Schiff Targets Political Rival, Journalist

[Cow Poke]

Ahem...



That's the evidence she is asking for.

Correct! The "who cares" comes AFTER he can't admit he was wrong.

[Juvenal]

Back to the o/p article, in case the echo chamber never bothered to read it, or never bothered to read all of it, or what reading done wasn't done critically.

Scalise: Schiff 'spying' on Nunes with call records
by Susan Ferrechio
December 04, 2019 12:31 PM

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff spied on the top Republican on his panel by obtaining his phone records and publishing them in an impeachment report, Minority Whip Steve Scalise said Wednesday.

“It raises a lot of serious questions,” the Louisiana Republican said.

“I want to know all the people Adam Schiff is spying on,” Scalise told the Washington Examiner. “Are there other members of Congress that he is spying on, and what justification does he have? He needs to be held accountable and explain what he’s doing, going after journalists, going after members of Congress, instead of doing his job.”

This is the Washington Examiner promoting an accusation against Schiff in the lede ...

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff spied on the top Republican on his panel ...

... and providing its debunking in the last paragraph.

"The Republican minority of the three committees has had access to these subpoenaed records and knows full well that neither Mr. Nunes nor Mr. Solomon were subpoenaed, nor were their call record," the aide said.

So this is yellow journalism.

It's not as bad as it could be. It includes balancing information, and does manage to debunk the original claim, eventually. I've seen CP regularly post articles from far worse secondary sources that eliminate all balance, an oeuvre I refer to at least as regularly as the unscuffed shoes of journalism, the "scavenger press."

Scalise is a party whip, by definition a partisan hack, that being a whip's job. The "spying" accusation is partisan hackery in defense of Nunes, another partisan hack, known for the Nunes memo referenced obliquely in the balancing citation from the otherwise nondescript Bill Pascrell.

"I always felt that Mr. Nunes was a dividing character,” Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell of New Jersey told the Washington Examiner. “We know of his meetings with the president, which he had every right to do by the way. But in the peculiar position he was in, it was obvious where he was getting his orders and how he proceeded. And I think he’s going to get what’s coming to him.”

These attacks on the messengers, "shifty Schiff,' "lying sack of Schiff," impeach themselves, on two counts. First, because they are invariably based on false or distorted information. In this case, the information is simply false. Nunes was not targeted. Second, because they are attacks on the messengers. By necessity and design, any attack on a messenger, whether it's Schiff, Greta, Mueller, Comey, or the Parkland kids, cannot defend against the message, because it fails to engage with the message itself.


Nunes was in contact with a man who has since been indicted for enabling foreign interference in our elections. Yes, that's suspicious.

It's also blissfully ironic.

Nunes said he did not recall the phone call with Parnas ...

Just as well we have the call records, then.


Nunes has since clarified that he spoke with Parnas ... or someone calling from Parnas' home ... directing him to a staff member, unlike Schiff, who fully debriefed the whistleblower and personally coached him or her on writing the complaint, as the unscuffed would have us believe.

2019-12-11_09-15-02.jpg

As related inside the friendly confines of Fox's F&F, Nunes is also threatening yet another lawsuit in blithe acknowledgement that suing his cow doesn't seem likely to work out.

[Juvenal]

Ahem...

That's the evidence she is asking for.

The repeated responses referencing "proving a negative," none of which were disputed by Laura, are good evidence it was the first clause, not the second, she was asking to see backed up.

[Juvenal]

You can't make this stuff up!

I am no longer fixated on pointing out bad spelling or grammar ...

You can't make this stuff up.

[Cow Poke]

You can't make this stuff up.

It wasn't bad spelling or grammar that I was laughing at, Juvie.

It was the irony of his accusation that somebody ELSE is "turning to the ad hominum attack tactic". That's pretty much JimL's stock in trade.

[JimL]

Ahem...



That's the evidence she is asking for.

Yes, and I answered that question. The answer is that Schiff had no access to the data that the whistleblower made in his complaint to the IG, and the complaint was substantiated, confirmed by the evidence. It's not like Schiff could have made up the complaint himself, had the whistleblower file that made up complaint and then that made up complaint just happened to be confirmed.

But that isn't the question she's been asking me as you can see in post 114, the part that you didn't cite. She asked me to prove Schiff had no contact with the whistleblower.

Now, I'm not sure, but I believe that Schiff said he had no contact with the whistleblower himself, that his staff did, so if someone, you or Tea, believes for some reason that he is lying about that, it's up to you to prove, not me. Personally, taking the above into account, I don't see what difference that would make anyway.

So, being that is your meaningless accussation, you prove it!

[JimL]

Correct! The "who cares" comes AFTER he can't admit he was wrong.

You, in fact all of you, seem to have a problem with reading comprehension.

[Cow Poke]

You, in fact all of you, seem to have a problem with reading comprehension.

Yes, Jim, you are the sane one and the whole rest of the world is nuts.


Reminds me of a story!


This lady was watching TV, and the news was reporting a wrong-way driver on I-10 in Houston.
The lady knew her Dad was driving on that highway, so she called him on his cell phone.

Daughter - "Dad, be VERY CAREFUL, the news is reporting a wrong-way driver on I-10"
Dad - "Not just ONE -- there are HUNDREDS of them!!!!"

[Sparko]

Yes, and I answered that question. The answer is that Schiff had no access to the data that the whistleblower made in his complaint to the IG, and the complaint was substantiated, confirmed by the evidence. It's not like Schiff could have made up the complaint himself, had the whistleblower file that made up complaint and then that made up complaint just happened to be confirmed.

But that isn't the question she's been asking me as you can see in post 114, the part that you didn't cite. She asked me to prove Schiff had no contact with the whistleblower.

Now, I'm not sure, but I believe that Schiff said he had no contact with the whistleblower himself, that his staff did, so if someone, you or Tea, believes for some reason that he is lying about that, it's up to you to prove, not me. Personally, taking the above into account, I don't see what difference that would make anyway.

So, being that is your meaningless accussation, you prove it!

Schiff doesn't have anything to do with the whistleblowers complaint, which by the way is confirmed by evidence

That's what you said. Now you are trying to qualify it. And you still have not provided any evidence while claiming you did.

[JimL]

Yes, Jim, you are the sane one and the whole rest of the world is nuts.

See what I mean?

Reminds me of a story!


This lady was watching TV, and the news was reporting a wrong-way driver on I-10 in Houston.
The lady knew her Dad was driving on that highway, so she called him on his cell phone.

Daughter - "Dad, be VERY CAREFUL, the news is reporting a wrong-way driver on I-10"
Dad - "Not just ONE -- there are HUNDREDS of them!!!!"

That's a good one, CP.

[Juvenal]

It was the irony of his accusation that somebody ELSE is "turning to the ad hominum attack tactic". That's pretty much JimL's stock in trade.

I live for unwitting irony.

[Cow Poke]

See what I mean?

Sure, Jim.

[Teallaura]

Ahem...

Originally Posted by JimL
If he had contact with the whistleblower, which for one, is just a republican assertion, and two, who the hell cares, and why? Schiff doesn't have anything to do with the whistleblowers complaint, which by the way is confirmed by evidence. So, seriously, other than your being told to care, why do you care?


That's the evidence she is asking for.

Thanks, Sparky.

Ah, now I see your error. Thats why you should have answered me when I asked you about 5 or 6 times what it was that you wanted me to prove. I never claimed what you're asking me to prove, I never said that I had evidence that Schiff never talked with the whistleblower, what I said was "who cares if he did", what difference does it make?

Your mistake is not answering the question when it has been posed multiple times - where is the evidence YOU claimed exists?

[Teallaura]

The repeated responses referencing "proving a negative," none of which were disputed by Laura, are good evidence it was the first clause, not the second, she was asking to see backed up.

No, it isn't - I've been trying to ignore most of you while trying to get an answer out of Jim. Plus I specified evidence in subsequent posts. However, trying to prove 'Schiff doesn't have anything to do with the whistle blower's complaint' would indeed be an attempt to prove a negative.

Jim backed himself into a pointless corner - you aren't helping him.

[Teallaura]

Yes, and I answered that question. The answer is that Schiff had no access to the data that the whistleblower made in his complaint to the IG, and the complaint was substantiated, confirmed by the evidence. It's not like Schiff could have made up the complaint himself, had the whistleblower file that made up complaint and then that made up complaint just happened to be confirmed.

But that isn't the question she's been asking me as you can see in post 114, the part that you didn't cite. She asked me to prove Schiff had no contact with the whistleblower.

Now, I'm not sure, but I believe that Schiff said he had no contact with the whistleblower himself, that his staff did, so if someone, you or Tea, believes for some reason that he is lying about that, it's up to you to prove, not me. Personally, taking the above into account, I don't see what difference that would make anyway.

So, being that is your meaningless accussation, you prove it!

I have asked repeatedly for the EVIDENCE you stated exists but are unwilling to provide - and you darn well know it.