engage in this farce of an impeachment. The other two aren't overly smart, so no surprise... but Nancy, as much as I dislike her, is smart. There was a tweet that triggered her over the edge and she was committed - I can't help wonder if there was booze involved.

Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that Trump certainly isn't perfect - but he's the best candidate for the job to straighten shit out after 8 years of incompetence.

He was the best in 2016 and he's hands down the best on the field in 2020.

Nope, has to do with folks like Bolton, McConnell, and others in the party that no longer belong.

[jimnyc]

Looks like Schiff did it yet again. And he will continue to lie like this because nothing is really stopping him. Sad little bastard.

[Kathianne]

Schumer says it’s unlikely there will be witnesses. The dems will beat the “unfairness “ of the hearings, but they would have anyway.

[jimnyc]

Schumer says it’s unlikely there will be witnesses. The dems will beat the “unfairness “ of the hearings, but they would have anyway.

As I'm to understand, they may have the votes to prevent witnesses?


GOP Senators Now Believe They Have The Votes To Block Witnesses

There’s a reason Mitch McConnell has been Senate Majority Leader for the past 13 years: He gets the job done.

And the biggest part of that job is keeping the GOP caucus, however necessary. At this point, he appears to have pulled off the feat once again.

On Wednesday, McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) — always a wavering and unreliable GOP vote — met in the morning. After that meeting, The Hill reported, it was clear “that the question of having additional witnesses is settled, and the Senate will vote Friday to wrap up the impeachment trial of President Trump.”

There was no discussion of witnesses at a Senate GOP lunch meeting Wednesday, which was held a couple hours after McConnell and Murkowski met for about 20 to 30 minutes.

That was seen as a sign by several senators that Democrats will fail to convince four Republicans to join them in calling for witnesses. Without a vote to hear from witnesses, the trial could end as soon as Friday.

“We’re going to get it done by Friday, hopefully,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said following the meeting.

Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.), emerging from the lunch, said, “I think I can say the mood is good.”

Braun expressed confidence that McConnell will be able to keep his conference unified enough to defeat a motion to consider subpoenas for additional witnesses and documents.

“If I had to guess, no witnesses,” he said.

“We’ll be in a place where I think everyone is going to have their mind made up and I believe that we’ll be able to move to a verdict, and the witness question will be clear at that point,” Braun added.

Rest - https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...ock-witnesses/

[Kathianne]

Yep, Schumer is admitting it and will yell ‘foul.’ It would be more convincing if he’d done the same with the house.

[jimnyc]

Yep, Schumer is admitting it and will yell ‘foul.’ It would be more convincing if he’d done the same with the house.

Exactly. And considering most knew that the odds were along with acquittal based on the numbers alone. So naturally I'm sure they started coming up with all kinds of ways to condemn the senate handling of this case.

And he can yell all he wants. They had a chance to build a better case. They had a chance to follow all the rules. Now it's a court case. And if tactics need to be done to win, then so be it.

[STTAB]

I dunno about in the senate, but the white house isn't too keen on his book.

Confidential information & Top Secret information to go along with that. If that is in fact true, then they should shut it down. There's enough leaks already from this administration and the supposed 'deep state' crap.

So for now they are trying to put a stop to it, or at least have him remove certain sections ultimately. And it states it found "significant amounts" of confidential information. "Reasonably to be expected to cause exceptionally grave harm to the national security of the USA if disclosed without authorization"

Sounds quite "grave" as they put it. But I doubt it's that bad, of course. But if it did in fact contain THAT much, then it would need to be stopped. Just some rewriting or a few removals and onward anyway, after another review.

Jim, without even realizing it you just fed into the new narrative that the WH is trying to stop Bolton from publishing his book, when that is not true. The WH is not attempting to stop shit. That letter is from the NSC staff who are required by law to review every manuscript before publishing and insure that there is no classified material in it.

Nothing to do with what the WH wants at all.

[jimnyc]

Jim, without even realizing it you just fed into the new narrative that the WH is trying to stop Bolton from publishing his book, when that is not true. The WH is not attempting to stop shit. That letter is from the NSC staff who are required by law to review every manuscript before publishing and insure that there is no classified material in it.

Nothing to do with what the WH wants at all.

My bad if I gave that direct impression, but I know they all (writing books) need approval first and that it is standard procedure.

Yep, perhaps the 'not even realizing it part', but otherwise I'm aware. And I apologize if I gave anyone the wrong ideas.

It is all coincidental but nonetheless seems helpful at the time. If the stuff the NSC is saying is true, then no doubt it needs to be removed or rewritten so as not to be pushing out any confidential information. But I am aware that this is not the WH. But I do wonder IF they have any say or pull in the matter, and that wouldn't surprise me in the least. And then of course coming out in the midst of the trial, that only gives the liars on tv that much more lies to run with.

If Bolton chooses to come out and disagree, that's his choice. Otherwise it's just a matter of editing what is listed as confidential to them, another review, and it will come out anyway. It won't be hard to find out in the end if they were trying to yank anything legit (which I doubt).

[STTAB]

My bad if I gave that direct impression, but I know they all (writing books) need approval first and that it is standard procedure.

Yep, perhaps the 'not even realizing it part', but otherwise I'm aware. And I apologize if I gave anyone the wrong ideas.

It is all coincidental but nonetheless seems helpful at the time. If the stuff the NSC is saying is true, then no doubt it needs to be removed or rewritten so as not to be pushing out any confidential information. But I am aware that this is not the WH. But I do wonder IF they have any say or pull in the matter, and that wouldn't surprise me in the least. And then of course coming out in the midst of the trial, that only gives the liars on tv that much more lies to run with.

If Bolton chooses to come out and disagree, that's his choice. Otherwise it's just a matter of editing what is listed as confidential to them, another review, and it will come out anyway. It won't be hard to find out in the end if they were trying to yank anything legit (which I doubt).

Just saying, we gotta be careful not to give the left any more ammunition. Wish someone would tell Trump that, he sure needs to hear it.

[jimnyc]

Just saying, we gotta be careful not to give the left any more ammunition. Wish someone would tell Trump that, he sure needs to hear it.

I think they were already up and running on this one, that the WH is putting a stop to it. But I agree there's no reason to give anything to them, and Trump is their largest submitter.

[STTAB]

I think they were already up and running on this one, that the WH is putting a stop to it. But I agree there's no reason to give anything to them, and Trump is their largest submitter.

That's what I was saying , they are already "The WH is trying to stop Bolton's book" hell the Democrats in the Senate even asked that last night "is the WH making decisions about what can't be in Bolton's book?"