What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

*** Adam Schiff Thread *** (1 Viewer)

squistion

squistion

Footballguy
Been so much in the new lately, probably deserves his own thread.

If you missed it seven GOP members of the House Intelligence Committee signed a letter today asking for Schiff to step down as Committee Chairman.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/house-intelligence-republicans-letter-calling-for-adam-schiff-to-resign-as-committee-chairman/?noteId=32a14cf3-6f1d-4738-a1e3-b87043c15391&questionId=e3bed810-3736-4b76-8ff4-f70e60633edf&utm_term=.8a48d30a8c4c

POTUS got in the fray too:

Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump 2h2 hours ago

Congressman Adam Schiff, who spent two years knowingly and unlawfully lying and leaking, should be forced to resign from Congress!
Click to expand...
Schiff fought back, in a rather heated response defending his claim of seeing evidence of the existence of a conspiracy, even Mueller thought it was not sufficient to bring any charges against Trump or any more indictments against other parties.

Adam Schiff‏ @RepAdamSchiff 5h5 hours ago

You may think it’s okay how Trump and his associates interacted with Russians during the campaign.

I don’t.

I think it’s immoral.

I think it’s unethical.

I think it’s unpatriotic.

And yes, I think it’s corrupt.

https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1111289977143545856 (video of Schiff's full response at link).
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cap'n grunge said:
Adam Schiff is a patriot. Those Republicans on the intelligence committee are a national embarrassment and should be the ones stepping down and out of office. Pure partisan bs.
Click to expand...
Rep Hurd was the guy that surprised me, seemed to be a moderate Republican that wouldn't have gone with the other extremists.

 
Kyle Griffin‏ @kylegriffin1 3m3 minutes ago

Schiff on @MSNBC:

"There is evidence of collusion and corrupt co-mingling of work between the Trump campaign and the Russians. But I fully accept that ... [Barr] couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that crime." He calls the Trump Tower meeting "direct evidence of collusion."

 
squistion said:
Kyle Griffin‏ @kylegriffin1 3m3 minutes ago

Schiff on @MSNBC:

"There is evidence of collusion and corrupt co-mingling of work between the Trump campaign and the Russians. But I fully accept that ... [Barr] couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that crime." He calls the Trump Tower meeting "direct evidence of collusion."
Click to expand...
Griffin put the wrong word in Schiff’s mouth. I didn’t see the clip, but it’s obvious from context that Schiff meant Mueller rather than Barr, right?

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Griffin put the wrong word in Schiff’s mouth. I didn’t see the clip, but it’s obvious from context that Schiff meant Mueller rather than Barr, right?
Click to expand...
I haven't seen the clip either (Griffin didn't include it as he usually does) but I think you are right that he meant Mueller.

 
Juxtatarot said:
People can have a difference of opinion of what constitutes "evidence of collusion".  He has obviously detailed what he considers evidence.  You disagree.  That doesn't make either of you a liar.
Click to expand...
No, he has been acting like he had some kind of new evidence of collusion and has been very deceitful.  Not the type of person who should be leading the Intelligence committee.

 
Juxtatarot said:
People can have a difference of opinion of what constitutes "evidence of collusion".  He has obviously detailed what he considers evidence.  You disagree.  That doesn't make either of you a liar.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s possible to argue in good fath that that there’s “no evidence” of collusion.

Suppose we find out tomorrow that the June 9 meeting between Don Jr. (among others) and the Russians never actually occurred at all. It was just completely made up by the lamestream media and the Deep State; the whole idea was a hoax. Don Jr. has a strong alibi that he wasn’t even in New York that day, and the allegation of a secret meeting is a total lie.

If we found that out, would that increase or decrease your estimate of the probability that collusion occurred?

If you answer “increase,” you’re probably an anti-Trump troll.

If you answer “neither because it was already 0%,” you either don’t understand how reality works or you’re not arguing in good faith. Pretty much nothing outside of math is literally 0% or 100%.

If you answer “decrease,” congratulations, that’s the right answer. And it establishes that the June 9 meeting — if it did occur — is evidence of collusion. That’s literally what the word “evidence” means, both as defined by federal statute and as commonly used by competent English speakers.

If learning X increases your estimate of the probability that Y is true (or if learning not-X decreases your estimate of the probability that Y is true) then X is evidence of Y.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
I don’t think it’s possible to argue in good fath that that there’s “no evidence” of collusion.

Suppose we find out tomorrow that the June 9 meeting between Don Jr. (among others) and the Russians never actually occurred at all. It was just totally made up by the lamestream media and the Deep State, but it was actually a complete hoax. Don Jr. has a strong alibi that he wasn’t even in New York that day, and the whole idea of a secret meeting is a total lie.

If we found that out, would that increase or decrease your eatimate of the probability that collusion occurred?

If you answer “increase,” you’re probably an anti-Trump troll.

If you answer “neither because it was already 0%,” you either don’t understand how reality works or you’re not arguing in good faith. Pretty much nothing outside of math is literally 0% or 100%.

If you answer “decrease,” congratulations, that’s the right answer. And it also establishes that the June 9 meeting — if it did occur — is evidence of collusion. That’s literally what the word “evidence” means — both as defined by federal statute and as commonly used by competent English speakers.

If learning X increases your estimate of the probability that Y is true (or if learning not-X decreases your estimate of the probability that Y is true) then X is evidence of Y.
Click to expand...
99% of America would disagree with your definition of evidence so it doesn't really matter.  

 
Don't Noonan said:
99% of America would disagree with your definition of evidence so it doesn't really matter.  
Click to expand...
That seems like an extraordinary claim since it’s the actual, literal definition. What’s the evidence for that claim?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
That seems like an extraordinary claim since it’s the actual, literal definition. What’s the evidence for that claim?
Click to expand...
It's like saying there was evidence that Bill Clinton colluded with Loretta Lynch on the tarmac in Phoenix.  Or that there was evidence Obama was born in Kenya.  Or there was evidence that Bigfoot exists.

 
Don't Noonan said:
It's like saying there was evidence that Bill Clinton colluded with Loretta Lynch on the tarmac in Phoenix.  Or that there was evidence Obama was born in Kenya.  Or there was evidence that Bigfoot exists.
Click to expand...
Right. Very weak evidence that doesn’t meet any reasonable burden of proof. But there is evidence of all of those things.

When someone asks “What’s the evidence that Obama was born in Kenya?”, the correct answer is not “there’s no evidence at all.” For example, a 2008 NPR article stated that Obama was born in Kenya. Given everything else we know, that is extraordinarily weak evidence that doesn’t amount to any kind of proof — but by itself, it is evidence.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Smile
Reactions: Zow
Maurile Tremblay said:
Right. Very weak evidence that doesn’t meet any reasonable standard of proof. But there is evidence of all of those things.

When someone asks “What’s the evidence that Obama was born in Kenya?”, the correct answer is not “there’s no evidence at all.” For example, a 2008 NPR article stated that Obama was born in Kenya. Given everything else we know, that is extraordinarily weak evidence that doesn’t amount to any kind of proof — but by itself, it is evidence.
Click to expand...
My point is that even if that is the definition the public does not see evidence the same way.  People arguing here evidence versus proof seems crazy and I will leave it as that.

 
Don't Noonan said:
My point is that even if that is the definition the public does not see evidence the same way.  People arguing here evidence versus proof seems crazy and I will leave it as that.
Click to expand...
Dude, you are now calling the English language crazy. The literal definitions of words, according to you, are crazy. But other people are the ones ignoring facts.

 
Don't Noonan said:
My point is that even if that is the definition the public does not see evidence the same way.  People arguing here evidence versus proof seems crazy and I will leave it as that.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s crazy to want to be accurate. Even if a person doesn’t care about accuracy for its own sake, at the very least, being accurate will prevent one’s posts from being annoyingly nitpicked quite so much, making life a bit less tedious.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't Noonan said:
Hey Breh, who did I say you was ignoring facts?
Click to expand...
Correct me if I'm wrong,  but my impression of your opinion is that the Barr letter completely put to rest the idea that Trump and his campaign had anything to do with Russia. Armed with that knowledge, you have summarily dismissed the opinions of those of us that are not satisfied with the conclusion that Trump has been "exonerated."  Thereby "we," as in those of us not satisfied,  have ignored the "fact" that the Barr letter exonerated Trump. 

Sorry if you felt I was putting words in your mouth. I was stating my interpretation of your posts, not quoting your actual posts.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Right. Very weak evidence that doesn’t meet any reasonable burden of proof. But there is evidence of all of those things.

When someone asks “What’s the evidence that Obama was born in Kenya?”, the correct answer is not “there’s no evidence at all.” For example, a 2008 NPR article stated that Obama was born in Kenya. Given everything else we know, that is extraordinarily weak evidence that doesn’t amount to any kind of proof — but by itself, it is evidence.
Click to expand...
I have to explain this about 5x/week. Good luck. 

 
The “meaning” of words don’t matter any more it’s all about how one “feels”.  Point of “evidence”, some Trump supporters want Schiff removed or forced to resign for lying.  Let the irony of that wash over you for a moment.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
I don’t think it’s possible to argue in good fath that that there’s “no evidence” of collusion.

Suppose we find out tomorrow that the June 9 meeting between Don Jr. (among others) and the Russians never actually occurred at all. It was just completely made up by the lamestream media and the Deep State; the whole idea was a hoax. Don Jr. has a strong alibi that he wasn’t even in New York that day, and the allegation of a secret meeting is a total lie.

If we found that out, would that increase or decrease your estimate of the probability that collusion occurred?

If you answer “increase,” you’re probably an anti-Trump troll.

If you answer “neither because it was already 0%,” you either don’t understand how reality works or you’re not arguing in good faith. Pretty much nothing outside of math is literally 0% or 100%.

If you answer “decrease,” congratulations, that’s the right answer. And it establishes that the June 9 meeting — if it did occur — is evidence of collusion. That’s literally what the word “evidence” means, both as defined by federal statute and as commonly used by competent English speakers.

If learning X increases your estimate of the probability that Y is true (or if learning not-X decreases your estimate of the probability that Y is true) then X is evidence of Y.
Click to expand...
The problem is that while people were figuring this 'evidence' into whether collusion happened or not, they generally disregarded all countervailing evidence in the meantime:

  • Trump bombing a Russian client state twice
  • Trump trying to overthrow Venezuela, a Russian ally
  • Trump withdrawing from the Iran deal, which Russia supported
  • Trump leaving the Reagan/Gorbachev era INF treaty, which Russia supported
  • Trump pushing Merkel on Nordstream 2,  "Angela, you got to stop buying gas from Putin."
  • Trump driving NATO to spend more money and expand further
  • Trump selling lethal weaponry to Ukraine
  • Trump admin's secret indictment against Assange, the meeting between Manafort/Moreno to extradite Assange
  • The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists concluding we're at greater risk of a nuclear war due to tensions between US/Russia
  • Trump's cabinet being packed with anti-Russia turbohawks
  • All the Trump/Russia stories that fell apart upon basic scrutiny
All of these facts made the collusion theory instantly and immediately laughable on its face, and dangerous and reckless.  But any time someone brought those things up as clear evidence to the contrary, they were generally written off, laughed at, or people would find some excuse to keep believing the conspiracy theory.  

 
ren hoek said:
The problem is that while people were figuring this 'evidence' into whether collusion happened or not, they generally disregarded all countervailing evidence in the meantime:

  • Trump bombing a Russian client state twice
  • Trump trying to overthrow Venezuela, a Russian ally
  • Trump withdrawing from the Iran deal, which Russia supported
  • Trump leaving the Reagan/Gorbachev era INF treaty, which Russia supported
  • Trump pushing Merkel on Nordstream 2,  "Angela, you got to stop buying gas from Putin."
  • Trump driving NATO to spend more money and expand further
  • Trump selling lethal weaponry to Ukraine
  • Trump admin's secret indictment against Assange, the meeting between Manafort/Moreno to extradite Assange
  • The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists concluding we're at greater risk of a nuclear war due to tensions between US/Russia
  • Trump's cabinet being packed with anti-Russia turbohawks
  • All the Trump/Russia stories that fell apart upon basic scrutiny
All of these facts made the collusion theory instantly and immediately laughable on its face, and dangerous and reckless.  But any time someone brought those things up as clear evidence to the contrary, they were generally written off, laughed at, or people would find some excuse to keep believing the conspiracy theory.  
Click to expand...
None of that is evidence.

If they were, Trump refusing to let anyone sit in on his meetings with Putin would be considered "evidence" he was colluding with Russia.

 
ren hoek said:
The problem is that while people were figuring this 'evidence' into whether collusion happened or not, they generally disregarded all countervailing evidence in the meantime:

  • Trump bombing a Russian client state twice
  • Trump trying to overthrow Venezuela, a Russian ally
  • Trump withdrawing from the Iran deal, which Russia supported
  • Trump leaving the Reagan/Gorbachev era INF treaty, which Russia supported
  • Trump pushing Merkel on Nordstream 2,  "Angela, you got to stop buying gas from Putin."
  • Trump driving NATO to spend more money and expand further
  • Trump selling lethal weaponry to Ukraine
  • Trump admin's secret indictment against Assange, the meeting between Manafort/Moreno to extradite Assange
  • The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists concluding we're at greater risk of a nuclear war due to tensions between US/Russia
  • Trump's cabinet being packed with anti-Russia turbohawks
  • All the Trump/Russia stories that fell apart upon basic scrutiny
All of these facts made the collusion theory instantly and immediately laughable on its face, and dangerous and reckless.  But any time someone brought those things up as clear evidence to the contrary, they were generally written off, laughed at, or people would find some excuse to keep believing the conspiracy theory.  
Click to expand...
People didn't ignore that evidence.  It simply isn't material.

Trump specifically lied to the American people about his dealings with Russia during the campaign.  Lied.  Hid secret negotiations with the Russians to put Trump tower there.  He's lied about so many other things, and so have his associates.

If there was a list of all the times Trump, his family, his campaign, or his administration lied about Russia, its connections to Russia, the attempts the administration made to slow or releive sanctions against russia, it would dwarf your list of mostly irrelevant things.

 
squistion said:
Adam Schiff says he still sees evidence of collusion:

"What we're talking about here is the difference between conduct that rises to the level of criminality and conduct that is deeply unethical, unpatriotic and corrupt that may not be criminal."

Via CNN

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1114905741612191745
Click to expand...
So is he saying he has evidence to back up the former or the latter? If it's the latter, isn't that backing away from previous claims?

 
lod001 said:
:D  This guy is a complete  :tfp:
Click to expand...
And the Democrats roll him out again on every Sunday morning show.  

Jake Tapper on CNN is actually calling out his conspiracy theories and asking if he has no regrets for being wrong the last 2 years.  :lmao:

 
jamny said:
Maybe it's kinda time to say what that evidence/proof is? We hold posters here to a higher standard than people are holding Schiff to. Out with it if you know something.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:  Schiff has been saying this for over 2 years so he is basically all in and knows he has nothing.  It will be fun watching this lying weasel burn at the stake.

 
jamny said:
Maybe it's kinda time to say what that evidence/proof is? We hold posters here to a higher standard than people are holding Schiff to. Out with it if you know something.
Click to expand...
I think he's done this a few times. His "You might think it's okay" speech on the House floor a couple weeks ago is one instance.

 
jamny said:
Maybe it's kinda time to say what that evidence/proof is? We hold posters here to a higher standard than people are holding Schiff to. Out with it if you know something.
Click to expand...
We hold posters here to a higher standard than POTUS...why should Schiff be any different.  And his speech laid out more supporting his view than there has been about claiming he is lying, or that it was all some Obama Hillary conspiracy that started the investigation z

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
CISPA Is Back Again
2
Replies
60
Views
2K
tom22406
tom22406

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top