Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, May 13, 2020

Newly released documents show he knew all along that there was no proof of Russia-Trump collusion. Americans expect that politicians will lie, but sometimes the examples are so brazen that they deserve special notice. Newly released Congressional testimony shows that Adam Schiff spread falsehoods shamelessly about Russia and Donald Trump for three years even as his own committee gathered contrary evidence. The House Intelligence Committee last week released 57 transcripts of interviews it conducted in its investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 election. The committee probe started in January 2017 under then-Chair Devin Nunes and concluded in March 2018 with a report finding no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin. Most of the transcripts were ready for release long ago, but Mr. Schiff oddly refused to release them after he became chairman in 2019. He only released them last week when the White House threatened to do it first.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

In December 2017 he told CNN that collusion was a fact: "The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help and the President made full use of that help." In April 2018, Mr. Schiff released his response to Mr. Nunes's report, stating that its finding of no collusion "was unsupported by the facts and the investigative record."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Not liking someone CAN NOT be a basis for using government resources to attack them. Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi all need to be tried and convicted of sedition and treason for this.

#1 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2020-05-13 11:56 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

@#1 ... In April 2018, Mr. Schiff released his response to Mr. Nunes's report, stating that its finding of no collusion "was unsupported by the facts and the investigative record." . ...

And what is wrong with that statement?

Mr Nunes' spin of no collusion was not supported by the facts and investigative record.


#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-05-13 12:03 PM | Reply

"Newly released documents show he knew all along that there was no proof of Russia-Trump collusion."

Collusion isn't a crime, GracieAmazed.
Remember?

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-13 12:06 PM | Reply

The result of all the Russia gate efforts to impeach Trump? Here is an indication, two special election results are in, Mike Garcia (R) won in California. Tom Tiffany (R) won in Wisconsin yesterday.

#4 | Posted by docnjo at 2020-05-13 12:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Mr Nunes' spin of no collusion was not supported by the facts and investigative record.

#2 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

The IG report says otherwise.

#5 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-13 12:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Huh.
So there was collusion, according to the IG report.
Weird flex, JeffJ

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-13 12:14 PM | Reply

The result of all the Russia gate efforts to impeach Trump? Here is an indication, two special election results are in, Mike Garcia (R) won in California. Tom Tiffany (R) won in Wisconsin yesterday.

#4 | Posted by docnjo at

Biden is consistently three points above Trump in Wisconsin. How does your theory account for that?

I also seem to recall a recent Supreme Court election in Wisconsin that didn't go Trump's way, in case you're back to believing polls mean nothing.

#7 | Posted by Zed at 2020-05-13 12:52 PM | Reply

Thread:

emptywheel @emptywheel

A lot of really stupid people are RTing this WSJ piece claiming that Adam Schiff had no evidence of "collusion" bc the HPSCI transcripts show none. It relies on the testimony of people out of govt b4 investigation started.

What it doesn't mention is that two of the people most closely involved in "collusion," Michael Cohen and Roger Stone, lied in their testimony, as Erik Prince is accused of doing and at least one other person is currently under investigation in conjunction with.

What it also doesn't mention is that Paul Manafort and Mike Flynn, two of the other people most closely involved in "collusion," didn't testify.

And, obviously, Trump didn't testify either. Every answer he gave Mueller was non-responsive.

In other words, a bunch of very silly people are wailing, "OMIGOSH HPSCI DIDN'T FIND COLLUSION BC MULTIPLE PEOPLE LIED ABOUT IT AND EVERYONE ELSE REFUSED TO TESTIFY."

twitter.com

#8 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-05-13 12:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#8

What I find almost humorous is that these are the transcripts that Rep Nunes hid in the basement when he was running the Committee.

If they are really as damning as some want us to believe, why didn't Rep Nunes release them when he had the authority to do so.

Rep Nunes tried to bury them.


#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-05-13 01:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Tom Tiffany (R) won in Wisconsin yesterday.

In a district Trump won by 20 points in 2016. Nobody cares.

#10 | Posted by joe at 2020-05-13 01:10 PM | Reply

#8 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday Schiff's committee interviewed over 70 individuals and could not make their case. The independent council interviewed many more, and after two years they found no proof? People who are under subpoena have to show up and testify, so who exactly is EVERYONE ELSE REFUSED TO TESTIFY? What has been proved is the HRC campaign paid for the Steel Dossier which was pure Russian disinformation. The problem is that is the document that was used to get FISA warrants to surveil the Trump campaign. Steel is hiding out, whereabouts unknown.

#11 | Posted by docnjo at 2020-05-13 01:13 PM | Reply

A lot of really stupid people are RTing this WSJ piece claiming that Adam Schiff had no evidence of "collusion"

Well. It's Gracie, so...

#12 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-05-13 01:20 PM | Reply

@#11 ... The independent council interviewed many more, and after two years they found no proof? ...

The Mueller team found and documented 100 occurrences of Russian contacts with 17 people on candidate Trump's campaign or in Pres Trump administration.

If you read the Mueller report, Mr Mueller did not say he found no proof. Mr Mueller said he did not think he found enough proof to go forward. There is a not-so-subtle distinction there.


#13 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-05-13 01:58 PM | Reply

In a district Trump won by 20 points in 2016. Nobody cares.

#10 | Posted by joe at 2020-05-13 01:10 PM | Reply | F

"nobody cares"

California Republicans may be on the verge of something they haven't done in more than two decades: capturing a congressional seat from Democrats in the nation's most populous state.

Tuesday's special election runoff in the Los Angeles suburbs, which is taking place because of former Rep. Katie Hill's resignation last year, has Democrats bracing for defeat in a district they flipped by 9 points in the 2018 midterms.

still awaiting the expected democrat ballot "harvest"

#14 | Posted by rhet at 2020-05-13 02:18 PM | Reply

"California Republicans may be on the verge of something they haven't done in more than two decades: capturing a congressional seat from Democrats in the nation's most populous state."

Narrator: In fact, the CA-25 Congressional district was held continuously by Republicans from 1993-2019.

en.wikipedia.org

#15 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-05-13 02:26 PM | Reply

It must shock some uninformed Trumpublicans that nearly half of California is Republicans.

Actually. The map of California, politically, resembles every other state. With urban areas being more Democratic and rural areas being more Republican.

#16 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-05-13 02:31 PM | Reply

Narrator: In fact, the CA-25 Congressional district was held continuously by Republicans from 1993-2019.

en.wikipedia.org

#15 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-05-1

wekipedia or Politico ?

www.politico.com

#17 | Posted by rhet at 2020-05-13 02:36 PM | Reply

#17

Your article doesn't refute anything Gal posted.

Did you want to have a point?

Sock puppets are the dumbest people.

#18 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-05-13 02:39 PM | Reply

Here's where the difference may lie.

"more than two decades: capturing a congressional seat"

they weren't referring to this particular seat, if that's the point you were making.

#19 | Posted by rhet at 2020-05-13 02:40 PM | Reply

Sock puppets are the dumbest people.

#18 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-05-13 02:39 PM | Repl

"sock puppets?"...

and yet you're the one suffering from reading disability.

#20 | Posted by rhet at 2020-05-13 02:42 PM | Reply

Your article doesn't refute anything Gal posted.

Did you want to have a point?

Sock puppets are the dumbest people.

#18 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-0

"The more telling battle is in California 25th District, where Democrats are at risk of losing a seat they won handily two years ago."

Try reading slower or maybe run your finger over the words while you mouth them out.

#21 | Posted by rhet at 2020-05-13 02:44 PM | Reply

right

I didn't think so.

#22 | Posted by rhet at 2020-05-13 02:48 PM | Reply

"Republicans held California's 25th Congressional District for 26 years until Hill ousted Steve Knight a year ago."

www.latimes.com

#23 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-05-13 02:48 PM | Reply

#19

Actually. The seat Katie Hill won, that Mike Garcia won, previously belonged to incumbent Republican Representative Steve Knight.

Prior to Katie Hill, Steve Knight has the seat from 2015 - 2019.

Prior to Steve Knight, Howard McKeon had the seat from 1993 - 2015.

So. Gal's #15 was correct.

And you're just a sock puppet with nothing to add.

#24 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-05-13 02:48 PM | Reply

Well. Cool.

This was enough interaction with Rhet to figure out he's as dumb as he seems.

Just another uninformed posted to ignore.

#25 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-05-13 02:50 PM | Reply

Narrator: In fact, the CA-25 Congressional district was held continuously by Republicans from 1993-2019.

en.wikipedia.org

#15 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-05-13 02:

former Rep. Katie Hill's resignation last year,

I see this referred to in your link, so apparently this "narrator" is confused about the district or ignored the 2016 election results.

have a nice day !

#26 | Posted by rhet at 2020-05-13 02:50 PM | Reply

have a nice day !
#26 | POSTED BY RHET

Spin your way out of here, moron.

#27 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-05-13 02:52 PM | Reply

So. Gal's #15 was correct.

And you're just a sock puppet with nothing to add.

#24 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-05-13 02:48

no, it's not. In fact, the wikipedia link refers to what I posted but you have to actually open the links and read them.

"former Rep. Katie Hill's resignation last year",: is a quote FROM WIKIPEDIA ! and Politico.

#28 | Posted by rhet at 2020-05-13 02:54 PM | Reply

former Rep. Katie Hill's resignation last year,

I see this referred to in your link, so apparently this "narrator" is confused about the district or ignored the 2016 election results.

Kate Hill won in 2018. She got her seat in 2019 and resigned months later.

Steven Knight was still the Republican Rep. in 2016.

#29 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-05-13 02:55 PM | Reply

#14 My post was about Wisconsin. I don't care about California. Have a nice day!

#30 | Posted by JOE at 2020-05-13 02:56 PM | Reply

"former Rep. Katie Hill's resignation last year",: is a quote FROM WIKIPEDIA ! and Politico.

Keep leading with your chin, stupid.

Kate Hill won in 2018. She started being the Democratic Rep in 2019, she resigned months later, in 2019.

Anything else you need cleared up?

#31 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-05-13 02:57 PM | Reply

have a nice day !
#26 | POSTED BY RHET

Spin your way out of here, moron.

#27 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-05-13 02:

Being polite isn't spinning anything. Being belligerent because facts don't go you way is spinning.

let me post it once more for you. THIS IS TAKEN FROM THE WIKIPEDIA LINK !

"former Rep. Katie Hill's resignation last year", Hill is a democrat.

I'd offer a nice day

but I don't give a rat's rear end how your day goes.

#32 | Posted by rhet at 2020-05-13 02:59 PM | Reply

#32

Read #31 until you figure it out.

#33 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-05-13 03:00 PM | Reply

Kate Hill won in 2018. She started being the Democratic Rep in 2019, she resigned months later, in 2019.

#31 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-05-13 02:57 P

The 2016 was meant to be 2018.

But that doesn't change the fact that a democrat seat was lost or anything else I linked from Politico.

#34 | Posted by rhet at 2020-05-13 03:03 PM | Reply

or the fact that you're an ass.

#35 | Posted by rhet at 2020-05-13 03:04 PM | Reply

Dude. The 25th district was Republican from 1993-2019.

That's indisputable.

California has a lot of solid republican districts that were lost in 2018, mostly due to Trump's rhetoric regarding Californians. Also a couple republicans had to drop out due to scandal.

This doesn't mean those typically republican districts were going to change forever.

Mostly likely, we'll see quite a few flip back in the next election, few elections.

#36 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-05-13 03:08 PM | Reply

politico says in 2018 it went to a democrat, which is what was posted, other than my mistakenly writing 2016.

your argument is with them, not me.

and don't call me dude.

#37 | Posted by rhet at 2020-05-13 03:15 PM | Reply

Mostly likely, we'll see quite a few flip back in the next election, few elections.

#36 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-05-13 03:08 PM | R

one source refers to the election date and another refers to when they took office.

have a nice day.

#38 | Posted by rhet at 2020-05-13 03:16 PM | Reply

"California Republicans may be on the verge of something they haven't done in more than two decades: capturing a congressional seat from Democrats in the nation's most populous state."

The point of my posts were to put this statement in context. I think it is significant that the district Republicans are about to re-capture was held by a Republican for 26 years before Hill captured it from them.

#39 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-05-13 03:21 PM | Reply

More Fake News from Sir Gracie.

#40 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2020-05-13 05:09 PM | Reply

II only post links to approved news sources. Don't shoot the messenger for delivering the message.

#41 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2020-05-13 05:44 PM | Reply

The point of my posts were to put this statement in context. I think it is significant that the district Republicans are about to re-capture was held by a Republican for 26 years before Hill captured it from them.

#39 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-05-13

Yes.Thanks for the clarification.

At one point after the original post I wrote 2016 instead of 2018. For " what's his name" I"ll slap myself twice.

ouch

ouch

The original post was from Politico and any difference of opinion is between others and Politico. NOT ME !

#42 | Posted by rhet at 2020-05-13 06:14 PM | Reply

I only post links to approved news sources. Don't shoot the messenger for delivering the message.

#41 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2020-05-13 05:44 PM |

Sorry it can't be true. Why is it not true even with an approved source?

More Fake News from Sir Gracie.

#40 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2020-05-13 05:09 PM |

"cause he said so, that's why "

#43 | Posted by rhet at 2020-05-13 06:16 PM | Reply

one source refers to the election date and another refers to when they took office.
have a nice day.
#38 | POSTED BY RHET

The politico article you posted (and apparently didn't read) is discussing several different candidates from different states in different elections. Not just Katie Hill in 2018.

If you don't want to be treated like an idiot, then give me a reason not to treat you like one.


"Get your shht together, get it all together and put it in a backpack, all your shht, so it's together. And if you gotta take it somewhere, take it somewhere, you know, take it to the shht store and sell it, or put it in the shht museum. I don't care what you do, you just gotta get it together. Get your shht together."
-Morty Smith

#44 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-05-13 06:24 PM | Reply

The original post was from Politico and any difference of opinion is between others and Politico. NOT ME !

#42 | Posted by rhet at 2020-05-13 06:14 PM

You can now get back to your little cartoons.

#45 | Posted by rhet at 2020-05-13 09:50 PM | Reply

40 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2020-05-13 05:09 PM |

"cause he said so, that's why "

#43 | POSTED BY comrade RHET

Who is the new sock puppet? Fat Andy Mattress, or Sheeple/Lieburg?

Sounds like one of Grandma Palin's kids. Track, Tred, Gunner?

#46 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2020-05-14 10:05 PM | Reply

I picture the puppet is special eddie.. sounds the same to me.

As for Schiff.. not finding evidence of guilt during an investigation is not a crime.. more gorilla dust to keep people from talking about whats really going on.

#47 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2020-05-15 09:58 AM | Reply

"Not liking someone CAN NOT be a basis for using government resources to attack them."

It's not. But suspecting someone of illegal and corrupt behavior is. It doesn't mean he lied. But. So what if he lied? Why would this even bother you? Lying is the norm now in Trumplandia. As long as he doesn't do it in a court or under oath. Because it's not illegal to lie and it is an approved political tactic now. Faux News is fully dedicated to it.

If it was Illegal to lie then Fixed News would not be able to operate and Trump would be sent to prison for 16,000 years.

#48 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-05-15 11:51 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort