Washington Post awards Adam Schiff ‘Four Pinocchios’ for false comments about whistleblower

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Lerner, Feb 13, 2020.

  1. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    Washington Post awards Adam Schiff ‘Four Pinocchios’ for false comments about the whistleblower.

    Misleading the American public
    Conspired to mislead the American public?


  2. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    That occurred more than a year ago. You should get a faster internet connection.

    I’m not so sure it is effective for a Trump supporter to point out a misleading statement made by someone else.
  3. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    Wasn't the prestigious recognition on Oct 04, 2019, · The Washington Post’s “Fact Checker” column hit House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) with four Pinocchios?

    It's very effective to point that liar recognition of one of the main "plotters?" or instigators of the partisan Democrat only Impeachment.

    The double standard is obvious.
    Just like the AG Dona B meeting in the back of the airplane with Clinton. And the HRC "matter".
    But they unleash their "dogs" on the current AG Barr.
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2020
  4. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

  5. Vonnegut

    Vonnegut Active Member

  6. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    I say is how bad it is that even Washington Post that is not friendly of President Trump acknowledged that Congressman AS is misleading the public and awarded with a prestigious award of
    4 Pinocchios.
    When I read about it I had to double-check and triple-check, if this was coming from Washington Post.

    As to the link to the article you provided.
    It's interesting I will need some time to digest.

  7. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    I got my dates wrong. It is still 5 months old. And it is still irrelevant to the fact that the president committed multiple crimes in the Ukraine matter.

    You do know Bill Clinton was not president when the meeting with the AG occurred, right? You do know the AG subsequently recused herself from the matter, right? Try telling the whole story.

    Interesting that you're relying on the Washington Post. I suspect that isn't always the case.
  8. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    I only speculate that Bill Clinton at that time was "agent" of HRC - his wife. And the issue at hand "matter" was the destruction of servers, using personal email, etc, etc.
    My wife is a big fan of Hillary and Sanders so I had enough of these.
  9. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    None of which has anything to do with the president shaking down another country using our tax dollars. Nor does Adam Schiff's statements regarding the whistleblower. None this is exculpatory.

    And that's the real problem, isn't it? Employing whataboutisms, distractions, irrelevant rants and tangents, all intended to draw attention away from the simple fact that the president committed multiple crimes--in his own words. Worse is defending that vulgarian.
  10. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    The only issue is that all bogus allegations and opinions. I understand you don't like the style of the President. I think American People will voice their opinion in November and the majority are not agreeing with your opinion.
    Because President Trump didn't commit any crimes.
    There are no distractions but eye-opening facts that people who committed FISA fraud, and invent things that didn't happen, etc and likes are being defended.
  11. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    This is the problem with your posts. You skew them to the point where they are not factual. I said nothing about his "style," nor anything that could be construed as such. That's your false construct. I've simply maintained that he has committed multiple crimes while in office. You don't seem to be able to provide exculpatory evidence to the contrary. No shame in that; no one has. But you continue to toss out red herrings, and there's much shame to be had in that.
    That's fine. But it isn't supported by any facts. He is disapproved by a majority of Americans--and has always been. Oh, and I'm not offering an opinion. I'm stating facts.
    Denial is fine, but it doesn't change the facts. The Mueller report is chock full of documented criminal behavior by the president. The Ukraine matter uncovered several more. There are also many cases pending where he is implicated; these are still being adjudicated. Then there are the multitude of civil suits, many of which accuse him of criminal behavior, including rape.

    Maybe you're right. Maybe all of this is just a big misunderstanding. Maybe he didn't do the things he's been accused of for decades. But it seems that's a much harder argument to make in the face of all that has been proven.
    I have no idea how to parse that one. I do know that if anyone committed any wrong act against this president, this AG would be all over it. Why isn't that happening?
  12. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    AG is handling this, but because of the caliber of the people involved he has one chance so he needs to build a strong case.

    Mueller report by the all dem's attornies that looked way beyond the original scope produced that there was no Russian collusion, and on the critiques of obstruction, if there was something there the House would have added to the articles of Impeachment but they didn't. As far as I remember the Impeachment was only about the events and distortions of the Ukranian call and the 4 Pinocchios is awarded
    to one of the principle "prosecutors" in one-sided impeachment fiasco for misleading the American people.

    Again there are allegations and accusations but as we witnessed in the last 3 years of constant and continuous attacks on the president, a lot of them fail legally to prove their case.
    Civil cases maybe, I'm not a law professional, but a lot of the stories are highly inflated by drive-by media, and indeed fake news.
    People don't trust the media anymore. These are propaganda machines used by politicians. Instead of reporting news they indoctrinate and promote the one-sided agenda.
  13. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Take the last word. Please.
  14. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator Staff Member

    There are many people who really really want Trump to "build that wall" and otherwise pass remarkably strict immigration laws. There are many people who would like Trump to champion other pieces of conservative legislation such as continuing to modify the tax code to favor the rich, modify/abolish current healthcare laws, etc. and they would especially like Trump to nominate more conservative Supreme Court Justices for a variety of reasons including overturning Roe v. Wade. I'm not sure how much of that Trump will accomplish before he finally leaves office in 2020 (or 2024) but once he is out of office I think he will find all his Conservative friends disappearing back under their rocks and he will be left alone to face the consequences of his actions inside a courtroom. There will be no Attorney General by his side to protect him. There will be no one there to suppress evidence and witnesses. Then all his Republican friends will be aghast to learn of his misdeeds ("I'm shocked to learn there's gambling going on in here") and all the people who supported him when they needed him will then abandon him once he is useless towards their goals. Trump is being used to achieve a Right Wing Conservative agenda. He doesn't believe in any of those things. He only believes in increasing his own power but for him the goal of power is money. But once he is out of power he will be thrown to the wolves. And the wolves will be waiting. You can think it's good or you can think it's bad but you know that the wolves will be waiting.
  15. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Ooh. Harsh. But inevitable. The contrary theory is that all Republican leaders joined a Trump cult, which I always found difficult to believe. His supporters will go back where they came from, too, because they'll have no where else to go.
  16. Vonnegut

    Vonnegut Active Member

    This reminds me of a quote from Mills, although please do not take it as a specific commentary on what you've said. "So long as an opinion is strongly rooted in the feelings, it gains rather than loses in stability by having a preponderating weight of argument against it. For if it were accepted as a result of argument, the refutation of the argument might shake the solidarity of the conviction; but when it rests solely on feeling, the worse it fares in argumentative contest, the more persuaded its adherents are that their feeling must have some deeper ground, which the arguments do not reach; and while the feeling remains, it is always throwing up fresh intrenchments of argument to repair any breach made in the old." - John Stuart Mill
    SteveFoerster likes this.

Share This Page