Some highlights:
- GOP conclusion represents another "capitulation" to the executive branch
- Majority has placed the interests of protecting the President over protecting the country
- Learned about "countless meetings, conversations, and communications"
- Thirteen Russians have been indicted for helping Trump and hurting Clinton
- High ranking Trump officials have been indicted
- Unwilling to subpoena documents like phone records, bank records
- Started counter-investigations to attack credibility of the FBI, DOJ, and State dept
- Believes that the investigation substantiated the conclusions that Russians were out to hurt Clinton
- Allegations of Russian money laundering wasn't investigated
- Work is fundamentally incomplete
- New information will continue to be exposed and make Republicans look bad
Several things sort of jump out at me here.
The idea that winding down a year long investigation is capitulation is sort of nonsensical as a matter of fundamental fact. Moreover, there is a fine line between respecting due process and "protecting" someone. You don't get to expand investigations based on rumors or simply subpoena phone records or bank records because you want to. You have to have reasonable cause to do so. Even people in the Trump administration have fourth amendment rights.
Meetings, conversations, communications with other countries, whether they be private or not, are not illegal. Moreover, none of the Trump officials have been indicted for anything related to Russian collusion. This is just Schiff attempting to use classic rhetoric to imply something that doesn't exist.
The indictment of the Russians concluded (not that they were helping Trump and hurting Clinton) but that they were looking to sow discontent in general. That's basically a lie to claim differently.
Lastly, Schiff appears to argue that unending and ever expanding investigations into Trump, open ended uses of subpoenas and interviews, are required to "protect the country" - but any investigation into the FBI, DOJ, or State Department is an attack on their credibility? I would argue the opposite is true. The entire concept of investigating the Trump administration is a blatant attempt to attack the President's credibility. On the flip side, the idea that the FBI or DOJ was possibly breaking the law is absolutely something that must be looked into in a very serious manner. There is no reason why the public must be constantly bombarded with more and more and more about one investigation, and be left in the dark about the other. The hypocrisy here is staggering.
This is pretty much what I expected to hear from Schiff. Heavy on rhetoric, implications, and complaints. Short on facts, logic, and honesty.
43 comments:
I think you overlooked the actual report:
Final Minority Status Report
An impressive detailed list of open lines of inquiry.
Lol @WP, hb, jane, opie and nolongerIndy.
Lamb is going to win
Award-winning physicist Stephen Hawking died early Wednesday morning, a family spokesman told ABC News. He was 76.
Hawking, who wrote several influential books including "A Brief History of Time," was diagnosed with motor neurone disease in 1962.
Lamb is claiming victory!
An impressive detailed list of open lines of inquiry.
And an unimpressive absence of any evidence that would indicate wrongdoing or justify continuing the investigation.
This is where your face goes red WP.
Lamb is claiming victory!
Lamb leads by 641 votes so there will probably be a recount.
The irony here is the election may have been a waste of time and money since the PA courts have decided to interfere in the political process and redistrict the state itself.
Lamb will wind up representing the new PA19 while Saccone will represent the new PA14.
An impressive detailed list of open lines of inquiry.
"open lines of inquiry" sounds so much better than "baseless accusations," dontcha think?
menstral cramps loves the courts when they rule against d's offers another idiotic opinion with
since the PA courts have decided to interfere in the political process and redistrict the state itself.
The courts ruled the districts were gerrymandered by the R led PA regime Good chance, the new districts will result in another 4 D seats....Oh well!!!....The open seat was the result of a dirty R resigning and a piss poor candidate that pulled a Hillary with his comment of Lamb supporters hated the country, trump and GOD!!! The voters have spoken and 10 million wasted now can't be spent in septemeber .....
Well WP...
I am not "red faced" over either what Schiff wrote, or what the minority report stated. It's all pretty much what I thought it would be:
My best guess is that the Democratic response is not going to include any real evidence of collusion, conspiracy, or anything of that sort. They may disagree around the edges, and even make some statement about deferring to the CIA about motive. But ultimately I would more expect that their response will be to complain that the Intelligence findings are premature, incomplete, and ultimately an attempt to sweep things under the rug by concluding the investigation too soon.
You can admit I was right at any time.
They literally offered nothing in regards to any previously unknown evidence of anything what-so-ever. They have investigated a year, and uncovered absolutely nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Came up empty. Fell flat.
They are only upset because they want to continue to investigate without any evidence that anyone they are going to interview can provide anything else of substance.
Feb. 7, 2018 — The Pennsylvania Supreme Court releases its opinion explaining its ruling. The 2011 map violated the state constitution’s guarantee that “elections shall be free and equal,” Justice Debra McCloskey Todd writes for the majority: “An election corrupted by extensive, sophisticated gerrymandering and partisan dilution of votes is not ‘free and equal.’” Republican lawmakers criticize the opinion, do not rule out other legal attempts at fighting it, and say it is unlikely the legislature can draw and pass a new map before the Feb. 9 deadline in two days.
Yes cramps, the courts ruled that the map was gerrymandered and illegal....the courts did not interfere as you allege....idiot..
They literally offered nothing in regards to any previously unknown evidence of anything what-so-ever. They have investigated a year, and uncovered absolutely nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Came up empty. Fell flat.
oh c'mon. you know that if they expand the breadth and scope of the "investigation" to infinity, and extend the length to at least another decade they are bound to ensnare at least one person who may had been seated in the same restaurant as trump at the same time for the dastardly crime of an expired parking meter. i would say that it would be premature to embrace the suck of an expensive and meaningless probe that has so far come up empty. i mean, what if, on that very drunken evening, papadopoulos groped a woman at that bar? #METOO! dammit! perhaps he told his cab driver his favorite color. we don't know this yet! we must continue to investigate.
you have to keep the dream alive, CH. you have to keep the dream alive.
I guess you can't be embarrassed if you don't even read it. Appendix A is full of facts and logic and the entire thing appears to be completely honest.
Very much contrary to your prediction.
Yes, the courts ruled that the map was gerrymandered and illegal.
If the case ever reaches SCOTUS, I'm pretty sure the decision will be overturned.
"Gerrymandering" is neither illegal or unconstitutional but falls within the legitimate powers of the state legislature to determine "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives".
As Democrats in New York, California, and Massachusetts gleefully do without one word of complaint from you.
Hypocrisy --- Bedrock --- Liberalism
Conseverative Democrat Lamb. Wins. The rejection of current Democrats in the US House .
Ok.
Appendix A is full of facts and logic and the entire thing appears to be completely honest.
Appendix A reads like the draft script for Conspiracy Theory, the Sequel
#neveragainkids are pawns of the #me too and #resistance liberal Cash Machines. ASTRO turf.
Congressman Lamb.
He is for more tax cuts for middle income earners.
Gun control: He's called for a stronger system of background checks but no new gun restrictions. "I believe we have a pretty good law on the books and it says on paper that there are a lot of people who should never get guns in their hands," Lamb said.
Tariffs: He supports President Donald Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs, saying at a debate that "we have to take some action to level the playing field."
Abortion: Lamb personally opposes abortion but backs the Supreme Court's decision legalizing it. "
The brainwashed idiot of kansas alleges....
#neveragainkids are pawns
I'm sure these kids who have more class then you can dream of, have more to add than your puny life...ever been shot at??? That alone gives them the creds you will never have......see PA 18 on what is coming down....LOLOLOL
m
Abortion: Lamb personally opposes abortion but backs the Supreme Court's decision legalizing it.
Unlike you who thinks everyone should share your belief.....lamb should be the model for all dems.....big wave coming!!!!
Two days ago lamb was up by six in the polls. Today it's a photo finish even though the gop candidate is generally acknowledged to be a mediocre candidate. He can thank Trump for that.
Can't imagine why.
Dems are angry over Hillary Clinton’s latest comments
Democrats are angry that Hillary Clinton continues to discuss what went wrong during the 2016 presidential election against President Trump.
Even some of Clinton’s own former aides and surrogates say the former Democratic presidential nominee should back away from the discussion about her failed campaign because it’s harmful to the party.
During a conference in India this weekend, Clinton called states that supported her in the election more economically advanced than the states that backed Trump.
Kind of screws with the whole "Forget that we are white, middle America hating leftist." strategy that worked so well for Lamb.
The National School Walkout is being put together by Women’s March organizers, who are calling for students, teachers, administrators, and allies across the country to walk out of their classrooms for 17 minutes at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, March 14 "—
A Huge Loss to us that support real Science
"London (AFP) – Renowned British physicist Stephen Hawking, whose mental genius and physical disability made him a household name and inspiration across the globe, has died at age 76, a family spokesman said Wednesday.
“
Two days ago lamb was up by six in the polls.
Gee ballz, I thought you had a brain. my bad ...MOE was +- 3....seems that the result was pretty well confirmed the prediction....
Appendix A is full of facts and logic and the entire thing appears to be completely honest.
Appendix A is a list of facts and allegations that are a matter of public knowledge. Facebook. Papadopoulos. Guccifer. Duetsche Bank. Manafort. I could have written Appendix A.
Are you telling me that you actually learned something of substance from Appendix A? Or were you just impressed with the ability of the Democrats to put everything into a summation for you?
I stated that the Democrats would provide us with no new evidence of anything. The fact is that I was correct. The least you could do is acknowledge as much.
I never heard of Dimiti Simes for example, or the speech and communications that occurred at the event that his Center for the National Interest hosted for Trump. Nor Paul Erickson who claimed to be an intermediary between Russia seeking contact with the Trump campaign at the 2016 NRA convention, let alone his connections with the Central Bank of Russia. Johnny Yenason, another name individual connected to the Russian organization Right to Bear Arms, which going through the NRA was to be the conduit between the Russians and Trump.
Those are just a small sliver of the names, dates and events (aka "facts) in Appendix B which were not public knowledge, that I wasn't aware of and I daresay you didn't have any idea of either.
The report refers to information which has come to light about Cambridge Analytica (eg, WikiLeaks data from the illegal hacks) supporting Trump's digital campaign. As far as we knew, Cambridge Analytica was just a peripheral player ... but they had "campaign embed teams".
Were you familiar already with Bayrock Group's involvement with Trump branded properties and Russian financial dealings?
Be honest with us, CH: you no more than skimmed through it, saw a bunch of names and said to yourself, "just fishing" without actually giving anything any consideration. Didn't you?
A quick google search suggests that Dimiti Simes, Paul Erickson, and Johnny Yenason were all people who were a matter of public knowledge.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-team-russia-contacts-20170303-story.html
https://www.bustle.com/p/does-the-nra-have-ties-to-russia-member-paul-erickson-reportedly-wanted-to-connect-trump-with-putin-6766696
https://www.rightjournalism.com/just-fusion-gps-founder-told-congress-russians-infiltrated-nra/
Buzzfeed had articles about supposed spies within the Bayock Group and allegations that both the CEO of Campbridge Analytica and the ever-popular Roger Stone was trying to contact wikileaks.
None of this was "uncovered" by the Intelligence committee, WP. These are what amounts to internet rumors that the Democrats feel were not properly investigated.
Bottom Line, WP...
After a year of looking at the most obvious leads, the House Intelligence committee has come up with nothing of substance to show any actual collusion between Trump and the Russians.
What you are suggesting is "evidence" are in reality little more than internet conspiracies, 7th degree of separation allegations, and hearsay rumors of suspicion. The fact that someone writes something on the internet, is not evidence of anything.
The Democrats can argue that every buzzfeed article and blogpost out there that alleges some Trump/Russia ties needs to be thoroughly investigated with the full force of Congress and all of their energies.
But I believe there are many reasonable people who would beg to differ. You can't chase every internet rumor down into the rabbit hole under the guise of protecting the country.
So this House Committee, which you say is concerned with little more than internet conspiracies, is the same Committee whose investigation is equivalent to the Special Investigation.
I'm beginning to see where the foundations of your beliefs are. They ARE equivalent, to you, because you have faith that both investigations scams and that no evidence of any kind has ever existed. I know that it's nothing more than an article of faith, because even though you had to Google the names I gave you, even without reading the report, you already "knew" that
"They want to continue to investigate without any evidence that anyone they are going to interview can provide anything else of substance."
You didn't know who you were referring to (you had to Google them) and without knowing them, and without knowing the questions (because you didn't read it) you already know that they can't provide anything else. It's a priori, an article of faith, and that's why you are impervious to any appeal to reason on this matter.
WP...
I stated that everything from Appendix A was public knowledge. The fact that I could google every name or item in the list and find the references to that person or item and the election, Trump, or Russia... sort of proves that point. I confess that I don't read the same websites that Adam Schiff apparently does, so his knowledge of far fetched allegations of collusion is stronger than mine. But the fact that the internet says something, doesn't require someone to investigate it. There has to be a minimum standard of credibility.
Do I believe that Mueller and gang are chasing down the buzzfeed allegations, blog conspiracies between NRA and Russian gun organizations, or whether or not Richard Stone and the CEO of a data company retained by Trump conspired with Wikileaks?
Well... Mueller did write an indictment of 13 Russians working at a trolling farm that appears to be taken completely from a Magazine article published in Russia on the same subject last fall... so I sort of believe that the Mueller team is probably a checking up on the buzzfeed blog posts and anything else that is tossed their way.
Lastly, what I have stated about the Congressional investigation is that the members of the House and Senate intelligence committees have the clearance to be seeing the same raw intelligence that the Special Counsel was privy to. Doesn't make the investigations to be "the same".
I know you have this feeling that there is all this mysterious damning evidence that is being stored in the hidden evidence drawer in Robert Mueller's work desk... but there is no factual reason to believe that either the FBI or Special Counsel has information that they refuse to turn over to the Congressional intelligence committees.
Well... Mueller did write an indictment of 13 Russians working at a trolling farm that appears to be taken completely from a Magazine article published in Russia on the same subject last fall...
keep in mind that if mueller was truly serious about those 13 indictments he would have issued them as 'sealed', kept it quiet, and snagged each one of those guys while they were still in the US.
instead rosenstein made it a public spectacle and the only thing he forgot to say was "hey guys, you might just want to stay put in moscow."
CH, did you ever get your answer to why Mueller didn't initially charge Manafort and his buds with tax evasion and money laundering?
I know that you have this feeling that none of the evidence in all of those indictments is purely incidental and had no bearing in Trump's campaign, and that he's investigating literally nothing, but there is no factual reason to simply deny that such evidence exists.
For every question that the Democratic report has awaiting answers, there is some evidence underpinning them. Please don't project your fantasy about it all being internet rumors onto anyone else ... it feels awkward and a bit creepy when someone does that.
For every question that the Democratic report has awaiting answers, there is some evidence underpinning them.
ah, so we ARE to believe that mueller and co. are waiting to spring the trap right before the mid-terms. an october surprise of sorts.
adam schiff is a genius, wp. a diabolical genius.
no one will EVER see that coming.
btw, i did see MSDNC reporting last night that schiffty has "receipts." i'm assuming these are evidence and will not be attached to his next expense report?
“Where Prime Minister May has taken bold and decisive initial action to combat Russian aggression, our own president has waffled and demurred,” said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic minority leader.
“Prime Minister May’s decision to expel the Russian diplomats is the level of response that many Americans have been craving from our own administration.”
Other critics noted that, under the NATO charter, an attack on one member is considered an attack on all.
“Judgment day for Donald Trump,” R. Nicholas Burns, a former ambassador to NATO and an under secretary of state under President George W. Bush, wrote on Twitter.
Referring to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, he added:
“Will Trump support Britain unequivocally on the nerve agent attack?
NO.
Back #NATO sanctions?
NO.
Finally criticize Putin?
NO.
Act like a leader of the West?”
NO.
I know that you have this feeling that none of the evidence in all of those indictments is purely incidental and had no bearing in Trump's campaign, and that he's investigating literally nothing, but there is no factual reason to simply deny that such evidence exists.
Most of the evidence in the indictment was known to the FBI before Mueller was ever appointed. Just like the interviews with Papadopoulos and Flynn took place before Mueller was appointed. The FBI simply never chose (in all three cases) to pursuit those charges.
You do realize that none of that was "uncovered" by Mueller.
For every question that the Democratic report has awaiting answers, there is some evidence underpinning them.
Well we certainly didn't see any evidence in the minority opinion... did we? Where exactly "is" all this evidence you claim exists?
Nikki Haley has strongly criticized Russia for using prohibited chemical agents in assassinations.
But we haven't heard a mumblin' word from tepid Trump
Nikki Haley has strongly criticized Russia for using prohibited chemical agents in assassinations." Jane
She did? When?
I did see she strongly criticized the Russians for the attempted assassinations using prohibited chemical agents.
Where exactly "is" all this evidence you claim exists?
schiffty has it -
“We’ve learned a great deal,” Schiff said Thursday on CNN’s “New Day.” “We’ve learned a great deal about secret meetings the Trump campaign had with the Russians. We’ve learned a great deal about the Russian’s use of social media. And we have been able to obtain a lot of very important information for the country which you’ll see when these transcripts come out, because at least some of the members, the Democratic members have been very serious about this.”
“We can’t simply rely on Bob Mueller,” he concluded. “Because his job is different than ours. His job is to determine who broke the law and who should be prosecuted and who should go to jail. It’s not his job to tell the country what happened. And outside of an indictment, he may not be able to speak. That’s what the Congress is supposed to do. So there’s no substitute for Congress doing its job.”
http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/15/adam-schiff-loses-confidence-in-mueller/
What evidence there is, obviously Meuller has it.
What Schiff is saying is that it's not Meuller's job to expose this evidence to the public. He's right, the Committee Investigation should be doing that, instead of stopping halfway and hiding it.
According to current reporting, committee members, the Democrats anyway, intend to compile and release reports to the public about the known facts. I expect the Republicans to do everything in their power to prevent it, and then send talking points down to the masses directing them to ask, "where are the factual reports?"
He's right, the Committee Investigation should be doing that, instead of stopping halfway and hiding it.
so let's see it. schiff keeps claiming he has a veritable mountain of incontrovertible evidence against trump; "secret" meetings in trump tower, those mystical 'receipts,' "a lot of very important information for the country which you’ll see when these transcripts come out," yada yada yada.
at some point this clown needs to put up or shut up. and don't blame the GOP either. if schiff has it he can release it. IF he has it, that is.
According to current reporting, committee members, the Democrats anyway, intend to compile and release reports to the public about the known facts.
Well WP...
If they had anything of substance, then they wouldn't be lying on their backs, stomping their hands and feet, and throwing a massive hissy fit over the investigation coming to an end. The Schiff letter and the minority response would not have spent 90% of their time talking about what was left on the table uninvestigated.
If they had something, they would be cocky, arrogant, and rubbing their hands together like the villains do in the movies while they plot their evil schemes. "Oh just wait till we show you what we got. It's going to knock you off your feet!".
The temper tantrum comes "because" they have nothing of substance... and really don't "claim" to have anything of substance. In fact, that is the one thing that both sides seem to agree on. The disagreement is in regards to whether or not they should keep looking.
You can read between the lines, WP... when Schiff states that we cannot leave it up to Mueller, because he cannot inform the public... and then suggests that they cannot inform the public "either" because the investigation is coming to a premature end... why do you suppose they would take that line if they actually had anything to "inform the public" about?
If they had anything of substance, then they wouldn't be lying on their backs, stomping their hands and feet, and throwing a massive hissy fit over the investigation coming to an end.
I don't see that they are. What I see so far was just a logical, detailed account of unfinished business. I get the feeling though that anything short of bowed heads and abject obedience would look like a hissy fit to you.
Post a Comment