There was never any need to lie about the Soviets. — frank

Plenty of lies connected to Vietnam, and the USSR's military capacity.

Plenty of lies connected to Vietnam, and the USSR's military capacity. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Really? Could you share your source for that?

Good places to start:

Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

The Untold History of the United States.

https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/109/1093831/the-untold-history-of-the-united-states/9781529102987.html

Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_(book)

Really? Could you share your source for that? — frank

Take a look at the Gulf of Tonkin deception.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

Really? Could you share your source for that? — frank

Wiki about the so-called "Missile Gap" deception.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap

Really? Could you share your source for that? — frank

There's a lot of this sort of thing. I'm not an expert.

Cool. I was originally talking about politicians making up outlandish lies about one another.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

was originally talking about politicians making up outlandish lies about one another. — frank

Joe McCarthy, during the Soviet Era...

It’s not exculpatory. All I’m saying is Schiff engaged in the activities he accuses of others.

Factcheck.org on Trump and the Mueller Report:

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/01/false-and-misleading-claims-at-impeachment-trial/

Mueller Report on Collusion, Obstruction

Sekulow also made a misleading claim about special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

The Mueller report concluded that “[t]he Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion” in a successful attempt to help elect Trump.

Russia did this through two operations: “a social media campaign that favored … Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton,” and “computer-intrusion operations” that allowed Russia to steal and then release emails and documents that were damaging to the Clinton campaign.

The special counsel’s office also investigated whether Trump or his campaign associates and allies coordinated with Russia on any of this illegal activity. Sekulow said that part of the investigation came up “empty.”

Sekulow, Jan. 21: And then we had the invocation of the ghost of the Mueller report. I know something about that report. It came up empty on the issue of collusion with Russia. There was no obstruction. In fact, the Mueller report — to the contrary of what these managers say today — came to the exact opposite conclusions of what they say.

It’s true that the Mueller report did not conclude that Trump committed a crime by either coordinating with the Russians or obstructing justice, but the investigation did not come up “empty” on either obstruction of justice or collusion.

On obstruction of justice, the Mueller report documented 11 “key events” where the president attempted to influence the investigation.

“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,” the report said. “The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.”

The report, however, said there were “difficult [legal] issues that would need to be resolved,” in order to reach a conclusion on Trump’s conduct.

Factoring into his decision not to weigh in on prosecution, Mueller wrote, was an opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.”

Mueller report: Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

The special counsel’s investigation also “did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.” But it presented evidence of “multiple contacts … between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government.”

Those contacts included Donald Trump Jr.’s eagerness to accept “very high level and sensitive information” that promised to “incriminate Hillary” as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” as laid out in an email Trump Jr. received from a Russian acquaintance. “f it’s what you say I love it,” responded Trump Jr., who days later attended a meeting expecting to obtain the material from a Russian lawyer who “had previously worked for the Russian government and maintained a relationship with that government throughout this period of time,” the Mueller report said.

Among other incidents, Trump Jr. also made direct contact with WikiLeaks’ Twitter account and Trump confidant Roger Stone exchanged Twitter messages with Guccifer 2.0, which the Mueller report describes as one of two “online personas” used by Russian military intelligence to release hacked Clinton campaign emails to media outlets and WikiLeaks.

“In sum, the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russia offers of assistance to the Campaign. In some instances, the Campaign was receptive to the offer, while in other instances the Campaign officials shied away,” the report said. “Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.”

Factcheck.org on false and misleading claims at the impeachment trial:

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/01/false-and-misleading-claims-at-impeachment-trial/

White House lawyers distorted the facts on the impeachment process and other issues during the Jan. 21 Senate trial:

White House counsel Pat Cipollone falsely suggested Republicans were barred from the closed-door depositions conducted by the House intelligence committee. But members of three committees — both Democrats and Republicans — participated.
Jay Sekulow, President Donald Trump’s attorney, falsely said, “During the proceedings that took place before the Judiciary Committee, the president was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses … the right to access evidence and … the right to have counsel present at hearings.” The committee chair invited Trump and his lawyers to participate, but they declined.
Cipollone claimed Rep. Adam Schiff, the House intelligence committee chairman, “manufactured a false version” of the July 25 phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian president and “he didn’t tell” the American people “it was a complete fake.” Schiff indicated he was giving “the essence” of Trump’s remarks and about an hour later said it was “at least part in parody.”
Sekulow said the special counsel’s report on Russian interference during the 2016 election found Trump committed “no obstruction.” That’s not what the report said. While the report “does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” it said, citing “multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence.”
In addition, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said his resolution outlining the impeachment trial procedures “tracks closely” with the rules of trials for other presidents. How closely McConnell’s resolution tracks with the procedures used in the past may be a matter of opinion. However, there are some differences between the rules for Trump’s trial and President Bill Clinton’s.

The lawyers and McConnell made their remarks during the opening comments and debate over the rules for the trial of the president.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

That remains to be demonstrated. but to adduce it here - true or not, even without respect of circumstance or anything else - is just the fallacy of the tu quoque argument, the "you too." It's as if to say that all of your arguments depend on whether or not you're a dick. Hmm, of some merit in this latter case.

I have never said anywhere nor even implied that Schiff’s hypocrisy makes his arguments regarding Trump false or flawed, not have I ever used Schiff’s hypocrisy to evade his arguments in impeachment. Actually the opposite is the case. Further my point about Schiff’s hypocrisy was in the context of describing Schiff’s lying mouth, not to defend Trump or impeachment. So your ignorance around the fallacy is only superseded by your ignorance in general.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

My ignorance is capacious, and contains multitudes. But you call Schiff a hypocrite and a liar. What lie? What hypocrisy? And if truly irrelevant for your purposes, then step away, before I find myself compelled to remark on the brand of combat boots your mother wears. Which is the trouble with irrelevancies: they tend to explode arguments. Is that your purpose, to explode any discussion of any faults of your favourite?

That’s the convenience of coming into an argument late or otherwise sniping from the sidelines: you can ask questions that were already asked and answered in the vain hope I that I might reiterate them for you, then feign innocence when I do so. Luckily it is all in the database for everyone to see.

Adam Schiff is doing an incredible job - clearly the most effective of the House managers. He's changed my mind about the subpoenas. I previously thought the House should have taken Trump to court, but he made an excellent points on the fact that it risked dragging out indefinitely, to the point that justice could not possibly be served. It's interesting that even Lindsay Graham (speaking of hypocrisy...) complemented the job he's done.

There is no evidence Schiff was on the hunt for nude photos of the president.

As was reported in The Atlantic, Schiff was prank-called in April 2017 by Russian entertainers claiming to being a leading Ukrainian politician. One of the callers suggested he had evidence that the Russians had compromising material on the president in the form of nude photos. Schiff, then the ranking member on the Intel committee, asked for a few details, and says the FBI would be willing to review a recording the caller claimed to have, according to the magazine.

A Schiff spokesman told The Atlantic they did not trust the callers: “Before agreeing to take the call, and immediately following it, the committee informed appropriate law-enforcement and security personnel of the conversation, and of our belief that it was probably bogus.”

Alerting and invoking law enforcement hardly suggests that Schiff was seeking nude photos for political use.

Therefore any subpoena issued before the house vote for an impeachment inquiry is invalid. This is one of the many arguments in the White House impeachment memorandum, which deserves a read. — NOS4A2

OK, here's an analogy then, tell me what's wrong with it. The police show up at your door and ask to search your house for evidence of a crime. You refuse them, and send them away because they have no legal warrant. They return later with a proper warrant, but you refuse again, saying that the warrant is invalid because they came first without a warrant.

If House Democrats failed to follow the correct procedures — praxis

They didn’t, though. You have to realize Nos is a disinformation agent, everything he says is a lie. Pointless to argue, though, because Trump will be acquitted and it really will be the end of the Republic.

All I’m saying is Schiff engaged in the activities he accuses of others. — NOS4A2

Irrelevant. Immaterial. Beside the point.

Schiff argued precisely how certain rules of normal litigation do not - and cannot - equally apply to an impeachment trial. The magnitude could not be greater. This is a precedent case. Make no mistake about it. This is not well trodden ground.

Trump has done everything he believes is in his power to do to influence, diminish, belittle, curtail, impede, and/or otherwise stop any and all investigations that he doesn't like.

Everyday facts show this quite nicely. It is irrefutable. The sheer amount of animosity Trump puts on display during public confrontations serves as more than adequate evidence of Trump's attitude regarding two particular investigations. One was all about Russian interference in the 2016 election which found at least four campaign members were regularly consulting known agents of hostile foreign governments(known Russian operatives/lobbyists/agents/advocates/representatives).

At least one of these campaign members bears the Trump namesake.

Evidently, when pressed, the meeting participants claimed ignorance of the fact that some of the people that they were collaborating with to obtain damaging information regarding Hillary Clinton were - in fact - acting as a proxy for Russian government officials.

Kompromat is Russian for compromising material, and in this case it contained nude photos. He wanted it to go not only to the FBI, but also the intel committee and his staff, where it would be undoubtedly leaked.

But my point is that Schiff isn’t only a liar but a dupe, and those who believe him are also dupes.

He also believed in and defended the dodgy dossier, which was actual political dirt payed for by the DNC and sourced from Russian intelligence.



He also misled the public about the FISA warrants both with his intelligence memo and his lying mouth.



As we now know from the IG report the Nunes memo was proven to be largely correct and the Schiff memo riddled with falsities. How can two people look at the same evidence and come with two, drastically different conclusions?

Mr. Schiff had access to the same documents as Mr. Nunes. His decision to misrepresent the FBI’s actions shows he is willing to distort the truth for political purposes. He gets away with this because he has a willing echo chamber in the Washington press corps.

But at the time Schiff and his media crooks panned the Nunes memo as a a joke and a sham, fake, or that it makes no sense.

And now we get to watch as these same dupes, the same media, follow Schiff’s every breathless word as if he was the pied piper.

Schiff is simply an honest man. Everything you’re saying is a product of the trump world disinformation engine.

Schiff is simply an honest man. Everything you’re saying is a product of the trump world disinformation engine.

Say what you want. I’ll still be here defending you from the snakes, even if you lay with them.

As you’re paid to do.

You want to know who it is - which person - that Trump wants to stop from telling the truth...

Look to see who Fox news is attacking.

Adam Schiff does not always have to be right in order for Trump to be clearly, undeniably, verifiably, and irrefutably guilty of obstruction.

Attack the guy telling the truth about Donald Trump especially if Donald feels hurt by it. A clear and provable behavioural pattern of the Donald himself.

When you step out of your madness I’ll be here for you.

OK, here's an analogy then, tell me what's wrong with it. The police show up at your door and ask to search your house for evidence of a crime. You refuse them, and send them away because they have no legal warrant. They return later with a proper warrant, but you refuse again, saying that the warrant is invalid because they came first without a warrant.

It’s not analogous, is what’s wrong with it.