By now you know that Adam Schiff is a chronic liar but you might not know how pervasive his lying is. At Real Clear Politics Frank Miele captures Schiff quite succinctly:
You can take your pick for the most famous liars in history — people who are willing to say anything for the sake of gaining and keeping power — but surely Rep. Adam Schiff has earned a place on that list.
I won’t call Schiff a “congenital liar” — as Fox News personality Sean Hannity does nightly — but only because the term excuses Schiff of personal responsibility for his behavior. I don’t think it was his genes that made Schiff into a consummate liar but rather his narcissistic personality.
Watching Schiff spin his yarns as chief House manager for the impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump reminds me of the great dissemblers of Shakespeare, such as “Honest Iago,” who is only comfortable in his own skin when he is making the skin of others crawl. The “motiveless malignity” that poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge ascribed to Iago is writ large in the perfunctory perfidy that Schiff practices with unassuming ease. He would destroy a king, but he assures us he takes no pleasure in it, wink-wink, nod-nod.
Yes, Adam Schiff is a monstrous liar. You will remember him fabricating out of whole cloth the conversation between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky, entering it into the official record in the House.
“I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand, lots of it, on this and on that. I’m going to put you in touch with people, not just any people, I’m going to put you in touch with the attorney general of the United States, my attorney general Bill Barr. He’s got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him.”
Later he would call it “parody.”
The last four years have been a novel of Schiff lies
Mr. Schiff also quoted Mr. Steele on a purported conspiracy between campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Mr. Page: “According to Steele, it was Manafort who chose Page to serve as a go-between for the Trump campaign and Russian interests.”
Independent evidence shows the two never knew or spoke with each other.
Mr. Schiff also said Mr. Steele was “highly regarded” by U.S. intelligence.
When Mr. Page later appeared before the committee, Mr. Schiff repeatedly quoted the dossier in questioning the former aide, forcing him to disprove what Mr. Steele had written.
He claimed repeatedly that he had secret evidence of Russian collusion “in plain sight”:
Mr. Schiff said several times that he had seen evidence of Trump-Russia collusion to interfere in the election and it was beyond circumstantial.
He began this talking point in March 2017.
“I can tell you that the case is more than that,” he said on MSNBC. “And I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now.”
Special counsel Robert Mueller said in his March 2019 report that he did not find a Trump election conspiracy. No Trump associate was charged in such a conspiracy.
Then there was the battle over FISA abuse
After Mr. Nunes issued a memo in 2018 disclosing FISA abuses, Mr. Schiff issued a countermemo that proved off-base on several points.
Mr. Schiff titled his Jan. 29, 2018, countermemo “Correcting the Record — The Russia Investigation.”
“FBI and DOJ officials did not ‘abuse’ the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, omit material information, or subvert this vital tool to spy on the Trump campaign,” he said.
In fact, Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz’s Dec. 9 report found that the FBI did abuse FISA. He found 17 instances in which agents submitted inaccurate information to the judge or omitted exculpatory statements about Mr. Page.
Schiff wasn’t content to be just wrong
Mr. Schiff said in his countermemo: “In subsequent FISA renewals, DOJ provided additional information obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele’s reporting.”
Not true, said Mr. Horowitz. None of Mr. Steele’s reporting in the warrant was ever corroborated. In fact, FBI agents acquired evidence from Mr. Steele’s main source, who placed great doubt in Mr. Steele’s allegations. But the FBI left this evidence out of subsequent warrant renewals.
He accused Trump of money laundering
“During the prior Congress, the Committee began to pursue credible reports of money laundering and financial compromise related to the business interests of President Trump, his family, and his associates,” Mr. Schiff said.
He said he planned to look into the “extent of any links and/or coordination between the Russian government, or related foreign actors, and individuals associated with Donald Trump’s campaign, transition, administration, or business interests, in furtherance of the Russian government’s interests.”
By the time Mr. Schiff wrote this anti-Trump agenda, Mr. Mueller had completed his investigation and found no election conspiracy. There is no hint in his report of money laundering.
Schiff continued to leak false stories
In 2017 and 2018, committee Republicans said that Mr. Schiff’s side leaked a number of bogus stories, such as Russian Facebook ads in Wisconsin and Michigan, and Donald Trump Jr.’s communication with WikiLeaks.
There’s even more at the link.
When asked directly, Schiff denied having any contact with the whistleblower. It was another lie. The other day Schiff denied knowing the identity of the whistleblower. No one believes him.
After defending spying by Obama on the Trump campaign, Schiff said investigating a Presidential rival is wrong.
Schiff claimed the evidence the House committee had on Trump was “overwhelming” and “uncontested” but then asserted more witnesses were necessary because the Senate could not just “rely on what was investigated in the House.”
Schiff has frequently demanded that witnesses be allowed in the Senate in order to assure a “a fair trial.” He went to Harvard law school and apparently graduated but seems not have any understanding of the American legal system. In this country a fair trial is fair to the accused, not to the prosecution. And as I wrote previously, nowhere in the legal system is it stipulated that defendants must provide witnesses for the prosecution after the prosecution chose not to pursue them. Schiff had his chance to have witnesses. He and Nadler demurred. That’s no one else’s fault and it is NOT the obligation of the President’s team to correct their blunder.
Schiff is a former Federal prosecutor. That’s particularly frightening as it makes one wonder just how many innocent people are behind bars consequent to Schiff lies.
Politico trumpeted a story of how out of the Trump impeachment Schiff has become a superstar
Sitting shoulder to shoulder on the Senate floor as they argue for the president’s removal from office, two men — Adam Schiff of California and Hakeem Jeffries of New York — have been catapulted to the front of the nation’s consciousness, to the top of the Democratic Party and have become the fulcrum for speculation about a host of prominent positions both in the House and beyond.
One of the only real hard facts out of the impeachment is just how grandiose a liar Adam Schiff is. It’s a bad time in this country when being an inveterate liar in a trial makes you a superstar. If and when the Senate gets around to it, they should entertain witnesses to testify- with Adam Schiff being number one.
I am so pleased that this impeachment nonsense has blown up in his face. He’s done a lot of damage this country.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
@Randy:
You will get no rational answer from Comrade Greggie.
@Greg:
Oooo… that’s bad. How about an example of Trump doing something in retaliation that puts someone in danger?
Oh, and, again, WHAT did Trump do that was wrong and shameful?
@Swordmaker:
Please understand, you can provide actual facts to those Trump haters, like Comrade Greggie and Wheeler, all day long and they just cover their ears and scream “I can’t hear you.”
These are the very same people who ignored Obama’s crimes and the fact that due to Obama’s actions, Americans actually died.
And does anyone remember Tony Rezko? Talk about a warning bell.
@Redteamre #183:Weren’t you home schooled? Tulsi graduated from Hawaii Pacific U. in 2009 with a B.S in Business Admin
She finished top of her class Alabama Military Academy —accelerated OCS for National Guard—Commissioned 2nd LT—rose to rank of Major—served 2 tours in Iraq
We talking about the same Tulsi Gabbard
I forgot–you still think Obama was born in Kenya?
How ya feeling?
Right. And the only guy he wants investigated just happens to be the son of his most likely 2020 presidential opponent, and the urgent need for that investigation just happens to occur to him the year before said election…
Just because you’re surrounded by gullible people in the Trump camp doesn’t mean everybody else is equally gullible.
@Greg: So greggie if someone is running for president, then they are immune from prosecution? If that was true, then why did the Dems go after Trump? wasn’t he running for president? A 2 year old can make a better argument than you!
@Greg:
4th place in Iowa behind the commie no less.
The hairy legged, finger nibbling, kid toucher aint doing so hot behind 2 that were stuck in DC for a sham impeachment.
@Deplorable Me, #202:
Does humping a porn star, using his bag man make a $130,000 hush money payment to keep her quiet until after the election, and then letting the guy take the fall and go to prison for his loyalty count?
I especially like the irony of “I did not have sex with that woman.”
@Greg: if only Trump had very little life and work experience, he could have sealed his records and then none of us would have been the wiser…
@Greg:
Wanna talk about Tony Rezko and Obama’s sweetheart deal on his Chicago mansion?
@Nathan Blue, #209:
What hasn’t Trump sealed? Locked down documents, witnesses ordered to defy subpoenas, tax returns withheld from both the public and congressional oversight committees authorized by law to review them, medical records confiscated from his intimidated doctor during a surprise raid on his office… He just ordered Stevie Mnuchin to lock down all information regarding he and his family’s Secret Service travel costs until after the 2020 election. It’s been estimated that the Trump clan is costing taxpayers as much in a single month as the Obama family cost in an entire year.
Our Swamp-Drainer-in-Chief has presently got his son-in-law negotiating treaties in the Middle East and sucking up to homicidal Saudi princes, and his unpaid personal lawyer pressuring foreign governments to provide him with dirt on his political opponents.
What kind of “life experience” did he get during all the years he was paling around with Jeffrey Epstein? They shared a lawyer, of course, along with O.J. Simpson—the same lawyer who was just arguing on the floor of the Senate that abuse of power of office is not grounds for removal from that office. Who knows what Epstein might have known about Donald? We’ll never find out now. Epstein was erased, and then the security camera tapes were erased.
@Greg:
Comrade Greggie, you have absolutely gone off the rails.
I have advised you before, seek mental health treatment.
Tulsi is a fine person but no glass ceiling breaker.
Identity politics isnt helping the party.
@retire05: I think he also needs drug rehab. That LSD he explored in Nam has relegated him to zombie status.
@retire05:
It would certainly sound like someone had gone off the rails—except for the fact that it’s all inconveniently true. Trump supporters might want to think about that before they start ranting about not being allowed to see Obama’s college transcript, or asserting that he was born in Kenya.
@Greg: Actually greggie, none of it is true! You are “tripping”.
Look any of it up. You’ll find that you’re very much mistaken.
@Greg:
Have you even read the so-called whistleblower’s complaint? I have. It bears as much of a connection to reality as Adam Schiff’s parody does. There’s so many inaccuracies in it that the whistleblower, who filed it under threat of perjury, should be brought up on charges. One of those was he/she swore he/she had first hand knowledge of the thing he/she was reporting. He/she did not. The whistleblower lied, despite Intelligence Community Inspector General Atkinson bending over so far backwards he was looking at his own rectum to make it even possible for the faux Whistleblower to even file his complaint with his office.
The so-called “whistleblower‘s,” actually leaker’s statutory protection from workplace retaliation, does not have priority over the accused President Trump’s Constitutional Sixth Amendment Right to be confronted by his accusers, not just an amorphous construct of innuendo and hearsay hints made-up by prosecutors. The hierarchy of law puts Constitutional Rights above all else.
Not only has the ICIG obfuscated the meaning of the Whistleblower section of the Intelligence Community law, he has done far more.
The ICIG contrived to change the ICIG regulations, he also changed the ICIG-Form 401, which requires the reporting employee to ONLY report those infractions of which the employee has first-hand eye-witness knowledge, to allow second-hand and office rumor knowledge which would not be admissible before any court of law. Strange thing is these changes were not filed with the Director of National Intelligence Office until September 25, 2010, but were back-dated to “August 2019”! Another strange thing is the dating on the new Form is not in the standard government approved dating format, and the form itself lacks the standard government approved Form number. Oops! It also lacks the required page numbering that is mandatory on all government forms. Double Oops. Neither the alteration of the regulations or the changes in the form went through the normal procedures for regulatory modifications and editing, which have statutory and legal procedures that MUST be done before either can be adopted. They were just sneaked in through the back door, so that the so-called “whistleblower” non-conforming Illegal complaint could be accepted at all.
Another very interesting fact is that ICIG Michael Atkinson’s transmission letter for the complaint to the House and Senate Standing Committees on Oversight on Intelligence complaining about how the complaint was handled by the DNI and the DOJ, according to the meta-data inside the file, was written on August 12, 2019, the date he received the complaint from the Whistleblower. . . a date THREE WEEKS before he received it back from the DNI and DOJ with their orders that it was NOT under his jurisdiction! Say what?!
This smacks of conspiracy that was planned from the very beginning, that Schiff, Atkinson, and the Whistleblower knew exactly that the DNI’s Legal Counsel, the DOJ’s Legal Counsel, and indeed even the ICIG’s own Legal Counsel would all be in agreement that under the statute the complaint would
(1) NOT BE UNDER ICIG Atkinson’s jurisdiction which covers only members of the Intelligence Community;
(2) it was not an “urgent matter” that should be reported to Congress;
(3) it was on an elected official who was not a covered individual in the Intelligence Community;
(4) this was a policy issue and was not covered by the statute; and
(5) the President was specifically not a subject of the statute. . .
yet the ICIG’s cover letter to the committee chairs complaining that the “urgent matter” was being ignored by the DNI and DOJ had already been written the same day as Atkinson had received the complaint, even before he’d done any investigation! He then ignored his superiors and transmitted the matter to those committees, even though his own career Legal Counsel, the DNI’s career Legal Counsel, and the DOJ’s career Legal Counsel had all determined that it was inappropriate to do so and that the DCIG had no jurisdiction nor did those committees.
Looking into Atkinson’s background you find he was Senior Counsel to a couple of rabid Democrat activists appointed by Obama at the DOJ. . . As was he.
@Greg: He happened to be the guy that BRAGGED about extorting Ukraine to cover for his son. Plus, YEAH, he is a PRESIDENTIAL candidate, meaning it would be really good to know if he had been stealing US foreign aid funds via the Burisma money laundering scheme BEFORE he was possibly elected. Perhaps if “the most honest and transparent administration in history” had policed the situation, an investigation wouldn’t be necessary. But, based on ample evidence, necessary it most definitely was.
So, you broke down and answered a question… good boy. Now, what is missing from your litany of accusations? Any guesses? Look closely. OK, I’ll tell you. ANYTHING IMPEACHABLE. ANYTHING RELATED TO UKRAINE. You admitted anyone thinking Trump should be censured (much less impeached) are totally off base and wrong. Confession is good for the soul. If you can find yours, it must feel much better now. Again, even if the long ago debunked accusations you recite were true… NOT impeachable and NOT related to Ukraine. So, you admitted there is still NOTHING to impeach or censure Trump for.
Oh… in case you missed it, Swordmaker is kicking your ass. I think we can see why Schiff didn’t release Atkinson’s testimony. Can’t we?
@Greg:
No, Comrade Greggie, you believe it’s true no matter the facts show you to be wrong.
What a pathetic person you are.
@Swordmaker, #218:
The Intelligence Community’s Inspector General—who received the full unredacted document—disagrees with you. He considered the report both credible and a matter of urgent concern.
I certainly find Atkinson more credible than whatever anonymous writer cranked out the smear on him that appeared on DCWhispers, a known right-wing fake news outlet.
@Greg:
Non sequitur comments are useless, Greggie.
Who, pray tell, is this “They” you are referring to?
The only one I see there from OJ’s “Dream Team” is Alan Dershowitz.
I don’t see anyone there named Shapiro, Cochran, Kardashian, F. Lee Bailey, Scheck, Neufeld, Uelmen, Douglas, or Holley. Are you claiming that Alan Dershowitz is entitled to a royal “we” pronoun?
I don’t think any of them ran for Senate, did they? If they did, I think they, like Dershowitz, would be Liberal Democrats.
@Greg:
You state you find Atkinson more credible than some anonymous writer. Based on what? Do you personally know either one?
You believe what you want to believe, facts be dammed. Your hatred has become a true measure of your mental stability. And it ain’t good.
@Greg:
You’ve claimed that multiple times, but you’ve yet to give even one example of this retaliation. What? He fires someone? Why would you keep someone around who is not supporting you if you had a business, and was deliberately undermining you or your business?
@Swordmaker:
Comrade Greggie doesn’t back up his claims, just continues to repeat them ad nauseum.
It’s all he’s got.
@Swordmaker, #222:
You seem to have answered your own question: Dershowitz.
Feel free to curtail your lecture on singular vs plural pronouns. I might mount a defense involving Dershowitz’s two-faced nature, and the fact that he’s done a 180-degree reversal concerning the necessity of a statutory crime being present to justify impeachment.
The point is that the defense of Trump was undertaken using the same tactics defense attorneys use to undermine the case against a common criminal. They undertook the task of getting him off, not of establishing the truth. That they did everything in their power to prevent. I won’t fault them for it, because that was their job. But I never believed O.J.’s acquittal meant he didn’t kill anyone, either.
Please drop the Greggie, or I will have to stop pretending I believe in the independent identity of your sock puppet.
@Greg:
The only truly gullible people we see are the sheep who follow the Progressive Democrat Socialists.
Read the transcript of what President Trump really asked to be investigated if you think he ONLY asked for an investigation into Biden, a candidate voted most likely to crash and burn before reaching the end of the primary season due to foot-in-mouth disease and the groping hands syndrome in the era of #metoo.
The fact is that President Trump asked President Zelenskyy to look into the corruption during the 2016 Presidential Election season that emanated from Ukraine, specifically, which involved a host of people in Ukraine’s government at that time, including the Ukraine’s ambassador to the US who wrote EDITORIALS against Trump’s candidacy, something no diplomat should ever do. It also implied the corruption at Burisma where a lot of US Aid disappeared into money laundering. Both president’s knew of what he was speaking and of whom he was speaking. They were referring to some oligarchs who had gotten rich through corruption. Trump also mentioned en-passant some of the holdover people who were still in government that were around Zelenskyy, warning him they were corrupt.
Hunter and Joe Biden were after-thoughts, brought up only later in the conversation. Democrats would have you believe the prior request was only a smoke screen, but it is not, as President Trump has been talking about it for some time.
@Greg: You don’t even believe what you are saying.
The impeachment is a cover-up, and you’re just reinforcing the disinformation.
Greggie.
I see you think swordmaker is another mark for your bullshit.
You’ve already cut apart your own argument, several times.
@Greg:
Uh, no, they are not “authorized by law” to review them. The only reason they could possibly see them is if they have a legitimate legislative reason to see them. So far they have not been able to convince a court that is the reason why they have subpoenaed them. Instead, it is obvious that the Democrats are looking for something for political reasons, as the IRS Commissioner determined.
Who has been estimating that? They’d have to go some to do that. Trump has been reimbursing the White House for expenses of travel for his family’s travel expenses and his Salary is donated, often to government agencies. You ARE delusional.
WOW! Talk about delusional. Do you mean like the way President Obama bowed almost double to the Saudi King? US President’s do not bow to royalty, especially self-crowned royalty. Obama did. You do know that we no longer need Saudi Crude, don’t you, all due to Trump’s energy policies? Why should we be “sucking up to any homicidal Saudi Princes?”
It was not private citizen Trump who spent any time with Epstein, Greggie. He attended a couple of parties where Epstein also was in attendance. Otherwise, there’s no evidence that they were at all close friends. In fact, he cut off all contact with Epstein after he saw how Epstein behaved. Now if you want to talk about paling around, look closer to your party, in Bill Clinton who took no fewer than 24 trips on the Lolita Express Airlines to Epstein’s Private Island, and also to Hillary who also flew Epstein Air, multiple times. Oops. Trump’s name does not appear at all on the passenger manifests on the Lolita Express.
As for Alan Dershowitz, having a shared lawyer is meaningless. Doing guilt by association is reprehensible, Greggie. Shall we talk about Congressman Alcee Hastings, (D-Fl20) impeached and convicted US Federal Judge for soliciting and accepting bribes from the Federal Bench, then elected to Congress by your fellow party members, yet he voted to impeach President. Too bad the Senate did not also vote to prevent him from ever holding an office of trust ever again.
Those who were at risk from Epstein were the Clintons, not Trump. And, yes, Epstein did not kill himself.
@Swordmaker: Most here have cornered and beaten Greg in a debate, so understand he’s not looking to have real dialogue (though he pretends to).
He’s a paid sock puppet.
@Greg:
You still haven’t said you’ve read the report. I’ve read it and the redacted portion which wasn’t that much more. You don’t have a clue what you are talking about. It is STILL filled with perjured claims, and does not match at all with what was said in the accurate record of the call as reflected in the released transcript, as attested to by the three witnesses who actually heard the call.
What part of ICIG Atkinson did not have jurisdiction do you fail to grasp?
Not having Jurisdiction is akin to having a town constable from Podunk, Kansas, suddenly deciding he has the authority to investigate and arrest people in New York City for violating Podunk Town ordinances and throw them in Podunk’s jail.
Atkinson just did not have the authority or jurisdiction to do what he did, and he was told that as a fact of law by his own agency’s legal counsel, his superior agency’s, his boss’s legal counsel, and his Department’s, the DOJ’s Legal Counsel, none of which were Trump political appointees. Yet he insubordinately went ahead and sent the illegal complaint to Congress.
@Swordmaker: Because the ends justifies the means.
@Swordmaker, #229:
Indeed, there IS a law that DOES require the IRS to turn ANYONE’S tax returns over to specified congressional committees for confidential examination upon request, without any other qualifying conditions. That point has been made here and the specific statute cited more often than I’ve kept count of.
You have just become a waste of my time—or have been recognized as such, as that’s pretty much what you’ve been doing all along.
I’ll make a parting observation:
@Swordmaker, #231:
You’re most likely telling a Trumper. But don’t take that observation personally. I’ve been repeatedly accused of lying around here for making far less improbable statements.
(Pelosi just tore Trump’s speech in half on camera—most likely retaliation for his refusal to give The Speaker of the House the customary handshake. Since decorum has been abandoned in favor of partisan rancor, she should have pulled off his toupee and thrown it out into the audience.)
@Greg: Been through this. Not without some specific reason. 4th Amendment protections; even Trump has them.
By now we have seen that nothing satisfies Democrat’s hunger for invasion of privacy for their fishing expeditions. They should receive NOTHING without a very specific and proven need. They have shown nothing, especially the responsibility to handle any such information.
@Greg:
What part of the role of a defense advocate attorney do you fail to grasp? You seem to think that attorneys are supposed to advocate only for sweet innocent people, ala Perry Mason.
Now, don’t go thinking I am ceding that President Trump is guilty because he has attorneys advocating on his behalf who, like Alan Dershowitz, have in the past defended guilty defendants. Our system depends on strong advocates arguing the law and the facts to the best of their abilities for those defendants. I am certain you would want the best defense you could get if you were accused of committing a crime, either guilty or innocent. . . And especially so if you were unfairly accused. You’d want an attorney who had the best experience before a court of law.
I apologize for using “Greggie” but when I see someone using immature emotional arguments as you do, it makes it easy to respond with an immature epithet because that is how you come across. I am nobody’s “sock puppet” and I use no “sock puppets” which should be obvious as I need none to argue points with someone who is so obviously without the ability to discuss with facts. Do you see anyone else on this forum that writes the way I do, or responds with the same approach as I?
It might have escaped your notice but mere repetition of your trite claims doesn’t make them more believable, it only makes them more boring. Try refuting somethings with facts, instead, not opinions.
By the way, there are other copies of the so-called “Whistleblower’s” complaint out there that does not have the blacked out paragraphs and other edited parts in the previously “classified” section. It has been unclassified. There was nothing in there really worth classifying.
I just reviewed the complaint again and as I went through it I was amazed at the number of false assertions. They are mind boggling when aligned next to the actual text of the transcript. It is obvious that although Atkinson could have done a side-by-side comparison, he did not bother. Doing so would have made it obvious that the complaint could not be credible. It also makes it obvious where Adam Schiff got the ideas for his ridiculous parody of the call, such as “I am only going to say this seven times” as that is what is implied in the “Whistleblower’s” complaint, but certainly doesn’t exist in the transcript.
@Nathan Blue:
Of course he is. I post my information to provide some of the others with accurate data so they can use it elsewhere. He’s a convenient foil for such an opportunity. It allows me to sharpen my sword.
@Swordmaker: Remember, Trump took the unprecedented step of declassifying the phone call transcript, something the Democrats no doubt could have foreseen. Democrats undoubtedly felt free to lie with impunity, but Trump holed them below the water line.
@Greg:
They can only look at individual tax returns IF there is a Legislative purpose to doing so, and then only after they’ve been anonymized. They cannot look at individual Tax Returns for any other purpose. . . Especially political ones. That smacks of being a bill of attainder.
“Legislative reasons” only allow them to see tax returns in general, but with identifying information removed. They don’t need information that reveals to whom the returns belong to do legislation.
If what you say were true, they’d have President Trump’s Tax Returns already. They don’t. Privacy of Tax Return laws prevent it. Not even a nice try, Greg.
The only Tax Returns Congress can see without such anonymizing are those of publicly traded corporations. Those are public records.
@Deplorable Me, #234:
We certainly have. And there’s still no such condition stated in the law, nor any logical reason why there would have been. The law was written specifically to provide the sort of deterrence that can exist only when Congress cannot be prevented from inspecting a public official’s tax records for impropriety at will. No probable cause is required. Anyone knowing the history of the century-old law also knows why that was entirely intentional.
@Swordmaker, #238:
Horse hockey. Such conditions are not stated anywhere in the statute, nor anywhere in the sequence of statements leading directly up to it—none of which require anything more than an a reasonably good grasp of plain English to understand. You’ll not be able to cite those conditions from anywhere in that context because they simply don’t exist.
@Greg:
My, my, my. You apparently missed that Speaker Pelosi did not announce the President with the traditional words of polite announcement. I don’t blame him for what she’s pulled with the impeachment. Why SHOULD he shake her hand? There might be poison on it. I would not trust her as far as I could throw her.
The words that have been used for every President before have been “Ladies and Gentlemen, it is my distinct pleasure and honor to present the President of the United States, (name)” but she did not. She just said, “Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States.”
Her actions were political theater, intended to insult the President. He gave it right back to her. She was rude, so he was rude back to her. This president doesn’t stand and take it, he gives it back. They are not used to Republicans who refuse to knuckle under.
Since you’ve decided to retire from the field in defeat, I will not bother with you either. You lose, obviously.
Pelosi chewing her cud most of the speech, except when she scolded some rude Democrat for a disrespectful outburst.
I saw they let Nadler loose from the Schiff prison.
@Swordmaker:
You do not seem to understand; Comrade Greggie fancies himself an expert on law. His reason? He can read it for himself. No need for attorneys, just read the law and defend yourself……and enjoy your stay in jail.
I know you understand that Comrade Greggie is only capable of parroting what he is told by his handlers. He has been pushing the radical left wing talking points here for years.
It is sad that someone is so subject to indoctrination as Comrade Greggie is.
@Swordmaker, #241:
Fair enough. I shall slink away to my socialist lair in humiliated defeat, and you can get back to your busy work as a reader of the redacted portions of classified documents. Adieu!
@Greg: Nope. Wrong. Again. Congress, no matter how butthurt and crybaby they may be over losing an election cannot arbitrarily abuse and violate the privacy rights of Americans. That includes, by the way, illegally spying on them.
@Swordmaker: Nancy, like most Democrats today, is a petulant child frustrated by their inability to get rid of Trump even as he scores success after success that the American people are recognizing as something past administrations COULD have accomplished. As was just pointed out on TV, that speech had the names of military personnel that had been killed and she just ripped it up. Like my daughter suggested, she was just tearing it into smaller bites; goats eat everything. I suggested it wasn’t the speech; it was her failed articles of impeachment.
@Swordmaker:
Well met, then.
Thank you!
@Greg:
Good grief, Greg. It’s in the IRS Code. The IRS Commissioner cited it when they first sent a subpoena for President Trump’s Tax Returns in 2017. . . And in 2016. They didn’t get them. They went to court and the courts slapped them down. They are NOT entitled to them without the permission of the tax payer. There are things Congress may want, but cannot get. Individual Tax Returns are one of them.
I am retired now, but I kept tax lawyers on staff for my business. Tax records are confidential. If that were not the case, people would not be as voluntarily forthcoming about their finances for tax payments. I know what I am talking about and obviously YOU don’t.
If you have something different in the law, post a citation link to it.
Think about what you are saying. If the law you claim exists, then Congress would already have Trump’s tax returns! They simply do not. Ergo, Greg, it doesn’t exist. What I told you, a law protecting individuals’ privacy exists.
@Greg: No greggie, you believe he is 2 faced because you fail to understand what he said! You are so ignorant.
@Greg:
It’s been as much fun as shooting fish in a barrel. Not too good for the barrel, though. Have a good night, Greg.
@Deplorable Me: Yes, and that made the so called whistle blower just a blow hard with no first hand information.