Democrats have now declared political civil war

I don't want to get caught up in nitpicking, but that article reports that the proper procedure wasn't followed. I don't think that that one fact indicates anything shady. People often don't know how to follow arcane procedures.

On the other hand, if anyone in an official capacity claims that the proper procedures were followed, they are spreading misinformation.

From the article:
"...the whistleblower spoke with a staff member on the House Intelligence Committee days before the complaint was officially submitted."

From the rules:
"ii. The employee may contact the congressional intelligence committees directly as described in clause (i) only if the employee –

a. before making such a contact, furnishes to the DNI, through the IC IG, a statement of the employee's complaint or information and
notice of the employee's intent to contact the congressional intelligence committees directly;..."

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/who-w...cal-specifications/trusted-data-format?id=366

Compare and contrast.

 

From the l7nk:

"Aug. 12, 2019 — The whistleblower complaint, addressed to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr of North Carolina and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff of California, was submitted to and received by the office of the Intelligence Community inspector general, led by Michael Atkinson."

I didn't see anything in the rules stating that a whistleblower was not allowed to speak to a committee member prior to submitting their complaint. He or she cou'd have been asking for advice, who knows why without knowing who the whistleblower is and which committee member he or she spoke with.

As far as I can see, the only break from the rules was on Sept. 9, on the part of acting DNI, Joseph Maguire.

 

So why did Schiff straight up lie about the meeting with the WB?

 

Did he? When? About what? Got a link?

 

Then, as I have shown, that official is either confused, or lying. Either way, he is spreading misinformation.

 

He was probably just following orders to keep the complaint from reaching congress. His testimony was oddly unforthcoming.

 

Because Schiff is a bug-eyed liar.

Stasis: WaPo/ABC impeachment numbers barely budge during Schiff ‘inquiry’



No-mentum.

How well did Democrats profit from having almost total control of the impeachment narrative over the past month? The news from today’s Washington Post/ABC poll deliver some bad news to Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi. Despite the drumbeat from Democrats’ leaks and breathless media coverage, support for impeachment and removal hasn’t changed at all over the last month:

Independents are closely divided, with 47 percent favoring removal and 49 percent opposed.​

Four weeks ago independents went 49/47 in favor of impeachment and removal. At that time, Ukraine-Gate had broken out for a couple of weeks, and Democrats had gone wall-to-wall on impeaching Donald Trump over the whistleblower complaint of a quid pro quo between Ukraine aid and dirt on the Bidens. Pelosi had long declared Alea iacta est!, and Schiff was already demanding testimony from all involved.

This does not portend success for Democrats once Republicans get on an even playing field and into the Republican-controlled Senate. Republicans will get to expose all of the materials to full public scrutiny and start issuing their own subpoenas, including for the whistleblower and any of the attorneys on Schiff’s committee to detail, under oath, their involvement in the origins of this scandal. That isn't going to push support any higher.

We have some bitter partisans who do not trust the Electorate to decide who should be President next year, and is THAT the election year message Democrats want to send to voters?

Any momentum for impeachment has stalled out in a partisan stasis and showing no real movement into the kind of consensus needed for removal. It looks like a project produced by and for mainly the Democrats’ urban core, an aspect that becomes very clear when looking at impeachment support in the crosstabs:

• Urban voters: 58/38
• Suburban voters: 46/51
• Rural voters: 38/58

Democrats haven’t made the case when they had the stage all to themselves, except basically within their own bubble. It’s going to get much more difficult to move these numbers now that they have to share the stage with Republicans, and finally, in the Senate, they cede the stage altogether to them.

 

It was extensively covered, right here at PF. Schiff claimed he never met the WB before the claim was made. I find it difficult to believe that you are uninformed about this fact. Even Washington Compost scoffs at the lie.

Whistleblower did not disclose contact with Schiff's committee ...

https://www.foxnews.com › politics › ukraine-whistleblower-did-not-disclose...
Oct 4, 2019 - Whistleblower did not disclose contact with Schiff's committee to ... His office also denied that the intelligence committee had reviewed or ...
Schiff's false claim his committee had not spoken to the ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com › politics › 2019/10/04 › schiffs-false-clai...
Claim: “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower, we would like to.”
Claimed by: Adam Schiff
Fact check by Washington Post: Four Pinocchios

 

Contact with the committee is not necessarily contact with Schiff. And if he lied, so be it. Want to punish him? Call your representatives. Schiff's lie in this case could have been an attempt to protect the identity, or could have been a matter of Schiff not knowing that the person who approached the committee was the whistleblower. Did Schiff gain anything by lying? What was his incentive to lie? Even if you believe that Schiff was directing the whistleblower's complaint, that's entirely moot by now, given the avalanche of testimony that by all accounts backs up the details of the complaint. The evidence has gone far beyond what the whistleblower reported, even including at least one official who listened to the call.

"I find it difficult to believe that you are uninformed about this fact." -- That was rude. Even I don't read everything, especially not when it comes from such biased sources as Fox News. And I seldom read the Washington Post, their website is too overloaded with ads, and they drown you with popups. (BTW, calling it "Compost" seems very childish to me. They are rated very highly in the factual reporting category.)

 

It's the democratic way. At least, when they are not on the other side of the table, which changes everything.

 

You know, no matter how much evidence is presented, no matter the process, the Republicans are going to complain, and not in the most honest manner.

 

What Republican witnesses? The GOP was claiming that their committee members were kicked out of the committee chambers and banned from taking part, just a few weeks ago, now they are admitting that they have had people there the whole time? Something tells me anything the Republicans say is just gonna be more lied. I would love for them all to be put under oath, with the threat of criminal charges and see what they have to say.

 

I have absolutely no idea what you're blabbering about, no one has ever claimed that committee members were banned from the hearings, I have no clue how this nonsense ended up in your head. Sorry, can't help you with this one.

As far as Republican witnesses are concerned, here is my list of those I would love to see subpoenaed:

-Hunter Biden
-Joe Biden
-A representative of Burisma if possible
-The ambassador of Ukraine or a representative of Zelensky, if possible
-Shokin (the Ukranian prosecutor of Burisma) if possible
-Schitt
-The "Whistleblower"
-Schitt's aide who was the "whistleblower's" contact
-Vindman - to be recalled and forced to answer the republican questions Schitt prevented him from answering
-Mueller (especially) if the dems are pulling crap from Weissman's report
-Brennan
-Strzok and Lisa
…..

Any chance Schitt will allow even one of these witnesses to testify? In your opinion?

 

So when Democrats break rules and lie about it, your takeaway is basically "So what"?

So if Trump comitted QPQ did he gain anything by it?

 

I remember when 'collusion' was a truth. Liberal truth doesn't necessarily represent reality, why would this be different?

 

My "so what" is asking what was gained by it. Not excusing a lie, if that's what this was, just asking how it affects the overall issue. Like I said, if you're sure he lied, and want him held accountable, contact your representatives. I can force anyone to prosecute Trump, now, can I?

In Trump's case, I think my favorite brushing off of his actions came from Tom Cole (R) of Oklahoma on Meet the Press this morning, who said that since Ukraine did, in the end, get their aid and that Trump didn't, after all, get them to investigate the Bidens and the 2016 election interference, then no harm, no foul. That's like saying that if a burglar breaks into your house, but the neighbors make a bunch of noise and scare him off before he steals anything, then he isn't really a criminal.

 

Kinda like Comey excusing Hillary having state secrets on her private server by saying she had "no intent"? By gawd, how many years has she been a "public servant"? How many years should it take to know?

I bolded the ironic parts.

 

Read what I said. I did not say an impeachment inquiry was a grand jury.

You completely missed the point. The point is, we no longer have an independent prosecutor. That work is now being done by the House.

You avoid the evidence, and go after those gathering the evidence. How Trumpian of you. It is a sure sign that you know Trump is guilty as hell.

 

Tell me something. As a Trump supporter, why do you have a problem with keeping the American people informed?

No answer from any Trump supporter.

 

We can agree on that, it is NOT anything like a grand jury, Schitt's lying political circus in which he plays the Judge, the Prosecutor and the Jury has not one thing even remotely in common with real grand juries that are empaneled by nonpartisan prosecutors, run by unbiased fair judges and manned by honest, fair-minded american citizens.

Glad you're admitting that your comparison of Schitt's and Nancy's partisan Stalinist shenanigans (which are opposed by a bipartisan minority in the House) to the Grand Jury process is insulting to our intelligence. Don't insult our intelligence. LOL

 

Assumes facts NOT in evidence!

Wrong on all counts!

There is a BIPARTISAN COMMITTEE that is acting as the JURY while Schitt assumes the role of Prosecutor. The MINORITY PARTY LEADER on the BIPARTISAN committee assumes the role of the DEFENSE ATTORNEY.

BOTH Schitt and the Minority Party Leader can issue subpoenas and cross examine witnesses.

IN ADDITION the BIPARTISAN COMMITTEE MEMBERS also are given the opportunity to question the witnesses.

There is NO JUDGE making any ruling. The BIPARTISAN COMMITTEE makes the final ruling.

Interesting that "intelligent" BLOTUS supporters would get this COMPLETELY WRONG.

Probably because spreading falsehoods nefariously undermines the legitimacy of the Impeachment Inquiry.

 

There isn't going to be any impeachment. It's a pathetic fantasy, just like the Mueller investigation was.

 

If you love democracy so much, then just let the voters decide in 2020 if Trump should be the president.

 

This post is deliciously ironic. "ELECTIONS HAZ CONSEQUENCES"....

Trump was elected..."deal with it cry babies"...

Then the Democrats were elected into the house. They will impeach Trump..."deal with it cry babies"...

The Senate, controlled by elected Republicans, will not prosecute..."deal with it cry babies"...

Trump will be re-elected..."deal with it cry babies"...

The conclusion?

Election don't really have consequences and there are a **** ton of crybabies who are electing Democrats and Republicans!

 

I think we have, in historical parlance- The pot calling the new stainless steel cookware black, in order to evade the appearance of it's being proven nasty and needing to be scrubbed clean.
Trump didn't start the "attacks", the dems did that long before election day. While Trump does respond to some attacks, the dems are fabricating offenses to base attacks on, fabricating false evidence, burying and denying their own dirt, feigning righteousness while embracing treachery and deceit, and generally doing everything they can to insure that the ongoing incompetence that has been the character of Washington continues unabated.

It's amazing that so many who have acknowledged and condemned that condition for decades are now willing to defend it- as if cleaning house should happen without inconvenience or raising any dust.
Change invariably disturbs those who benefit unfairly from the status quo; exactly the problem we have all complained about. No surprise, other than- finally, it's actually happening.

When you set out to drain the swamp, the snakes and alligators who have ruled the swamp will be fighting back- and that is precisely what is happening. Any rational man expected that. The dems aren't fighting for the good of the people or to benefit the people. They are fighting for the control of the people.