Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
craftsman

Schiff, Swalwell, Omar respond after Speaker McCarthy keeps them off committees

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, craftsman said:

"Had been." No longer. They are dead weight now which is better than what they were before.

And the country is in a much better place now as a whole. 

Yeah, well...I doubt that, but we will see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

He only rejected them from the intel community. And there is a very strong reason to do so. Those two should never have intel

It literally doesn’t matter what he claims the reasons are. Pelosi had good reasons for keeping those complicit in Jan 6 off that committee.

The issue is: McCarthy says his reasons are valid, but Nancy’s weren’t. He said he would never exclude like she did, but he straight up lied. But the centrists are defending him anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Engorgeous George said:

Has that been established.  I always sort of assumed it was simply fraud on the immigration system, a marriage in name only.  I never considered it may have been consumated.  I suppose it could have been and i just missed the most salacious part of the story.

The whole story is a lie. You can look up fact checks and there’s zero evidence of it. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, squistion said:

Yeah, well...I doubt that, but we will see. 

I don't care about your doubts. Just keep your hands off the kid's and their minds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dogcows said:

The whole story is a lie. You can look up fact checks and there’s zero evidence of it. 

Doubt has been raised, but it hasn’t been debunked. There are eye witness reports from Somalia. I choose to believe.  You do not.  America! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, craftsman said:

I don't care about your doubts. Just keep your hands off the kid's and their minds.

What in the world does the committee assignments have to do with kids?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, squistion said:

What in the world does the committee assignments have to do with kids?

It's the bottom line with liberals. They all want to brainwash the children of America just after they make their ill gotten fortunes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, craftsman said:

It's the bottom line with liberals. They all want to brainwash the children of America just after they make their ill gotten fortunes. 

And how would any member of these committees be able to brainwash children, either directly or indirectly? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, dogcows said:

It literally doesn’t matter what he claims the reasons are. Pelosi had good reasons for keeping those complicit in Jan 6 off that committee.

The issue is: McCarthy says his reasons are valid, but Nancy’s weren’t. He said he would never exclude like she did, but he straight up lied. But the centrists are defending him anyway.

yep its very centrist of me to not want a man who was sleeping with a chinese spy on the intel committee

its also very centrist of me who single handedly led the fake impeachment nonsense RUSSIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! to not be on the intel committee.  The FBI presented Pelosi and Mccarthy both information about both of these guys having national security implications and Nancy was too drunk to realize

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

yep its very centrist of me to not want a man who was sleeping with a chinese spy on the intel committee

its also very centrist of me who single handedly led the fake impeachment nonsense RUSSIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! to not be on the intel committee.  The FBI presented Pelosi and Mccarthy both information about both of these guys having national security implications and Nancy was too drunk to realize

Is there any proof he knew she was a Chinese spy or did anything improper as a result?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, squistion said:

Is there any proof he knew she was a Chinese spy or did anything improper as a result?

no idea honestly.  if there was I am sure it would be covered up, just like Feinstein's driver

even if he didn't know, you know that he could easily make the same mistake twice, plus hes an insufferable doush, so F him

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question for other like minded pro-American patriots.  How would you rate these 3 in who is the most destructive to our Republic.  Here is my rankings:

1) Schiff:  “Bug-eyes” has the most power and his awfulness and deceit during the Russian canard was pretty close to treason

2) Swallwell;  Obviously compromised CCP asset, but in the end he seems to be a lot of hot air and flatulence. 

3) Omar:  Obvious racist from a bizzaro precinct in another leftist state.  Nobody of consequence takes her seriously.  She may as well be shouting at clouds.  

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

I have a question for other like minded pro-American patriots.  How would you rate these 3 in who is the most destructive to our Republic.  Here is my rankings:

1) Schiff:  “Bug-eyes” has the most power and his awfulness and deceit during the Russian canard was pretty close to treason

2) Swallwell;  Obviously compromised CCP asset, but in the end he seems to be a lot of hot air and flatulence. 

3) Omar:  Obvious racist from a bizzaro precinct in another leftist state.  Nobody of consequence takes her seriously.  She may as well be shouting at clouds.  

exact order and nailed it

Swallwell doubt shared anything of significance, but is an insufferable doush, who I am sure could be easily hacked

Omar is a psycho anti-semite who faces zero backlash 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

I have a question for other like minded pro-American patriots.  How would you rate these 3 in who is the most destructive to our Republic.  Here is my rankings:

1) Schiff:  “Bug-eyes” has the most power and his awfulness and deceit during the Russian canard was pretty close to treason

2) Swallwell;  Obviously compromised CCP asset, but in the end he seems to be a lot of hot air and flatulence. 

3) Omar:  Obvious racist from a bizzaro precinct in another leftist state.  Nobody of consequence takes her seriously.  She may as well be shouting at clouds.  

1 Schiff - pancreatic cancer in a powerful position in the body politic, a compulsive liar who cares not about facts who will say and do anything to support his agenda

2- Swalwell - lack of proper vetting for an employee while serving on a critical national Intell committee put nation's security at risk

3 - Omar - A embarrassing nutcase gadfly of no importance to the corporate insider Dem establishment. They'd as soon have another bought-and-paid-for stooge in her seat rather than an outsized camera seeking freak who says the quiet part out loud, but at least she servers her purpose as an extra vote for their agenda 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

1 Schiff - pancreatic cancer in a powerful position in the body politic, a compulsive liar who cares not about facts who will say and do anything to support his agenda

2- Swalwell - lack of proper vetting for an employee while serving on a critical national Intell committee put nation's security at risk

3 - Omar - A embarrassing nutcase gadfly of no importance to the corporate insider Dem establishment. They'd as soon have another bought-and-paid-for stooge in her seat rather than an outsized camera seeking freak who says the quiet part out loud, but at least she servers her purpose as an extra vote for their agenda 

Sure, but which one shed the most tears the first time they got anal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Engorgeous George said:

Sure, but which one shed the most tears the first time they got anal?

Not Schiff.  He's been getting it from the DNC for years.  Probably the price he had to pay to lie for the agenda.   He probably yearns for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

1 Schiff - pancreatic cancer in a powerful position in the body politic, a compulsive liar who cares not about facts who will say and do anything to support his agenda

2- Swalwell - lack of proper vetting for an employee while serving on a critical national Intell committee put nation's security at risk

3 - Omar - A embarrassing nutcase gadfly of no importance to the corporate insider Dem establishment. They'd as soon have another bought-and-paid-for stooge in her seat rather than an outsized camera seeking freak who says the quiet part out loud, but at least she servers her purpose as an extra vote for their agenda 

Swalwell and fang fang was when he was like a city council position, and it wasn't an employee

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, perhaps one unintended consequence of stripping Schiff of his committee assignments is that he has announced he is running for Senate in California in 2024. :banana:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-01-26/adam-schiff-senate-campaign

Adam Schiff makes it official. He's running for Senate in 2024 in what is shaping up to be a marquee CA battle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, squistion said:

Well, perhaps one unintended consequence of stripping Schiff of his committee assignments is that he has announced he is running for Senate in California in 2024. :banana:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-01-26/adam-schiff-senate-campaign

Adam Schiff makes it official. He's running for Senate in 2024 in what is shaping up to be a marquee CA battle

oh no so a radical will replace a radical? BFD

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

oh no so a radical will replace a radical? BFD

Schiff will have a higher national profile and will get more attention than the bland, colorless Feinstein has ever had (probably similar to Al Franken).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

oh no so a radical will replace a radical? BFD

 

If you believe that Diane Feinstein is a radical, that puts you at near fascist on the political scale. 
 

Actually Schiff is no radical either. 

  • Haha 3
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

If you believe that Diane Feinstein is a radical, that puts you at near fascist on the political scale. 

Actually Schiff is no radical either. 

I don't think I've ever seen Feinstein and radical used in the same sentence.

Schiff is my congressional representative and as far Democrats go, he has been moderate from my perspective (which would be expected if you are familiar with the composure of his district. He defeated James Rogan who was a long serving member of Congress and loved by those on the far right).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

If you believe that Diane Feinstein is a radical, that puts you at near fascist on the political scale. 
 

Actually Schiff is no radical either. 

Just a gigantic liar. And not little lies. He also tried to get nude photos of Trump. Nice guy you’re backing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Just a gigantic liar. And not little lies. He also tried to get nude photos of Trump. Nice guy you’re backing.  

I am unfamiliar with this allegation.  I was going to google it but thought better of that.  I don't want that in my search history nor do I want the pushed ads which would follow from that.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, squistion said:

Schiff will have a higher national profile and will get more attention than the bland, colorless Feinstein has ever had (probably similar to Al Franken).

This really creates a dilemma for me. Schiff is terrific; he may be the smartest congressman I’ve ever heard. He would make a great Senator. 
 

But Katie Porter is from my area. I met her last year at a pro-choice rally in Santa Ana. I feel a close bond there.

I think I have to support Katie. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

If you believe that Diane Feinstein is a radical, that puts you at near fascist on the political scale. 
 

Actually Schiff is no radical either. 

Schiff is a radical conspiracy theorist

and both are Democrats from Commiefornia, they are born radical

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

This really creates a dilemma for me. Schiff is terrific; he may be the smartest congressman I’ve ever heard. He would make a great Senator. 
 

But Katie Porter is from my area. I met her last year at a pro-choice rally in Santa Ana. I feel a close bond there.

I think I have to support Katie. 

you think Schiff is smart?  Where is his smoking gun documents they got Trump now!! hes a focking idiot, probably the stupidest person I have ever heard speak

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Schiff is a radical conspiracy theorist

and both are Democrats from Commiefornia, they are born radical

Not even close. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schiff altered texts by republicans and used them during the Jan 6 hearings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Schiff altered texts by republicans and used them during the Jan 6 hearings. 

He didn't alter. IIRC he paraphrased what they said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, squistion said:

He didn't alter. IIRC he paraphrased what they said.

And it wasn’t in the Jan 6 hearings either; it was during Donald Trump’s well deserved  second impeachment.

As usual these guys get everything wrong. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

And it wasn’t in the Jan 6 hearings either; it was during Donald Trump’s well deserved  second impeachment.

As usual these guys get everything wrong. 

Yeah. He was being impeached for Jan 6. But great catch man!  And let’s skip over the part about him altering texts and focus on that. Also, he attempted to get nude photos of Trump. More proof you can do anything no matter how dishonest and disgusting as long as it’s in the quest to get Trump. They say you shouldn’t let your enemies define you. Fail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Swalwell and fang fang was when he was like a city council position, and it wasn't an employee

 

 

Oh? I hadn't taken a close look but this seems significantly less important. I can easily wrap my head around the Chinese wanting a spy with access to the Intel Committee, but can't see how a local city counsel position, negotiating stop sign locations and local garbage collection contracts, would interest them.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Voltaire said:

Oh? I hadn't taken a close look but this seems significantly less important. I can easily wrap my head around the Chinese wanting a spy with access to the Intel Committee, but can't see how a local city counsel position, negotiating stop sign locations and local garbage collection contracts, would interest them.

Actually thinking about it that’s exactly who I would target if it happened to somebody who was already in charge you might think twice about it but someone that’s at low-level maybe they think hey we can get in good with this guy we can support him moving up and things and eventually maybe he’ll be somebody and it’ll be a cheaper investment with long-term goals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Swalwell and fang fang was when he was like a city council position, and it wasn't an employee

 

 

I just checked into it. This is not the situation. Swalwell first won his seat in 2012 and Fang Fang joined his re-election efforts in 2014.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/eric-swalwell-denies-wrongdoing-chinese-spy-scandal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

you think Schiff is smart?  Where is his smoking gun documents they got Trump now!! hes a focking idiot, probably the stupidest person I have ever heard speak

 

Now hold on, I might suggest that Schiff is rather clever, you should not underestimate people. Look at what he was able to accomplish, he oversaw two fake impeachment’s, he lied that he had evidence and sold this to a wide range of people….

Hate him all you want, but you should respect his ability, because he is incredibly dangerous. His actions were little more than a coup through two fabricated impeachments…and that takes some skill and balls.

I think he is also something of a useful idiot though, and in little more than a henchman doing the dirty work for higher level Democrats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RLLD said:

Now hold on, I might suggest the Schmidt is rather clever, you should not underestimate people. Look at what he was able to accomplish, he oversaw two fake impeachment’s, he lied that he had evidence and sold this to a wide range of people….

Hate him all you want, but you should respect his ability, because he is incredibly dangerous. His actions were little more than a coup through two fabricated impeachments…and that takes some skill and balls.

I think he is also something of a useful idiot though, and in little more than a henchman doing the dirty work for higher level Democrats

Lol. The two impeachments were legitimate and very real. And Schiff didn’t lie. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Lol. The two impeachments were legitimate and very real. And Schiff didn’t lie. 

We can agree to disagree on this point of validity of these actions, as well as on the merits of Mr Schiff 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×