Republicans want Hunter Biden, whistleblower to testify in open hearings

[Tippaporn]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

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

 

You need not answer.

Not a problem for me to answer.  I'm keeping you honest.

[Chomper Higgot]

19 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

The DNC leaker is Eric Ciaramella.

Or so you have been told.

[bristolboy]

24 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

In this case, yes.

So much for who, what, when, where, how, and why. I think you're confusing "stonewalling" with "explanation". It's the last resort for someone who has no argument.

[GroveHillWanderer]

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."

[roobaa01]

51 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

The DNC leaker is Eric Ciaramella.

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

[Mavideol]

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

[bristolboy]

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

[Tippaporn]

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.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

So much for who, what, when, where, how, and why. I think you're confusing "stonewalling" with "explanation". It's the last resort for someone who has no argument.

QED

[Saint Nick]

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?!

[Saint Nick]

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?!

[bristolboy]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

QED

More of the same trolling nonsense.

[TopDeadSenter]

5 minutes ago, Saint Nick said:

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?!

I don't have the time to wade through that hateful and confused rant. But if a "whistleblower" is proven not to be a concerned citizen but instead is shown to be an activist with a grudge, it does not bode well for his credibility. 

 

[roobaa01]

5 minutes ago, Saint Nick said:

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?!

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

[BobBKK]

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If there is nothing wrong with Trump’s requests to Ukraine why then all the efforts to hide evidence, concoct misleading statements, intimidate witnesses and withhold witnesses from giving testimony?

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.

[BobBKK]

27 minutes ago, Saint Nick said:

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

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

[johnnybangkok]

25 minutes 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 by your account we are not to believe Vindman's sworn testimony even though he is the Director for European Affairs for the United States National Security Council, a highly decorated, seasoned army professional with an impeccable background and no scandals to his name because, you know, people lie and we shouldn't just listen to just one person soooooooooo.......what about Bill Taylor, and of course the amazing return of memory for Gordon Sondland who has now stated that there was indeed QPQ but that he had just 'forgot' the first time he was asked.

There are now several people all backing what the whistle-blower has said. Are they all lying under oath? Will they all jeopardize their careers and reputations because they just want to get one over on Trump?

Your argument for individual dishonestly is undercut by the collective. Now please stop defending the indefensible.    

 

[Saint Nick]

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!

[johnnybangkok]

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.

[Sujo]

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

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

I don't have the time to wade through that hateful and confused rant. But if a "whistleblower" is proven not to be a concerned citizen but instead is shown to be an activist with a grudge, it does not bode well for his credibility. 

 

He doesnt need credibility because his claims have been verified by others with first hand knowledge, under oath.

[Sujo]

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.

[BobBKK]

53 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

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.

ya secret - Reps not allowed to question, not allowed to speak about what happened etc. etc. but facts don't mean much to you I know.

[BobBKK]

6 minutes ago, Sujo said:

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.

I'm all for publishing the full transcript but I have no problem with POTUS saying "no aid until you assist the US in a possible corruption case"  just like the VP did?  remember that?

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, BobBKK said:

What hiding?  he published the transcript voluntarily whereas your side held all hearings in secret - unprecedented!!!

Hi BobBkk, the Dems we’re conducting impeachment inquiry under the rules that the Republican majority approved in 2015. Why the sad and phony whining. 

[Saint Nick]

3 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

ya secret - Reps not allowed to question, not allowed to speak about what happened etc. etc. but facts don't mean much to you I know.

I refer back to post #264, in wich Johnny BKK stated: "Well apart from the 48 Republicans who were present throughout the whole proceedings."

What do you think, the 48 Republicans did, during these meetings?
Play Sodoku?

 

[Chomper Higgot]

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.

He did not publish the transcript, he published summary notes and we then learn that even those were doctored.

 

The full transcript has been hidden on an Intelligence Service server.

 

Refer ‘Caution Note’ at the bottom of the first page of the document Trump released.

 

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

 

Your claim that holding the investigation hearings in secret was ‘unprecedented’ is utter hogwash.

 

The impeachment of both Nixon and Clinton included secret investigation meetings.

 

 

Quit with your gaslighting

 

[CharlieH]

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.
 

[Sir Swagman]

On 11/10/2019 at 6:53 AM, TopDeadSenter said:

Bit late to worry about that. The fake Adam Schiff summary of Trump's call put this latest witch hunt into realms of bizarre fantasy far beyond any mere clown show.

 

Can't wait until they drag up the Bidens and Schiff to testify, this will be hilarious!

You really need help.....this is obviously an attempt to turn the hearings into a meaningless, time wasting presentation. Neither of these two have anything to do with this impeaching of a president. I believe the chair of this committee has control over who can and cannot be called. Perhaps after these two that power might be exercised to stop the Nonsense?

[johnnybangkok]

1 hour ago, BobBKK said:

ya secret - Reps not allowed to question, not allowed to speak about what happened etc. etc. but facts don't mean much to you I know.

Again big on hyperbole and short on facts. The GOP WAS allowed to question and of course were allowed to “leak” to their hearts content (Google is your friend).  This was however the fact finding part of the investigation so it was mostly just hearing already prepared statements. From here on in though it will all be public so watch the fireworks. It’s going to be one helluva show.