Schiff sums it up.

Adam Schiff brilliantly and emotionally sums up what is at stake. If you care about this country you will watch it and pay close attention.

40 thoughts on “Schiff sums it up.

  1. The really tough moral questions of presidential behavior, constitutional law and intent, the balance of power, and the importance of American exceptionalism will be dealt with in a sober and deliberative way as is fitting for the United States Senate.

    To the American people they will say:

    “Go (expletive deleted) yourself and the (expletive deleted) horse you rode in on.”

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Schiff delivered a beautifully crafted summation of what happened and what will continue to happen if the Senate doesn’t do its job. I believe we will hear from witnesses and get access to the documents.

      I continue to believe in our great experiment and the goodness of our people…

      Liked by 3 people

  2. RE: “If you care about this country you will watch it and pay close attention.”

    OK. I watched and paid close attention. At one point Schiff says we have to remove the president because things that haven’t happened, and which may or may not happen, would be really bad.

    Fallacious fear mongering like that doesn’t impress me. Schiff sounded like Joe McCarthy to me.

    Like

    1. @Roberts

      Well, thanks for watching.

      There was nothing fallacious about those hypotheticals, IMHO. Trump has shown his true colors and priorities. It is not fallacious to identify the risk that his known behavior presents.

      It is a mystery to me why any actual conservative or Christian would defend this criminal charlatan when he would be replaced not by Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi but by Mike Pence who, unlike Trump, has always been a champion of things that they say they believe in.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. RE: “It is not fallacious to identify the risk that his known behavior presents.”

        Maybe not, but it is fallacious to assume that a particular risk requires one particular mitigation to the exclusion of all others.

        It is a mystery to me why any actual progressive or Democrate would defend the trivialization of impeachment that Schiff is causing.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. @Roberts

          ” . . .exclusion of all others . . .

          How else are we supposed to mitigate the risk presented by an out-of-control President? Early in his Presidency the answer was that people like General Mattis or Secretary Rex Tillerson or John Bolton would put a check on his reckless and erratic behave. They are gone. He has surrounded himself with toadies like Barr, Mulvaney and Pompeo who CLEARLY put loyalty to him above loyalty to the country.

          Liked by 3 people

          1. RE: “How else are we supposed to mitigate the risk presented by an out-of-control President?”

            Leaving it to the election is a viable alternative to impeachment.

            Like

          2. @Roberts

            Wait for the election? Well, given the Senate GOP commitment to the cover-up that is likely to be the solution in the end, but it is not the best solution for two reasons that Schiff articulated.

            First, who knows what Trump might do between now and January 20, 2021 if he is not removed. The last time he escaped by the skin of his teeth with the release of the Mueller report, the very next day he was personally extorting Ukraine to do a “favor.”

            But more importantly, failure of the Senate to stand up NOW for the rule of law, the accountability role of Congress and the separation of powers that are cornerstones of our Republic undermines its the foundations of our democratic way of life. These are not – as you seem to think – trivial matters.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. RE: “These are not – as you seem to think – trivial matters.”

            They are non-trivial in the same way that fantacies, overheated imaginations and magical thinking are non-trivial. As risks they are, respectively, a “what if” and a dubious legal theory.

            Like

    2. I missed it, I was watching the VA House Public Safety Committee trash the Rule of Law.

      Did Schiff do anything other than repeat the same mis-characterizations of Trump’s actions over again?

      What it really comes down to is whether there was probable cause to look into the possibility that Joe Biden was guilty of corruption. If there was, then it was Trump’s duty to expose it, and doing so at arms length by having a neutral third party, like the Ukraine, do the investigation was entirely proper.

      The public record contains more than sufficient probable cause.

      Like

      1. “The public record contains more than sufficient probable cause.”
        The record to which you refer is the record number of conspiracy theories that have been debunked repeatedly over time. Just because you and others keep bringing them up does NOT make them legitimate.

        “If there was, then it was Trump’s duty to expose it, and doing so at arms length by having a neutral third party, like the Ukraine, do the investigation was entirely proper.” Actually it is NOT proper. It violates the mutual agreement between 2 countries concerning investigations of respective citizens. But treaties mean nothing to Trump as he has pulled out of some and ignored or debased others. If there truly was probable cause to open an investigation into Biden based on real evidence, then he could have ordered his toady AG to open one. If there is no sufficient evidence to open, then there is no reason to go to Ukraine to open a third party investigation. Like they did on Clinton, which fell apart.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Did Joe Biden boast about getting a Ukrainian prosecutor fired?

          Did Hunter Biden get paid $83K+ for a no show job in the Ukraine?

          Those 2 facts in the public record are more than enough probable cause.

          Like

          1. @Tabor

            Well, thanks for sharing two unrelated facts. That there is a connection between those two facts has never been supported by any evidence. On the contrary, that there is a connection has been thoroughly debunked. Over and over again.

            For example, in this article the author lays out chapter and verse what a lie this all is . . .

            From that article . . .

            “But Trump’s weaponized disinformation is corrosive to democracy no matter whom it targets. Like many authoritarians, he depends on getting people to accept a big lie or to give up on the idea of truth altogether.”

            What is sad – if not pathetic – about you and others like you is that you DO accept the big lies and have given up on the idea of truth altogether. Trumpism is close kin to Stalinism.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Question 1: Yes he did. But it was the policy of the government of the US and other western powers that the ineffective corrupt prosecutor be removed. He bragged about getting the job done that governments wanted done.

            Question 2: Yeah. So, what? Being assigned to a corporate board happens all around the world. It isn’t corrupt, it is business. It is part of the beloved marketplace you always tout.

            Those are NOT probable cause. They are things that happened that have nothing to do with being corrupt. Are the optics bad? Sure. But is there actual PROVABLE corruption? Not even close.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. @Tabor

        There you go again. “Probable cause” does not mean someone started a rumor or it would be useful if it were true or even if someone thinks an arrangement may be fishy. It requires evidence and if there is such evidence it requires warrants to pry into the affairs of an American citizen. What is the evidence? Where are the warrants? Your saying evidence exists is simply a falsehood. These baseless accusations against Joe Biden have been debunked over and over again.

        It is NOT “entirely proper” for the President to ignore the rule of law and sick the likes of Rudy Giuliani on the supposed case. I promise you that if President Obama held up vitally needed military supplies to an beleaguered ally being invaded by a hostile power until they opened an investigation into one of his political rivals you would be singing a very different tune.

        And, let’s not forget that not only was Trump’s behavior vis a vis Ukraine done for HIS selfish interests, it was also exactly what Putin wanted to happen – a stab in the back to the new Ukraine government doing its best to end conflict on reasonable terms.

        Liked by 2 people

          1. @Tabor

            You obviously have very poor understanding of “probable cause.” It does NOT mean that something criminal is logically possible. It means that it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed. There is NOTHING in the public record to support the idea of “probable cause” justifying Trump extortion of the Ukraine to announce a Biden investigation. NOTHING even close.

            Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “There are plenty of facts in the public record to establish probable cause.”

          And more soon, I expect. Just the other day we had a post here in the forum sharing an excerpt from Peter Schweizer’s new book about Biden family corruption. When it hits the book stores there should be some vetting in the media.

          https://tidewaterforum.blog/2020/01/19/nyp-how-five-members-of-joe-bidens-family-got-rich-through-his-connections/

          Like

          1. @Roberts

            You know who got even richer than Biden’s relatives while he was in public service? Mitch McConnell and his wife, Elaine Chao. There is every bit as much “fishy” going on with those two as with the Bidens. And then some. Maybe President Warren should withhold military support for Taiwan until they open an investigation into her family’s business?

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “You know who got even richer than Biden’s relatives while he was in public service? Mitch McConnell and his wife, Elaine Chao.”

            If you say so, but we are not talking about the McConnell’s here. Let them be prosecuted for corruption, if they deserve it. So, too, let the Bidens be prosecuted.

            Like

          3. @Roberts

            You are correct. I indulged in a bit of whataboutism that is not actually relevant. Whether there is something illegal hiding in Biden’s closet is not affected at all if McConnell and his wife are criminals.

            But, if something in the future comes to light about criminal behavior by Joe Biden it does not retroactively make Trump’s actions legal or proper. We have our own system of law, courts and enforcement and Rudy Giuliani is not part of it and neither is the Ukraine.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. RE: “But, if something in the future comes to light about criminal behavior by Joe Biden it does not retroactively make Trump’s actions legal or proper.”

            Nothing in the future needs to come to light to make Trump’s actions legal or proper. Joe Biden’s conflict of interest when named as point man for Ukraine policy was well known. That alone was enough for Trump to ask Zelenski to investigate.

            Like

    3. “Fallacious fear mongering like that doesn’t impress me.” Really? That was Trump campaign, fear mongering of the “others”. So that fallacious fear mongering impressed you enough to vote for him, but Schiff’s doesn’t?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. RE: “So that fallacious fear mongering impressed you enough to vote for him.”

        Why do you say things you can’t possibly know?

        Like

        1. Stop lying to yourself. So if you didn’t vote for Trump, who did you vote for, Jill Stein?

          At least Craig has openly said he left the presidential ballot blank. Your words and undying love and support for all things Trump belie your state.

          Liked by 1 person

  3. Oh please!!! Schiff and brilliant in the same sentence is an oxymoron. That idiot made no clear case of anything and his “emotional” babbling is a clear farce eaten up by left wing extremists eager repeat his babble. Russian invasion, the country will fail, the end is nigh if Trump is not removed now. LMELFAO with tons of coffee spewing all over. No your attempt to rig the 2020 election FAILED and bowing at that asshole’s sickening theatrical emoting doesn’t win him or you a “ham” sandwich.

    Like

    1. @BobR

      Assuming you are not some sort of Russian troll working out of a troll farm in Estonia, you exhibit exactly what is wrong with Trump’s defense. In a word, no substance of any kind. It is basically an acceptance that he has done EXACTLY what he is accused of. Instead of a factual rebuttal you provide name-calling and invective. Sad.

      And, if you are an actual human being and not some sort of bot then calling this thoughtful and reasoned summary of the facts and their implications the “babbling” work of an “idiot” then you are clearly educationally challenged or you are being deliberately thick-headed because his summation was the opposite of that. You may not agree with it, but it is not babble and Schiff is not an idiot.

      Congratulations on spelling Schiff’s name correctly! Small steps are better than no steps.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. “deliberately thick-headed” I don’t think it’s deliberate.

        It has gotten to the point that while I can pity those in the cult, I really blame State TV for feeding them mis-information to feed their delusions.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. You mean the TV network that DIDN’T show the trial last night, but instead had the usual characters of Trumpland doing their usual kissing up to President that they adore so much that the idea of journalistic integrity is nonexistent?

          Liked by 2 people

      2. You are expecting substance in a reply to nonsense that has no substance? I will not dignify hyper partisan jibberish with attempts to disprove that which doesn’t exist in Schitt’s boorish accusations and prophecies. Sorry, should have spelled it correctly last time, now that’s better. So now you are going to start accusing people of being Russian if they tell you your summation lacks merit? Or is this just another day in the life of a left wing hack on a temper tantrum.

        Like

        1. @BobR

          You insist on demonstrating what we all know. There is no defense of Trump’s behavior so out comes the silly invective and back to the potty-mouthed and childish name-calling. Too bad.

          You are probably not a Russian troll, but they ARE all over social media spreading the sort of garbage that you love to fling around. So, if you are not a Russian troll, you might as well be. You are doing their work for them.

          Liked by 2 people

  4. I’m glad I missed it, for watching Mr Four Pinocchios whine about “right and truth,” would have been a truly obscene spectacle to behold.

    Heck, with all the references to Russia this week, I thought we had traversed back into the Mueller era. Clearly, the poor soul needs help, for Vladimir Putin is living in his little brain.

    In all seriousness, what was Mr Schiff thinking when he played-back Mr Trump’s 2016 joke, re finding the emails that Ms Clinton had destroyed? Surely, he knows that he is not gonna fool the Senate — including Dems — with meaningless nonsense like that.

    It was pitiful . . . just pitiful.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s