March 29, 2019

Representiative Adam Schiff - Champion Of Democracy

This is what he said:
My colleagues might think it’s OK that the Russians offered dirt on a Democratic candidate for president as part of what was 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 communications 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, you might say 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.
This is what Congressional oversight looks like. It does not look like Devin Nunes.

3 comments:

Social Justice NPC Anti-Paladin™ said...

Democrats "might think it’s OK" to use FISA and intelligence agencies to spy on American citizens.

Mueller found evidence of collusion but it were gathered in illegal way like Mark Felt did with Bill Ayers so it would be throw out of court.

"You might think it’s OK that the president himself called on Russia to hack his opponent’s emails, "
This is a debunked lie. Here is what Trump said:
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,”

Social Justice NPC Anti-Paladin™ said...

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/380531.php
"In my opinion, the lyingest sh*tweasel in this whole Russian collusion clown show has been Congressman Adam Schiff. He's been insisting all along that he's seen "conclusive evidence" of Trump's involvement with shady Russian operatives who helped him steal the presidency from Hillary, the rightful winner of the 2016 election. Which would be news to Robert Mueller, who's been looking for precisely this evidence for 2 whole years. Which raises the question: If Schiff actually had evidence, why didn't he put it on a thumb drive and walk it over to Mueller's office? Was that so hard? If he's been sitting on it all of this time, wouldn't that be obstruction of justice. If I were Mueller, I'd be thoroughly p*ssed. So does Schiff have the goods on Trump or not? Because if he's got nothing (as I suspect), then what he did is the equivalent of shouting 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater when there is no fire. There should be consequences. At the very least, Schiff needs to put up or shut up."

Zeus0209 said...

"Why Trump isn’t being charged with obstruction — even though Mueller didn’t exonerate him

There are three main theories of why Mueller punted — some of which imply that Mueller didn’t expect Barr to clear Trump’s name, or at least to do it so quickly.

Theory: Mueller thought the obstruction case was simply too close to call...

Theory: Mueller wanted Barr to make the decision...

Theory: Mueller was trying to leave it up to Congress..."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/24/18279851/mueller-trump-obstruction-justice-exoneration