Careful there, you're going to get his base, also a bunch of pussies, all fired up.

It’s been pretty quiet around here. Everyone must be afraid of Pocahontas’ plan to criminalize election-related online disinformation. Oh the irony! So long Talking Soccer. The Counterfeit Indian is gonna take away your right to free speech. This is so scary. They only wanna hear what they wanna hear. Otherwise you’re a criminal. Great plan! Can’t wait to vote!

https://www.facebook.com/derekmke/vi...4Mjk2NjQ4MTU5/

Wait, you're afraid of Warren now? I thought you Trumptards considered *Biden* the greatest threat to Trump's plan of turning America into a criminal monarchy.

Not at all. She’s already buried her campaign with her trail of lies. I’m worried about the radial progressive agenda of trying to silence our voice. Just think about what this nut job said. The same woman who lied about being an Indian, who lied about being fired, who lied about where her kids went to school, and who lied on job applications now wants to punish us for disinformation. She could bathe in the hypocrisy. Couple that with all of Schitz’s lies, it makes you wonder if Democrats know how to tell the truth. Just par for the liberal course.

So you're saying a candidate that contradicts themselves and lies a lot and shouldn't be president. Got it. I'll remember that the next time you accuse someone of hypocrisy. Oh wait, you just did. Explain yourself please.

I’m saying you’re a hypocrite when call out one party and never bother to mention your own party’s dishonesty, lies, hypocrisy and indiscretion. Libtards are good at that. You know the whole do as we say not as we do. Why else do you defend Schitz after years of lying? Why else would you try to “justify” Biden’s Ukraine quid pro quo? Gee no abuse of power there! Why else would would defend HRC’s destruction of 33,000 emails during an FBI probe? Gee no obstruction there! Now the chronic lying Fake Indian wants to punish us on disinformation. The list goes on and on. And you idiots “impeached” Trump for a phone call! 😂. November 2020!!!

I ask you to explain you own hypocrisy and you respond with whataboutism, lies, insults, and debunked conspiracy theories. How typical.

You continue to talk about "lies" by Schiff but you never provided any references on those, despite being asked multiple times. I guess you just expect people to take your word for it. Not on this forum, Mr. Lying Cuck.

Thanks for proving my point. You are incapable of seeing the faults of your own party yet you attack others for the same things. Do you really need references on Schitz lies? Really? You don’t believe Schitz lied? If that’s the case, you have shown your complete and utter bias. A true water boy. Interesting you bring up whataboutisms. Did you watch Schitz yesterday? His whole argument is one big whataboutism. He even went into a fake dialogue acting out a conjured up conversation between Trump and Putin. The whole thing was so bizarre that Nadler even had enough leaving Schitz holding his dick while standing next to Nadler at the podium with that stupid bug-eyed perplexed look on his face. It’s over!

"My own party"?? LOL. I'm still a registered Republican and voted for the GOP presidential candidate my entire adult life. Until 2016. And no, I didn't vote for Hillary.

When you give me something to back up all your wacky claims we can continue this conversation. I have no interest in debating someone who makes up their own "facts".

Ok, you’re right. Schitz has never lied or mislead the American people:
1. He really does have evidence of Russia collusion. (Schitz claim)
2. He was just joking when he read his misleading interpretation of his FAKE transcript.
3. He never had contact with the whistleblower despite 4 Pinocchio’s from WaPo.
4. He doesn’t know the identity of the whistleblower but blocks any questions that will uncover his/her identity

I have no interest in debating a water boy who ignores facts because it hurts their bullshît argument.

Let’s have links to back up those “facts”, please

Here’s a few for ya! Schitz may have done better if he didn’t have such a credibility problem. It’s evident in Murkowski’s statement: “ “Given the partisan nature of this impeachment from the very beginning and throughout, I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate. I don’t believe the continuation of this process will change anything“.

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/4180342002

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...spoken-direct/

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/10/03/p...ine/index.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...tleblower.html

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4...stleblower?amp

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...outputType=amp

https://youtu.be/fABhgq1tdQk

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/10/22/...hone-call.html

https://www.mrctv.org/blog/pelosi-de...ents-own-words

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c48194...s-ukraine-call

Your first 6 links all referred to the same story about the whistleblower. Did you actually read them, or did you just lazily look for headlines that you thought supported your narrative? Because if you read them you somehow missed this:

"A Democratic committee official said Thursday that Schiff "could have been more clear" when he told MSNBC the committee had not spoken to the whistleblower. The official explained that Schiff was referring to the fact that he and the committee had not officially interviewed the whistleblower, not the whistleblower's initial contact with the committee staff." Hardly the blatant "lie" you make it out to be. And even if Schiff stretched the truth a bit, it was all in the interests of protecting a valuable source who was entitled to have his identity protected per the whistleblower act of 1989.

On the YouTube clip, Schiff claims to have "more than circumstantial evidence" of collusion with Russia. What is your basis for calling that a lie? Is it really hard to grasp the concept that the head of the House Intelligence Committee might have classified evidence supporting his claim? Sorry, but that has to go in the not proven or disproven category.

The "false retelling" of the July 25 phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Vlodomyr Zelensky was clearly parody. Republicans tried to censure Schiff for it, and the House threw it out. Did you actually listen to it? Nobody with more than 2 brain cells thought that was supposed to be taken seriously.

So Schiff's statements aren't quite on the same level as intentional lies to mislead, inflate one's ego, or cover up one's crimes, wouldn't you agree?