An Anon's Response to Shiff

Mr. Shiff, i read the transcript from your condecending statements made during a recent House Intelligence Committee hearing. I find that the majority of your statements to be not only misleading but in some cases completely void of the facts. In others you hypocritically identify things that are not OK with you while, completely ignoring the nearly exact same or way worse activities of representatives within your own party. I have decided i would provide an ANON's rebuttal as we the people are the ones who deserve to say what we feel, not you. I will list your statements and provide my own responses based on the information contained within yours.

My colleagues may think it’s OK that the Russians offered dirt on the Democratic candidate for president as part of what was described as the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign. You might think that’s OK.

-The DNC / Democrats purchased political dirt on the republican nominee for president through the use of a foreign former intelligence agent all for the purposes of to help Hillary campaign. This agent was hired by a well known law firm who turned around and paid russian individuals for information that was later treated as truth without any secondary verification. The democrats must think this is ok, because even to date nobody has cared to dispute or refute these facts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-clinton-campaign-sought-dirt-on-trump-from-russian-officials-wheres-the-outrage/2018/08/02/dee4be12-9672-11e8-810c-5fa705927d54_story.html?utm_term=.8c4030a0c2d3

>>6021538

My colleagues might think it’s OK that, when that was offered to the son of the president, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the president’s son did not call the FBI, he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help.

-The DNC / Democrats might think that colluding with Ukrainian government officials to get political dirt on Trump, or the use of foreign spies associated with western intelligence agencies, or the use of foreign intelligence agencies surveilence capabilities to spy on the Trump Campaign is ok.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/435029-as-russia-collusion-fades-ukrainian-plot-to-help-clinton-emerges

https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/422592-steeles-curious-comments-suggest-dossier-was-insurance-plan

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-clinton-campaign-sought-dirt-on-trump-from-russian-officials-wheres-the-outrage/2018/08/02/dee4be12-9672-11e8-810c-5fa705927d54_story.html?utm_term=.8c4030a0c2d3

>>6021546

No, instead that son said that he would love the help of the Russians. You might think it’s OK that he took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience in running campaigns, also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that they concealed it from the public. You might think it’s OK that their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better. You might think that’s OK.

-No, instead the son took a meeting that any other politician would take to get dirt on an opposing campaign during a meeting with representatives who are known associates with the Clintons, or directly working for the company "Fusion GPS" that was directly hired by the law firm that Hillary Clinton hired to do opposition research. It is also highly likely that this company "Fusion GPS" set the meeting up as the co-founder Glen Simpson had dinners with the primary representative before and after the meeting. What is more interesting is the fact that the representative was not even allowed in the country due to previous actions, and yet was granted a special visa to "attend" various activies through the Obama Justice Department, and has since been indicted for various activities going back to 2015. You might think this is ok, you may think it is also ok that these "other" entities and actives were never declared to the public or any law agency. You might think it is OK.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/08/13/trump_tower_meeting_looks_increasingly_like_a_setup.html

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/fusion-gps-glenn-simpson-dined-russian-lawyer-after-her-meeting-trump-tower

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18173806/natalia-veselnitskaya-indictment-trump-russia

>>6021554

You might think it’s OK that when it was discovered a year later that they lied about that meeting, and said it was about adoptions. You might think it’s OK that the president is reported to have helped dictate that lie. You might think that’s OK. I don’t.

-You might think it's ok that meetings that were billed as one subject turned into another subject warrants a allegation of lying… However, the same was not said about a tarmac meeting that was said to be also about children was most likely about political topics while one of the representatives was married to a target of a federal investigation. You might think that is OK.

https://eu.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2018/06/14/bill-clinton-and-loretta-lynch-meeting-phoenix-airport-details/703771002/

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2018/ig-report-release-fbi-clinton-investigation-analysis/

>>6021558

You might think it’s OK that the campaign chairman of a presidential campaign would offer information about that campaign to a Russian oligarch in exchange for money or debt forgiveness,. You might think that’s OK. I don’t.

-You might think it's OK that publically available polling data being given to a Ukrainian is able to be labeled secret campaign information given to a Russian Oligarch, but yet Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration coercing public companies to join in a "Russian Tech Valley" project called Skolkovo where it was later determined by the US Intelligence Agencies discovered that technology was stolen and most likely later used to create the Russian Hypersonic weapons. All while the Clintons receive millions in pay offs from this project. You might think that is OK.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/429292-the-case-for-russia-collusion-against-the-democrats

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/clinton-russia-collusion-evidence/

You might think it’s OK that the president himself called on Russia to hack his opponents’ e-mails if they were listening. You might think it’s OK that, later that day, in fact, the Russians attempted to hack a server affiliated with that campaign. I don’t think that’s OK.

-You might think that jokes made on national television are the same as directives. Perhaps they are, but where is the equal outrage for all the jokes made on pedophilia by hollywood actors and prominent people who most likely donate heavily to democratic candidates. Do you think that is OK?

>>6021565

You might think that it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law sought to establish a secret back channel of communications with the Russians through a Russian diplomatic facility. I don’t think that’s OK.

-You might think that setting up private back-channel communications with Iran, and Cuba is OK. However this was not Trump, this was Obama and the Kushner "back-channel" communications was after Trump won the election and therefore legitimate based on historical administrative actions prior.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/explainer-jared-kushners-attempted-back-channel-russia-treasonous-typical

You might think it’s OK that an associate of the president made direct contact with the GRU through Guccifer 2 and Wikileaks that is considered a hostile intelligence agency. You might think that it’s OK a senior campaign official was instructed to reach that associate and find out what that hostile intelligence agency had to say in terms of dirt on his opponent.

-You might think it's OK that associates of the previous administration have continued to meet and coach through direct and public contact with Iranian official in an attempt to undermine current foreign policies in the region. You might think this is OK. You might think it's ok that a private server setup to circumvent national security and accountability requirements was used to exchange classified emails and was likely hacked by many foreign hostile intelligence agencies, but that is OK?

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/china-reportedly-hacked-clintons-state-department-emails-did-the-fbi-cover-that-up-too/

>>6021575

You might think it’s OK that the national security adviser-designate secretly conferred with a Russian ambassador about undermining US sanctions and you might think it’s OK he lied about it to the FBI. You might say that’s all OK. You might say that’s just what you need to do to win.

-You might think it's OK that a incoming national security advisor secretly spoke with a Russian ambassador about US sanctions AFTER winning the elections. You might think he lied, but even the IC and FBI agents did not think he commited any crime or participated in any nefarious activity. This advisor would only be charged with lying months later after his name was leaked to the press and the transcript was already available. If it was not believed that this advisor lied or commited any crime, why then was this advisor targeted and layer indicted for these "non-crimes". You might think that is OK.

I don’t think it’s OK that during the presidential campaign Mr. Trump sought the Kremlin’s help to consummate a real estate deal in Moscow that would make him a fortune, according to the special counsel, hundreds of millions of dollars. I don’t think it’s OK he concealed it from the public. I don’t think it’s OK that he advocated a new and more favorable policy towards the Russians, even as he was seeking the Russians’ help, the Kremlin’s help, to make money. I don’t think it’s OK that his attorney lied to our committee. There’s a different word for that. Than collusion. And it’s called compromise. And that is the subject of our hearing today.

-I don't think it's OK that during the presidential election a campaign ran by the DNC and Hillary clinton and the Clinton Foundation was receiving millions in donations with some from foreign donors while not being disclosed. I don't think that a real-estate deal that was being planned prior to the election matters, regardless of where it was. IT WAS however shutdown, however I don't think it's ok that the president should be alleged to be conspiring with a hostile entity over business deals prior to a campaign. I don't think its OK that foreign assets were used to spy on a campaign from so called friendly partners in order to help the Hillary Campaign win the election. I don't think that it's OK that the US President and his Cabinet likely setup this whole series of events in coordination with the Hillary Campaign in order to consummate an illegal stealing of an election.

https://www.axios.com/trump-tower-russia-timeline-ae943d5c-215e-4cbd-b13d-b9693a8b1f33.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksj1L8jiNNo

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41323172

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/white-house-spied-on-trump-and-lied-about-it-says-cnn-is-this-worse-than-richard-nixon/

>>6021582

Finally Mr. Shiff, i find it both disgusting and dishonest that you believe "collusion" is in plain sight, when the Bar memo explicitly says that no collusion could be found even when attempts by foreign assets were attempting to. I also find it quite treachorous that you have been on TV more than any other politician speaking about seeing evidence but yet allowed Mueller and Bar to release a report that is counter to your narrative. If you have evidence and did not present it then you in fact obstructed justice. I don't think this is OK, for an elected official to continue to push a narrative that has been uterly invalidated by an individual who for 2 years who has been investigating with unlimited power and resources. This individual even had a team of left-wing supporters where some have even openly advocated against the president of the united state and some who have flat out undermined him. This individual even had the two primary investigators from the original FBI investigation who have under congressional testimony said they STILL could not validate or verify the original allegations associated with the original investigation. These inviduals secretly exchanged bias'ed text messages and eventually was caught and removed, but yet after all of this time, these inviduals could not substantiate any of the claims you are making on a daily basis. I don't think this is OK. What i think is OK is for you to be indicted for felony leaks, and sedition at a maximum, and a complete ethics investigation at a minimum.

>>6021651

Unfortunately not. Its not technically illegal, however it is unethical and complaints can be levied against him for such. The leaking is criminal and he can be charged with it if they can "prove" it.

>>6021671

Thanks, i think it needed to be said