Jump to content

Republicans want Hunter Biden, whistleblower to testify in open hearings


Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, Eric Loh said:

It was made under oath. As good as actual truth. 

And im sure as he states its a blatant lie that he will provide proof of that.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

It was Vindman's testimony, and as far as I know only Vindman, who made the claim that the transcript had omissions.  Now that's a fact.  What's not a fact is that Vindman's claim is true.  You and Chomper are stating Vindman's testimony as factual truth.  That BS.  And you and Chomper know it.

The basis of your objection is Vindman must have committed perjury.

 

The problem you have with that is we now know there is a full transcript and we know where it is.

  • Like 1
Posted
On 11/10/2019 at 8:30 AM, BobBKK said:

You think the whistle-blower being a well known Dem supporter is not relevant?  you think employees, who serve at the Presidents pleasure, should skulk around like cowards spewing untruths and not be held accountable?  not be challenged?  you don't think POTUS has the right to ask for information about the VP's cocaine son working for millions with zero experience? what are you on?

No...it is absolutely NOT relevant!

Because x other witnesses said the same thing!

And you know what, sunshine?

The President HIMSELF says it!

Read the transcript...or whatever part of it, the WH vomited into the world.

Ask for full transcript!

Any idea, why we are not seeing that so far?

Hmmmm...really hard to guess!

  • Thanks 2
Posted
13 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Do you understand that claims made in testimony are not to be taken as actual truth?  Talk about nonsense, Chomper.  You and others are actually trying to argue that Vindman's claims are tantamount to truth.  LOL

Do you understand that Vindman is staying on at the NSC? I haven't heard any reports at all about moves to dismiss him. Do you think that if he lied under oath he would still be working there?

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Youve really gone off the deep end now.

Evidence under oath uncontested.

 

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

It was made under oath. As good as actual truth. 

Sworn testimony does not equate to truth.  Period.

 

BTW, do you know what perjury is?

  • Haha 2
Posted
10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Sworn testimony does not equate to truth.  Period.

 

BTW, do you know what perjury is?

You accuse everyone else of lying to avoid facing the fact it is Trump who is lying.

 

Dozens of people and organizations presenting corroborating testimony and evidence.

 

But you choose to believe the inveterate liar.

  • Thanks 1
Posted
36 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Do you understand that claims made in testimony are not to be taken as actual truth?  Talk about nonsense, Chomper.  You and others are actually trying to argue that Vindman's claims are tantamount to truth.  LOL

Yes I do understand this.

 

It’s why testimony and evidence sought from multiple sources to corroborate what is being stated.

 

Here’s something for you to understand:

 

The WH has a full transcript of the subject telephone conversation, they have hidden that on an Intelligence Service server while releasing a brief and doctored summary.

 

The WH can clear this all up by presenting the full transcript.

 

They can do so voluntarily or they can do so under orders of Congress/the courts.

 

If Trump has nothing to hide he would eagerly produce the full transcript.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

From the Wikepedia page (bolded text is mine):

 

Sworn testimony is evidence given by a witness who has made a commitment to tell the truth. If the witness is later found to have lied whilst bound by the commitment, they can often be charged with the crime of perjury.

 

Nothing's lost on me.  But you people are truly lost.

 

So who's first to continue with the argument that Vindman's testimonial claim is no different than hard truth?

We are aware that people who lie while under oath have committed perjury, I’m sure too that Vindman s also aware of this fact.

 

Now where’s your argument against his testimony?

  • Thanks 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

So we're back to square one.  You are making claims and passing your claims off as truth.  So where is your evidence?  You have none.  End of story.

You are going to just love the public testimonies coming your way.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

We are aware that people who lie while under oath have committed perjury, I’m sure too that Vindman s also aware of this fact.

 

Now where’s your argument against his testimony?

I don't need to make an argument against Vindman's testimony.  It wasn't at all in my post which started this surreal debate.  I said you blatantly lied when you stated factually that the White House doctored the transcript.  No proof, so no truth, so you lied.  Again, end of story.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
Just now, Eric Loh said:

You remind me of a shady character who infamously declared on national TV that “truth is not truth”. 

Argue your point.  Which is: testimony = truth.

  • Confused 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

So we're back to square one.  You are making claims and passing your claims off as truth.  So where is your evidence?  You have none.  End of story.

Of course he has evidence: sworn testimony. Any sworn testimony that Vindman lied?

  • Thanks 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I don't need to make an argument against Vindman's testimony.  It wasn't at all in my post which started this surreal debate.  I said you blatantly lied when you stated factually that the White House doctored the transcript.  No proof, so no truth, so you lied.  Again, end of story.

Are discussing anything or are just here to throw accusations of lying against those who disagree with?

 

You need not answer.

  • Thanks 1

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.




  • Topics

  • Popular Contributors

  • Latest posts...

    1. 11

      BBC bosses Questioned by MPs Chief Tim Davie Admits 'Lost Trust' in Gaza Documentary

    2. 73

      President Zelensky sees the light?

    3. 51

      Trudeau Blasts US Tariffs, Vows Canada Will Stand Strong

    4. 51

      Trudeau Blasts US Tariffs, Vows Canada Will Stand Strong

    5. 3

      All planned, or just the way it turned out ?

    6. 20

      Easy pass. On tollways

  • Popular in The Pub

×
×
  • Create New...