4 ms·

Why do you think that's satirical? It's been proven that Adam Schiff lied in statements made in Congress and he's repeatedly leaked information or cherry picked

Why do you think that's satirical? It's been proven that Adam Schiff lied in statements made in Congress and he's repeatedly leaked information or cherry picked parts of testimonies to support his narrative. Trump is suggesting the republicans release transcripts too, to better represent what's happening in the hearings.

jacquesm 7y ago
Thank you for making my point better than I ever could.
- beerandt 7y ago
  Schiff is not the actor I'd choose to rest my case on.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    To believe that Schiff would doctor transcripts is ridiculous, especially because there are quite a few republicans in the room who would immediately jump on any opportunity to nail him to the nearest cross if he were to do something like that. In a situation where Adam Schiff and Donald Trump claim opposites your safe bet would be on Schiff. Think about it this way: Adam Schiffs reputation can be damaged by mere paraphrasing of someone else's words, Trump could say anything and it would not damage his reputation.
    - beerandt 7y ago
      Schiff's reputation doesn't ride on twisting of words, it rides on how much he's participating in the activities that he's supposed to be in charge of investigating. Nobody's saying pick a side between the two. Be sceptical of every politician. Don't pick either one as your character reference for a narrative. (That said, I don't mean any of the following to be exonerating or damning to Trump.) I find it troubling that Schiff appears to have taken an abrupt change in strategy, once he was accused of meeting with the "whistleblower" before the claim was filed. The timeline doesn't look good, especially when considering the change in IG whistleblower rules. And cherry-picked leaks are a giant problem in DC right now. Regardless, you don't need to necessarily change a transcript if you told (coached) the witness what to say (or how to say it) in the first place. It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. And that applies no matter how innocent or guilty Trump is of anything.
      - beerandt 7y ago
        Not to mention the fact that the premise of the whole damn thing is about the misuse of political power to dictate the course of investigations. Pot, meet kettle.
        jacquesm 7y ago
        You seem to misunderstand some basics: using political power to dictate the course of investigations for personal gain is what the problem is, not the use of political power to dictate the course of investigations as such.
        beerandt 7y ago
        You don't think Democrats get a personal gain out of this?
        jacquesm 7y ago
        There's a pretty good chance that they won't. See also what happened to the Republicans after trying to go after Clinton.
        beerandt 7y ago
        Very true. Which is also why I don't get why so many Dems are supporting this so enthusiastically. As much as I never thought I'd say this, Pelosi had the right idea for how to play this, politically, until she caved. She seems to be the one thinking more than 2-3 steps ahead. But I also think you're giving them too much credit, because I really doubt they think they're going to suffer, politically. (The enthusiasts anyway, not those who supported Pelosi's slow play.)
        jacquesm 7y ago
        > Which is also why I don't get why so many Dems are supporting this so enthusiastically. Because they are trying to limit the damage to their country. Which is substantial already, to put it mildly. Give Trump some more times and you may find yourself in an unrecoverable situation. This Ukraine mess is likely just the tip of the iceberg.
    - derision 7y ago
      I never said he doctored transcripts, I said he cherry picked bits of the transcripts to release to support his narrative. But he did claim Trump said things in the call that he did not, in a statement he made to Congress. Also, Schiff has been on RT numerous times. Why would an American congressman make statements on a news outlet controlled by the Russian government? Nothing about this guy is trustworthy. He also claimed for two years they had definite proof of corruption.
      - jacquesm 7y ago
        > I said he cherry picked bits of the transcripts to release to support his narrative. And what would that narrative be? The only narrative I'm aware of has been confirmed by Trump himself - and in writing no less. > But he did claim Trump said things in the call that he did not, in a statement he made to Congress. Are you serious? Did you actually believe for one second that a paraphrasing should be taken as a literal quote? > Why would an American congressman make statements on a news outlet controlled by the Russian government? Are you seriously suggesting that Adam Schiff is in the pocket of Putin? If you believe that about Schiff then you should have serious problems with the current occupant of the White House, who it seems can't wait to do Russia's bidding at every possible turn.

jacquesm 7y ago

Thank you for making my point better than I ever could.

beerandt 7y ago
Schiff is not the actor I'd choose to rest my case on.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  To believe that Schiff would doctor transcripts is ridiculous, especially because there are quite a few republicans in the room who would immediately jump on any opportunity to nail him to the nearest cross if he were to do something like that. In a situation where Adam Schiff and Donald Trump claim opposites your safe bet would be on Schiff. Think about it this way: Adam Schiffs reputation can be damaged by mere paraphrasing of someone else's words, Trump could say anything and it would not damage his reputation.
  - beerandt 7y ago
    Schiff's reputation doesn't ride on twisting of words, it rides on how much he's participating in the activities that he's supposed to be in charge of investigating. Nobody's saying pick a side between the two. Be sceptical of every politician. Don't pick either one as your character reference for a narrative. (That said, I don't mean any of the following to be exonerating or damning to Trump.) I find it troubling that Schiff appears to have taken an abrupt change in strategy, once he was accused of meeting with the "whistleblower" before the claim was filed. The timeline doesn't look good, especially when considering the change in IG whistleblower rules. And cherry-picked leaks are a giant problem in DC right now. Regardless, you don't need to necessarily change a transcript if you told (coached) the witness what to say (or how to say it) in the first place. It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. And that applies no matter how innocent or guilty Trump is of anything.
    - beerandt 7y ago
      Not to mention the fact that the premise of the whole damn thing is about the misuse of political power to dictate the course of investigations. Pot, meet kettle.
      - jacquesm 7y ago
        You seem to misunderstand some basics: using political power to dictate the course of investigations for personal gain is what the problem is, not the use of political power to dictate the course of investigations as such.
        beerandt 7y ago
        You don't think Democrats get a personal gain out of this?
        jacquesm 7y ago
        There's a pretty good chance that they won't. See also what happened to the Republicans after trying to go after Clinton.
        beerandt 7y ago
        Very true. Which is also why I don't get why so many Dems are supporting this so enthusiastically. As much as I never thought I'd say this, Pelosi had the right idea for how to play this, politically, until she caved. She seems to be the one thinking more than 2-3 steps ahead. But I also think you're giving them too much credit, because I really doubt they think they're going to suffer, politically. (The enthusiasts anyway, not those who supported Pelosi's slow play.)
        jacquesm 7y ago
        > Which is also why I don't get why so many Dems are supporting this so enthusiastically. Because they are trying to limit the damage to their country. Which is substantial already, to put it mildly. Give Trump some more times and you may find yourself in an unrecoverable situation. This Ukraine mess is likely just the tip of the iceberg.
  - derision 7y ago
    I never said he doctored transcripts, I said he cherry picked bits of the transcripts to release to support his narrative. But he did claim Trump said things in the call that he did not, in a statement he made to Congress. Also, Schiff has been on RT numerous times. Why would an American congressman make statements on a news outlet controlled by the Russian government? Nothing about this guy is trustworthy. He also claimed for two years they had definite proof of corruption.
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      > I said he cherry picked bits of the transcripts to release to support his narrative. And what would that narrative be? The only narrative I'm aware of has been confirmed by Trump himself - and in writing no less. > But he did claim Trump said things in the call that he did not, in a statement he made to Congress. Are you serious? Did you actually believe for one second that a paraphrasing should be taken as a literal quote? > Why would an American congressman make statements on a news outlet controlled by the Russian government? Are you seriously suggesting that Adam Schiff is in the pocket of Putin? If you believe that about Schiff then you should have serious problems with the current occupant of the White House, who it seems can't wait to do Russia's bidding at every possible turn.