Discussion » Questions » Current Events and News » Should Adam Schiff be censored or removed/replaced for reading a false "parody" of the trancript of the Ukraine call?

Should Adam Schiff be censored or removed/replaced for reading a false "parody" of the trancript of the Ukraine call?

Or is it ok to read false information into the record intentionally?

Posted - September 29, 2019

Responses


  • 7280
    Stop the presses---hens have teeth; clams have legs; and Adam Schiff can read minds.
      September 30, 2019 1:21 PM MDT
    1

  • 19937
    What about all the false statements made by Trump?  What about all the re-posts of the lies of others that Trump keeps repeating?  I suppose it's OK for him to repeat a lie over and over as though it were absolute fact.  If you want to censor Schiff for parodying what Trump wrote, then you would have to do the same for Trump.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  
      September 30, 2019 2:21 PM MDT
    0

  • 34296
    So you are fine with Schiff lying. 


      September 30, 2019 3:15 PM MDT
    0

  • 19937
    Once again, you can't discern the difference between parody and lying.  I guess it's hard considering that Trump lies on a daily basis.
      October 1, 2019 10:23 AM MDT
    1

  • 34296
    Would that type of statement....be allowed by a police officer/lawyer/PA/judge etc in any other place of law under the guise of a "parody"?
      October 1, 2019 10:40 AM MDT
    0

  • 19937
    Now you're arguing just to continue the argument and I'm done.
      October 1, 2019 2:26 PM MDT
    0

  • 34296
    No I am trying to understand why it is allowed? It was not spin or political difference of opinion ...it was completely made up.  It would not be allowed anywhere else but SNL or the Onion etc but it was allowed in our Congress.
      October 1, 2019 3:43 PM MDT
    0

  • 19937
    "Axios' Zach Basu emails a rapid readout of what really happened with the Schiff remarks that enraged Trump.
    • In the opening statement at last week's hearing that angered Trump, Schiff summarized what he called "the essence" of what Trump communicated in his call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
    • Schiff described his interpretation of the call from Trump's perspective, exaggerating certain aspects and purporting to read between the lines in order to illustrate how it could be viewed as "a classic organized crime shakedown."
    • At the end of the statement, Schiff again stated that "this is, in sum and character, what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine." It was a dramatic portrayal, but there is no mistaking it for a verbatim reading of the call transcript."

    https://mail.yahoo.com/b/folders/1/messages/APHiQmBZ5LToXZO0lgarCDfrQAw?.src=ym&%3Breason=myc&folderType=INBOX&showImages=true&offset=0
      October 2, 2019 4:39 AM MDT
    0

  • 34296
    Again, Would that type of statement....be allowed by a police officer/lawyer/PA/judge etc in any other place of law under the guise of a "parody"? 
      October 2, 2019 6:41 AM MDT
    0

  • 19937
    What PA are you talking about? I asked you this before and you didn't respond.  
      October 2, 2019 7:39 AM MDT
    0

  • 34296
    Sorry....this thread is getting hard to follow. (This thread is general)

    I will look for you post on my other question on this. 
      October 2, 2019 7:43 AM MDT
    1

  • 19937
    I was thinking the same thing.  I have to scroll through everything to find you latest reply.  The only time it takes you directly to the reply is if there's only one page.  If more, you have to look for it.
      October 2, 2019 10:34 AM MDT
    1

  • 46117
    My 2.  Why don't you and JA brainstorm a way so this is EASIER?  It really sucks trying to talk this way.  I always give up because my computer takes forever sometimes.  Anyway, Answer Bag used to have compartments after each member.  So when I answer you, it is all in the same compartment under my afatar.  All my answers. And if I want to see more of Spunky, I just go to her last reply and there is a way for me to check here prior ansswers. This is OLD and really horrible for trying to have a conversation or a debate.  


      October 2, 2019 10:41 AM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    Yes
      October 2, 2019 10:45 AM MDT
    0

  • 7280
    To quote an old commercial, "Where's the beef?"

    No false information was read into the record---Schiff simply gives his summary of what he thought the call was about.  

    Schiff says, “And what is the president’s response---well it reads like a classic organized crime shake down."  (Now realize this is Schiff's opinion---and since I endorse it and make it my own---must therefore be treated with great respect by all on this site.)  And then Schiff continues: "In essence, what the President Trump communicates is this…”

    If Schiff is to be censured for anything, it should be for overestimating the cognitive abilities of some Trump supporters that ignore phrases like "In essence" that qualify upcoming remarks and who do not appreciate the succinctness (characterized by clear, precise expression in few words) of the intent of of what common sense would  ascribe to the President's words uttered by him on that Ukraine phone call. 

    And I think that a number of people on the President's side of the issue got as much of a chuckle out of the parody that Schiff composed and presented as those of us who have always know that Trump has always been a threat to our democracy because he lacks the principles found in an honorable man.

    Parody---an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect.

    Edit:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN4CJ8MYLTY

    (Link is to Schiff reading his full comments for 9 minutes.  The parody starts at about 4 minutes in, but the first four minutes are an excellent introduction that I wouldn't skip.) This post was edited by tom jackson at September 30, 2019 9:02 AM MDT
      September 30, 2019 12:01 AM MDT
    1

  • 34296
    Schiff read it for the false soundbite to be played over and over on the news for the people who will not bother to read the real transcript.

    It is not refer to it as a parody until he was called out for lying by other members. 
    It was a cheap way to lie to the American people.  He has a gistory of it. Schiff also claimed several times that he had the proof of Trump's Russian collusion. I guess he forgot to let Mueller in on that or give that to him.  This post was edited by my2cents at September 30, 2019 5:01 AM MDT
      September 30, 2019 4:55 AM MDT
    0

  • 19937
    Trump lies over and over again for the people who won't do their own due diligence, but that's OK.  If Trump says something often enough, he hopes it will become fact, even when it isn't.  But, that's OK.  Schiff may well have proof of Trump's Russian collusion, but since a sitting president can't be indicted, there's no point in showing his hand for a possible criminal indictment at a later date.
      September 30, 2019 9:04 AM MDT
    0

  • 34296
    If he has proof and did not give it to Mueller then he does not belong as the leader of the Intelligence committee. 
      September 30, 2019 9:30 AM MDT
    0

  • 19937
    No one said he did not give it to Mueller.  Mueller has information that would indict and probably convict Trump if he wasn't the sitting president.  There is or reason to believe that Schiff did not turn over whatever information he had to Mueller.  
      September 30, 2019 9:51 AM MDT
    0

  • 34296
    So Mueller lied and cleared Trump of collusion so it could be used later? I hope not certainly would be deliberately lying in his Congressional report. 
      September 30, 2019 9:58 AM MDT
    0

  • 19937
    My mistake, I thought you said "obstruction."
      September 30, 2019 2:15 PM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    Which does not in any way challenge anything I said in my answer.
      September 30, 2019 1:22 PM MDT
    0

  • 46117
    I answered this.  Did you censor me?  

    OF COURSE HE SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED.  

    Let's see, I think Barr should be RECUSED first before your BASE decides who is to be removed.  That dog is not gonna hunt, no matter how Barr dresses for the occasion.  
      September 30, 2019 9:57 AM MDT
    0

  • 34296
    I have removed nothing. If I did you would recieve notice and an explaination.
      September 30, 2019 10:00 AM MDT
    0

  • 46117
    Well, you did give me a notice I did not get back to you on... so I may have missed something.  But, I wasn't sure why, I know I answered this. I don't think you are removing anything anyway, seriously, but my answers here and there are missing.  

    Atty. Gen. William Barr faces heavy flak in impeachment case

    Atty. Gen. William Barr appeared before a House Appropriations subcommittee on April 9.
    Atty. Gen. William Barr appeared before a House Appropriations subcommittee on April 9.
    (Andrew Harnik / Associated Press)
    SEP. 27, 2019
     
    2:12 PM
    WASHINGTON — 
     

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Friday accused Atty. Gen. William Barr of orchestrating a “cover-up of the cover-up” of President Trump’s efforts to solicit Ukraine’s help for his 2020 reelection campaign, escalating Democratic criticism that Barr acts more like a presidential fixer than the nation’s top law enforcement official.

    The accusation comes two days after a declassified White House memorandum revealed that Trump repeatedly told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in a July 25 phone call that he would instruct Barr to call him, thrusting the attorney general directly into the political firestorm of the impeachment proceedings that Pelosi announced this week.

    “I think what they’re doing is a cover-up of the cover-up,” Pelosi (D-San Francisco) told MSNBC. “To have a Justice Department go so rogue — well, they had been for a while, and now it just makes matters worse that the attorney general was mentioned, that the president was mentioned.”

    On Thursday, the House Intelligence Committee released a whistleblower’s complaint that alleged Barr “appears to be involved” in Trump’s efforts to convince Ukrainian officials to investigate unfounded allegations regarding Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.

    The author also alleged that White House officials sought to “lock down” records of Trump’s July 25 phone call by directing aides to move digital material from a widely available computer network to one reserved for highly classified material, suggesting a possible attempt to hide embarrassing material or wrongdoing.

    The Justice Department, which Barr heads, determined last month that intelligence officials did not have to give the nine-page complaint to congressional oversight committees, which normally review such complaints under the law. Prosecutors in the criminal division also ruled that the complaint and White House memo did not indicate Trump had committed a crime and that no further action was warranted.

    A Justice Department official said those decisions were made without input from Barr, though he did not recuse himself from the matters. Democrats are likely to focus in coming weeks on whether the attorney general sought to protect the president rather than the law.

    Trump’s multiple references to Barr in the call, and the whistleblower’s allegations, thus put the attorney general back in an uncomfortable spotlight, with Democrats and critics saying they have lost faith in his ability to impartially oversee the Justice Department.

     
     

    Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank), who is spearheading the impeachment inquiry as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said in an interview that “the attorney general thinks it’s his job to do the president’s will no matter how unethical that may be, and he’s made that abundantly clear.”

    Several other Democrats, including Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, urged Barr to recuse himself from anything to do with Ukraine or Biden.

    A spokeswoman for Barr said there was no reason for the attorney general to step aside because he had done nothing wrong.

    “The president has not spoken with the attorney general about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son,” the spokeswoman, Kerri Kupec, said in a statement. “The president has not asked the attorney general to contact Ukraine — on this or any other matter. The attorney general has not communicated with Ukraine — on this or any other subject.”

    Several legal experts said Barr should have stepped aside from the department’s work on the legal opinion and whether to pursue a criminal case because his name was referenced so extensively in the complaint and by Trump in the phone call. By not doing so, he raised questions about his independence and cast a further shadow on his tenure, they said.

    “He is certainly showing himself to be a lawyer for the president and not a lawyer for the country, which is what an attorney general is supposed to be,” said Stephen Gillers, a professor at the New York University School of Law and an expert on legal ethics.

    It is the second time that Barr has become a target of Democrats’ ire since he took office seven months ago. He replaced embattled Jeff Sessions, a former senator from Alabama who infuriated the president by recusing himself from the Russia investigation. Trump has told associates he wanted an attorney general who would protect him.

    By all accounts, Barr has not disappointed Trump, starting with how he handled the rollout last spring of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report on Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

     

    Democrats and legal scholars roundly criticized the attorney general for going further than Mueller by saying Trump hadn’t obstructed justice in attempting to interfere with the investigation.

    In a news conference before the report was released in April, Barr asserted that Trump was justifiably angry and frustrated by the Mueller investigation, a claim that puzzled former federal prosecutors of both parties because they said Barr sounded more like a defense lawyer than a prosecutor.

    Democrats see Trump’s efforts to get Ukraine to meddle in the 2020 election — and appearing to link it to U.S. military aid to a country widely seen in Congress as the front line against Russian aggression — as a more clear-cut abuse than the multiple cases of alleged obstruction of justice compiled by Mueller.

    If Barr was directly involved, as Trump suggested on his call with Zelensky, he is potentially culpable as well.

    Barr was first told about Trump’s conversation with Zelensky several weeks after the phone call when the Justice Department received word about a potential referral involving the whistleblower’s complaint, Justice Department officials said.

    The author, reportedly an intelligence officer then tasked to the White House, wrote that Trump “is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.” The “interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the president’s main domestic political rivals.”

    The president’s “personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort,” it states. “Atty. Gen. Barr appears to be involved as well.”

    In his call with Zelensky, Trump named Giuliani and Barr “as his personal envoys on this matter” and referred to them “multiple times in tandem,” the complaint alleged.

     

    The complaint, written two months before the White House released its memorandum of the call, turned out to be a fairly accurate reflection of the conversation.

    According to the memorandum, which was initially marked EYES ONLY — DO NOT COPY, Trump said multiple times that he would have Giuliani and Barr assist Zelensky’s government to investigate Biden and other Democrats.

    “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great,” Trump said. Moments later he linked his request to a possible visit by Ukraine’s leader to the White House.

    On Wednesday, when Trump met the Ukrainian leader on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly in New York, Zelensky publicly reminded the president that the White House had still not given him a date for a visit.



      September 30, 2019 10:03 AM MDT
    1