Why do you think that's satirical? It's been proven that Adam Schiff lied in statements made in Congress and he's repeatedly leaked information or cherry picked parts of testimonies to support his narrative. Trump is suggesting the republicans release transcripts too, to better represent what's happening in the hearings.

Thank you for making my point better than I ever could.

Schiff is not the actor I'd choose to rest my case on.

To believe that Schiff would doctor transcripts is ridiculous, especially because there are quite a few republicans in the room who would immediately jump on any opportunity to nail him to the nearest cross if he were to do something like that. In a situation where Adam Schiff and Donald Trump claim opposites your safe bet would be on Schiff.

Think about it this way: Adam Schiffs reputation can be damaged by mere paraphrasing of someone else's words, Trump could say anything and it would not damage his reputation.

I never said he doctored transcripts, I said he cherry picked bits of the transcripts to release to support his narrative.

But he did claim Trump said things in the call that he did not, in a statement he made to Congress.

Also, Schiff has been on RT numerous times. Why would an American congressman make statements on a news outlet controlled by the Russian government? Nothing about this guy is trustworthy. He also claimed for two years they had definite proof of corruption.

I'd say meeting with the whistleblower is well within the job description for the leader of the committee.

As for being skeptical of every politician, Schiff has so far been pretty clean in all this as opposed to the counterparty, who seem to have made a bonfire of all the rulebooks and are running the United States over a cliff at a speed that I would have considered impossible a decade ago. Suddenly all those questions about how Germany could have slid off as fast as it did from being a reasonable country to a totalitarian state make good sense. All it takes is a small bag of money, a couple of Stephen Millers and you're good to go.

The good news if you can call it good news is that they are going about it in the most stupid way possible and that just maybe there is an outside chance that the United States constitution was drawn up in such a way that this travesty can be brought to a halt. I fear it may be too late though, with the recent stacking of the Supreme Court and the way in which all these puppets are in various pockets we may very well be in the endgame for that country and what it stood for.

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you, but that doesn't mean they're out to get you for the wrong reasons. You may simply deserve being 'got' and put in jail. In the case of the Trump family and their grifting hangers on that's a slam dunk, that they just might end up being censored (at worst) or pushed out (at best) because some people come to their senses and put their country over their party is about equal to getting Al Capone on tax evasion. Works for me though.

> Regardless, you don't need to necessarily change a transcript if you told (coached) the witness what to say (or how to say it) in the first place.

Not sure if you are aware of it but the 'transcript' of the call was published by Trump and the transcripts of the various depositions appear to have been made without any coaching whatsoever, if you sincerely believe that witnesses have been coached then you have crossed a line somewhere that you probably should not have crossed.

Why must everyone act like criticism of other politicians is somehow defending Trump?

The committee could question him, on the record. Oversight responsibilities are, by definition, reactive, hands off, public, and transparent. Any one-on-one should have been through the IG, not Schiff.

Regardless, impeachment is an inherently political process (as was intended), which means optics matter. And Schiff has really screwed this aspect of it up, no matter how "relatively clean" he might seem compared to other politicians.

If there's one thing Americans hate more than corrupt politicians, it's hypocritical corrupt politicians. If there are two things, it's that and being backed into a corner, politically.

Both are reasons why Trump was elected in the first place, even though I'd argue most of his voters weren't as thrilled about voting for him as he'd have you believe.

Schiff's methods are only serving to stir this up again, regardless of whether some think the ends justify the means.

>if you sincerely believe that witnesses have been coached then you have crossed a line somewhere that you probably should not have crossed.

Because politicians would never do something so corrupt? We'll see what comes out. But at this point, Schiff needs to do some serious disclosures on what was discussed between him and the witnesses before the report was filed, including if he suggested waiting on the timing, for the IG rule change.

Which is why he should never have put himself in that position to begin with. It soils the integrity of the entire thing. It stops looking like an investigation, and starts looking like an orchestrated coup.

If Al Capone's prosecutor would have been caught doing such things, they wouldn't have even gotten him on the tax charges.

If Trump gets impeached, but the prosecution looks dirty, it'll all but guarantee he's re-elected. The sense of injustice will motivate voters far more than whoever's name happens to be on the ballet.

I'm not saying that's what should happen, only what's likely.

You seem to misunderstand some basics: using political power to dictate the course of investigations for personal gain is what the problem is, not the use of political power to dictate the course of investigations as such.

You don't think Democrats get a personal gain out of this?

There's a pretty good chance that they won't. See also what happened to the Republicans after trying to go after Clinton.

Very true. Which is also why I don't get why so many Dems are supporting this so enthusiastically. As much as I never thought I'd say this, Pelosi had the right idea for how to play this, politically, until she caved. She seems to be the one thinking more than 2-3 steps ahead.

But I also think you're giving them too much credit, because I really doubt they think they're going to suffer, politically. (The enthusiasts anyway, not those who supported Pelosi's slow play.)

> Which is also why I don't get why so many Dems are supporting this so enthusiastically.

Because they are trying to limit the damage to their country. Which is substantial already, to put it mildly. Give Trump some more times and you may find yourself in an unrecoverable situation. This Ukraine mess is likely just the tip of the iceberg.

But if they really wanted to limit damage (in their eyes) wouldn't the politically smart play be to go the Pelosi route?

Instead of dealing with negative post-impeachment fallout, and potentially ending up in a worse place on the eve of next years election, politically?

Also genuinely curious if you've watched hearings this week, and if it's affected your opinion of Schiff.