Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
This would be clever, except I didn't say there was evidence Schiff "composed" the complaint. Trump said that, and there is no evidence of that. I said there's evidence Schiff "orchestrated" and "coordinated" with the WB. The WB reached out to his office in advance, so he knew the Complaint was being filed. This is evidence of both.
That undoes most of your second point. Now, let's undo the rest. From the PBS article:
The whistleblower who raised concerns about President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine spoke to staffers on the House Intelligence Committee before filing a formal complaint, giving Democrats advance warning of the accusations of wrongdoing that triggered their impeachment inquiry. If I give you advance warnings of accusations, it's highly likely - if not "inescapable" as you'd prefer - that I've told you what those accusations are. Or maybe I haven't. But again, this is evidence of possible coordination, or orchestration.
I'm saying something entirely different than Trump. Trump is making shit up. I'm saying what any good counsel or PR person would faced with these facts: That there is evidence Schiff coordinated or orchestrated. Is it evidence likely to prove such a case? Who cares? The only measure that matters here is creating enough of a whiff of a set-up to create cover for the R Senators who are going to have to hold their noses during the acquittal.
And Schiff is a significant cause of it, intentionally or now (which is also immaterial). Someone else should be in charge of this, to neutralize that problem. |
If you are working in the clerk's office at the federal district court, and a man walks in and says, I'd like to file a tort claim, and you say, this is the federal court, you need to go to the country court, you haven't orchestrated anything. When you say that Schiff orchestrated with the whistleblower, you are misstating what happened, and you are either doing it consciously, because you like Republican propaganda, or you are doing it unconsciously, because you are susceptible to Republican propaganda. If you brought a claim based on purported conspiracy between the whistleblower and Schiff and tried to make it past summary judgment on what we know, you would lose. You keep using the word "evidence" but there is no evidence of the facts that go to key distinction, whether Schiff knew that a whistleblower had some kind of complaint or whether he worked with the whistleblower to shape the substance and manner of the complaint. There is no evidence that anyone on the Intelligence Committee did anything more than say, go to your IG. And you acknowledge as much when you talk about giving Republican Senators a whiff of cover. When your argument is about whether or not there is a whiff of evidence of something, you should stop arguing, because it means there isn't any evidence, and you should ask yourself when you are so committed to arguing for things that aren't true.
