Jump to content

Republicans want Hunter Biden, whistleblower to testify in open hearings


rooster59

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Do you understand that claims made in testimony are not to be taken as actual truth?

And do you understand that if that were the standard being applied across the board, no-one could ever be convicted on the basis of sworn first-hand witness testimony? Yet people are convicted on that basis across the United States and around the world, every single day. Unless there are solid grounds for disbelieving a witness, first-hand testimony given under oath usually carries a lot of weight.

 

As far as I'm aware, sworn testimony, given under oath and under pain of perjury, outranks a memorandum summarising different people's recollections of a call, especially when that summary includes ellipses that specifically indicate some words were left out.

 

The summary of the call released by the White House certainly can't be taken as a complete and accurate rendering of what was said - it even has a notation on it stating that it, "is not a verbatim transcript."

Edited by GroveHillWanderer
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2019 at 6:48 AM, Sujo said:

Scheduled to appear straight after mulvaney and bolton.

 

Just what evidence could biden give regarding this investigation, how would he know anything that trump did?

Trump is hunting, since he's such a bad hunter he's shooting in all directions in case and just in case he catch something.... anything it's possible out of desperation

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

so now the name is out, does EM appear on the replublican witness list ???

wasnt he working for obama, brennan, attended biden state banquet ??

wbr

roobaa01

Unless you think the washington examiner is a lying left wing media source, you'll find that 115 people accepted invitations to the dinner.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/alleged-whistleblower-eric-ciaramella-was-biden-guest-at-state-department-banquet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

And do you understand that if that were the standard being applied across the board, no-one could ever be convicted on the basis of sworn first-hand witness testimony? Yet people are convicted on that basis across the United States and around the world, every single day. Unless there are solid grounds for disbelieving a witness, first-hand testimony given under oath usually carries a lot of weight.

 

As far as I'm aware, sworn testimony, given under oath and under pain of perjury, outranks a memorandum summarising different people's recollections of a call, especially when that summary includes ellipses that specifically indicate some words were left out.

 

The summary of the call released by the White House certainly can't be taken as a complete and accurate rendering of what was said - it even has a notation on it stating that it, "is not a verbatim transcript."

I do understand the import of sworn testimony and fully agree with you that cases have been settled using sworn testimony.  Yet it is not the only evidence considered when settling a case.  I've never heard of a case that had been settled using only a single, solitary piece of sworn testimony and without regard for any other evidence or facts.  While it does carry weight it is not the sole determinant.

 

My point is that many people take a single piece of sworn testimony and then begin to prance around proclaiming it to be proof positive.  Which it is not.  They then proceed to talk about it as though it were established fact.  Which again it is not.  Therefore, anyone who takes an yet unproven claim and proclaims it to be established fact is lying.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, roobaa01 said:

so now the name is out, does EM appear on the replublican witness list ???

wasnt he working for obama, brennan, attended biden state banquet ??

wbr

roobaa01

....aaaaaand if he were, that does prove...whaaaaat?!

  • Confused 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

ecm the obama leftover hearsay informant with his biden friends. no wonder about the partisan complaint. what is ecms connection to the dirty steele dossier and george soros ???

 

wbr

roobaa01

What?

Does?

It?

Matter?

Even if he was Obama: his accusations have been confirmed by many a witnesses!

First hand witnesses!

Trump asked for a quid pro quo!

Trump threatened to withhold military aid - approved by the Senate eg THE AMERICAN PEOPLE- to get something from Zelynsky!

This is in the "transcript" you and your friends want everybody to read!

What you mean by that, is - of course- the heavily edited version, that Trump himself released!

And even in that, heavily cut and edited version of the call- transcript, the orange buffoon says "I want you to do us a favor, THOUGH!"

Again: if the call was so "purfeggt"...why does the WH not release the ORIGINAL, unedited transcript?

The whole case would be gone with the wind in seconds!

But we all know, why...don't we?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

oh my God you can't really think that - tell us you jest Sir!

 

19 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

by first hand hearsay pal taylor, who got his knowledge from the nytimes.

or vindman who raised concerns. all insignificant believes, concerns, assumptions only of relevance is the transcript between 2 people trump and zelensky.

 

wbr

roobaa01

Nope!

What they all said is very relevant!

But again: if the call was purrfeggd, release the unedited transcript!

Just go ahead, Donnie!

Let us all "Read the transcript"!

 

Please, stop deflecting!

  • Sad 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

What hiding?  he published the transcript voluntarily whereas your side held all hearings in secret - unprecedented!!!  God help Dems when, one day, GOP gets back in power - they will show you no mercy after this charade. Should have followed the precedent with Nixon and Clinton now this has happened US politics will be even more hateful.

In secret?

Well apart from the 48 Republicans who were present throughout the whole proceedings. Which is not unprecedented as that's what happened with the Benghazi hearings and is common when dealing with foreign issues due to privacy and secrecy issues. The Watergate hearings and the Clinton impeachment were both public because the impeachment reasons were domestic (breaking into political opponents offices and a BJ), rather than foreign.

Facts are important. Try using them once and a while.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I do understand the import of sworn testimony and fully agree with you that cases have been settled using sworn testimony.  Yet it is not the only evidence considered when settling a case.  I've never heard of a case that had been settled using only a single, solitary piece of sworn testimony and without regard for any other evidence or facts.  While it does carry weight it is not the sole determinant.

 

My point is that many people take a single piece of sworn testimony and then begin to prance around proclaiming it to be proof positive.  Which it is not.  They then proceed to talk about it as though it were established fact.  Which again it is not.  Therefore, anyone who takes an yet unproven claim and proclaims it to be established fact is lying.

So for you to state it is a blatant lie you must have evidence of such. You made an accusation now back it up.

 

if not, then the evidence under oath is uncontested. 

 

QED

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BobBKK said:

What hiding?  he published the transcript voluntarily whereas your side held all hearings in secret - unprecedented!!!  God help Dems when, one day, GOP gets back in power - they will show you no mercy after this charade. Should have followed the precedent with Nixon and Clinton now this has happened US politics will be even more hateful.

No he didnt publish the transcript. He published a short summary of a brief part of it.

 

Trump has said he may publish the full transcript but has not yet done so. Its on a secret server.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reported post removed.

 

Please do not resort to taunts or name-calling. Any such action will be regarded as Trolling and dealt with accordingly.

 

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.
 

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.









×
×
  • Create New...
""