Abuse of power by lying "Shifty" Adam Schiff - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15053781
BigSteve wrote:
No I didn't. You're just not sharp enough to figure out that Schiff, Pelosi and Nadler are being untruthful...



Thanks for the laugh, you have a gift for comedy.

I shouldn't, I know, you're more of a victim than anyone.
#15053857
Senter wrote:LOL!!! You're so brainwashed as to actually believe the conspiracy theory that CNN is "the media branch of the DNC".

CNN is owned by Turner Broadcasting System, a division of AT&T's WarnerMedia. :lol:
That is obviously the reason AT&T released those phone records to Schiff and the Democrats without a court order.
#15053891
Senter wrote:It's fine to be snarky, but the truth is that an incomplete sentence does not communicate an idea reliably.



The truth is you made a claim, said you would be willing to wager against it, and upon my acceptance of that wager you run away. That seems to put your credibility in question.

Truth is AT&T owns CNN and I said that many posts ago. You called me brainwashed. :lol:
#15053899
Hindsite wrote:

That is obviously the reason AT&T released those phone records to Schiff and the Democrats without a court order.



During the Clinton impeachment, some of the documents were delivered to Congress before they were formally requested.

They wanted no part of your delay, deny, distract dance.
#15054178
late wrote:During the Clinton impeachment, some of the documents were delivered to Congress before they were formally requested.

They wanted no part of your delay, deny, distract dance.

Maybe it was because those documents had nothing incriminating in them. The information in the call to the Ukraine President was released by President Trump to prove the whistleblower and Adam Schiff to be liars. There was nothing wrong with his call. Maybe it may not be a perfect call, but there was certainly nothing wrong with it. President Trump has a right and maybe even a duty to ask Ukraine to help AG Barr in the investigation of corruption by American citizens in Ukraine. That would include Biden's son being paid huge sums of money by a corrupt energy company in Ukraine and Biden using a bribe of a billion dollars in U.S. tax money to prevent his son from being investigated for crimes.

Schiff's least wanted witness crushes Ukraine narrative


One America News Investigates with Chanel Rion: Ukrainian Witnesses Destroy Schiff's Case


In this edition of One America News Investigates, Chanel Rion interviewed several witnesses who destroyed Adam Schiff's baseless impeachment case against President Trump. In a two part exclusive, Rudy Giuliani debunks the impeachment hoax and exposes Biden family corruption in Ukraine.

I saw the re-run of the first part today on Channel 1208 on AT&T Uverse TV. I guess there will be a re-run of the second part tomorrow. It proves that there are sufficient reasons for President Trump to ask President Zelenskyy to cooperate with AG Barr on the investigation of corruption in Ukraine by the Bidens. I see that the re-run of part 2 is on now.

Three Ukrainians are being blocked from getting visas to come to the United States to testify about high crimes being committed by people in our government. It also appears that the Ukrainegate thread on this website is being blocked. Part 3 is on now.
#15054219
Hindsite wrote:
There was nothing wrong with his call.



I've got thousands of law profs, diplomats, intel guys and prosecutors that say you are wrong.

He made them an offer they could not refuse, same as any mob boss.
#15054226
late wrote:I've got thousands of law profs, diplomats, intel guys and prosecutors that say you are wrong.


You've "got" nothing...

He made them an offer they could not refuse, same as any mob boss.


That's funny. You're funny. You make me laugh. Make me laugh some more...
#15054227
BigSteve wrote:
You've "got" nothing...



Project much?

Most of your comments are unsupported assertions.

Many of which are unsupportable.

Which means you have less than nothing, but we all knew that, now didn't we.
#15054228
late wrote:Project much?

Most of your comments are unsupported assertions.

Many of which are unsupportable.

Which means you have less than nothing, but we all knew that, now didn't we.


That wasn't bad, but you've made me laugh more...
#15054229
BigSteve wrote:
That wasn't bad



Of course not, but what I said was accurate, so the obvious conclusion is that you are entirely too comfortable with things one should not be comfortable with.
#15054248
late wrote:Of course not, but what I said was accurate, so the obvious conclusion is that you are entirely too comfortable with things one should not be comfortable with.


You said "I've got thousands of law profs, diplomats, intel guys and prosecutors that say you are wrong."

The fact of the matter is that you don't. What I may or may not be comfortable with has no bearing on the fact that your statement is simply not true...
#15054249
BigSteve wrote:
You said "I've got thousands of law profs, diplomats, intel guys and prosecutors that say you are wrong."

The fact of the matter is that you don't. What I may or may not be comfortable with has no bearing on the fact that your statement is simply not true...



Time to swear off the fiction, and read real news..

There is an element of deduction. For example, the thousand former prosecutors were commenting on obstruction of justice. But it's hardly a big leap to think they would object to Trump making Ukraine an offer they couldn't refuse.

Actually, now that I think about it, it's kinda obvious.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-berwick-parker-trump-mueller-obstruction-justice-20190530-story.html
#15054253
late wrote:Time to swear off the fiction, and read real news.


Well, let us know how that works out for you...

There is an element of deduction. For example, the thousand former prosecutors were commenting on obstruction of justice. But it's hardly a big leap to think they would object to Trump making Ukraine an offer they couldn't refuse.


Where are you getting your numbers? Please cite a source...

Actually, now that I think about it, it's kinda obvious.


The only thing that's obvious here is that, if Trump walked on water you'd whine about him not being able to swim...
#15054417
late wrote:I've got thousands of law profs, diplomats, intel guys and prosecutors that say you are wrong.

He made them an offer they could not refuse, same as any mob boss.

My God says you and they are all wrong and I am right.
Praise the Lord.
#15054419
Hindsite wrote:My God says you and they are all wrong and I am right.

Praise the Lord.


Anyone can claim God supporting them, this claim is essentially unverifiable, unless some kind of miracle occurs before all of us.

Using such an unverifiable source usually means the user has lost the debate. Not to mention most of these claims are often terminological inexactitudes.

P.S. This is actually why there are so many religions that IMHO are causing a significant of amount of problems on this planet.
#15054424
Patrickov wrote:Anyone can claim God supporting them, this claim is essentially unverifiable, unless some kind of miracle occurs before all of us.

Do you really believe "late" when he says that he has thousands of law profs, diplomats, intel guys and prosecutors that say I are wrong? Why didn't you ask "late" to verify his statement? I am a Christian, so what evidence do you have that God does not support me?
#15054426
Hindsite wrote:Do you really believe "late" when he says that he has thousands of law profs, diplomats, intel guys and prosecutors that say I are wrong? Why didn't you ask "late" to verify his statement?


It is My Honourable Friend who uses God to justify his claim. His Opponent, on the other hand, uses mortals (whose actions can be seen and verified) to support his claims. I may not agree with that Opponent, but I can either support or object his arguments if I need to. I find it much more difficult, if not impossible, to either support or object My Honourable Friend. In other words, I receive no useful information from My Honourable Friend's words.


Hindsite wrote:I am a Christian, so what evidence do you have that God does not support me?


The Hong Kong Chief Executive is also a Christian. However, it seems her decisions are not supported. Therefore, being Christian does not automatically mean the person in concern (or any decision or action from that person) is supported by God (as that person believes).
#15054434
Patrickov wrote:It is My Honourable Friend who uses God to justify his claim. His Opponent, on the other hand, uses mortals (whose actions can be seen and verified) to support his claims. I may not agree with that Opponent, but I can either support or object his arguments if I need to. I find it much more difficult, if not impossible, to either support or object My Honourable Friend. In other words, I receive no useful information from My Honourable Friend's words.

You either trust my words or you trust the words of "late'. that is up to you. I trust that God will reveal the truth to all in His good time.

Patrickov wrote:The Hong Kong Chief Executive is also a Christian. However, it seems her decisions are not supported. Therefore, being Christian does not automatically mean the person in concern (or any decision or action from that person) is supported by God (as that person believes).

Like I said, it is up to you to believe or disbelieve whoever you choose.
Praise the Lord.
#15054436
Hindsite wrote:You either trust my words or you trust the words of "late'. that is up to you. I trust that God will reveal the truth to all in His good time.


Like I said, it is up to you to believe or disbelieve whoever you choose.
Praise the Lord.


Is it really the case that My Honourable Friend's stance is mutually exclusive to His Opponents?

What if, God Forbids, both are wrong?

Can anyone furnish me with details of the last […]

I’ve been doing some reading about the year of the[…]

Impeachment in Wonderland

  How, in the wide world of sports did you come […]

The reason that bad guys win is that the good guy[…]