Sujo Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 5 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 Youve really gone off the deep end now. Evidence under oath uncontested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Loh Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 5 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 It was made under oath. As good as actual truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sujo Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
candide Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 12 minutes ago, Tippaporn said: Absolutely makes it a blatant lie. Someone's testimony is not the same as hard truth. Everyone knows the distinction. So when someone tries to pass off testimony as truth it's a blatant lie. No one has backed him up, either. We understand quite well that when you don't like a proof, you call it a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Nick Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolboy Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tippaporn Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Nick Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 19 hours ago, Tippaporn said: Durham criminal investigation will 'shock the conscience and soul of the nation' https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/sean-hannity-durham-criminal-investigation-will-shock-the-conscience-and-soul-of-the-nation https://www.wsj.com/articles/italian-australian-officials-defend-helping-barr-in-review-of-russia-probes-origins-11571953551 https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/william-barr-and-john-durham-ask-uk-italy-and-australia-for-help-in-investigation-of-mueller-inquiry-origins https://www.lawfareblog.com/justice-department-should-share-more-information-durham-investigation Of course he does nothing. More utter nonsense being spouted. The Washington Examiner! ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tippaporn Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sworn_testimony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolboy Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said: Sworn testimony does not equate to truth. Period. BTW, do you know what perjury is? Is there any evidence at all that a perjury investigation is underway against Vindman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Loh Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sworn_testimony Good reference. You do understand that statement made under oath is truthful. All is not lost on you. That will make your post #220 rather redundant and unnecessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tippaporn Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 2 minutes ago, Eric Loh said: Good reference. You do understand that statement made under oath is truthful. All is not lost on you. That will make your post #220 rather redundant and unnecessary. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tippaporn Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 30 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said: 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. So we're back to square one. You are making claims and passing your claims off as truth. So where is your proof? You have none. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tippaporn Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 Has anybody spotted an illiberal argument that deals with the substance of testimony or the facts o evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Loh Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 18 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? You remind me of a shady character who infamously declared on national TV that “truth is not truth”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tippaporn Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said: You are going to just love the public testimonies coming your way. I truly am looking forward to the public testimonies. No joking. The Dems can't put this genie back in the bottle. They will thoroughly destroy themselves as they continue with their attempt to make something that's false appear true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tippaporn Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Alex Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 5 hours ago, Sujo said: Who is the whistleblower? The DNC leaker is Eric Ciaramella. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tippaporn Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 2 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said: The DNC leaker is Eric Ciaramella. Same as Lord Voldemort . . . You-Know-Who, or He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolboy Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tippaporn Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 2 minutes ago, bristolboy said: Of course he has evidence: sworn testimony. Any sworn testimony that Vindman lied? Irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolboy Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 1 minute ago, Tippaporn said: Irrelevant. I guess for a you a single word is an explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tippaporn Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 2 minutes ago, bristolboy said: I guess for a you a single word is an explanation. In this case, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.