soco wrote:
Do either of you know if the Whistleblower's letter has been made public?
I havent heard anything.
I imagine they wouldn't release anything that could hint the identity of the whistle blower until trump is no longer president. By impeachment or other means.
Todays top impeachment story is the release of an email from a white house official to DOD requesting the hold be put on the aid two hours after the phone call.
- writtenBIG-AL-ONE wrote:
Being said, I apologize for any infraction I may have caused you.
I was probably a bit hasty and shouldn't have taken it personally.
- writtenBIG-AL-ONE wrote:
Leak from the source, altered to cause incitement. Had there been anything truly substancial, the issue would have been left in the box for later use in an authentic trial (hence my comparisons to historical events of other Presidents; those which have worked, and those that have not).
For the sake of simplicity I will leave it at this.
I don't see a source being cited here...it also happens to not be true. Maybe where-ever you're getting your info from is a little bit biased?
The fact is that the White House released the transcript. Not a leak, Trump approved the release. I know that because I listened to/watched the hearings, mostly live as they were happening. Audio, written, and video recordings of the hearing are available for free on the internet, as well as written versions of at least some of the original closed-door depositions. It was declassified the same day the Impeachment inquiry officially started.
This DOES seems strange at first...it's so incriminating, so why would he publish it? But it actually makes sense if he suspected that someone who was on the call would end up testifying...if the info is going to get out anyway, he might as well release it himself to make it seem like he has nothing to hide.
You keep saying IF the call was so incriminating x, y, or z thing....have you read the transcript? You can read it for free on the internet. I think it's like three pages long. If you haven't already, you should really read it and decide for yourself.
- writtenI like talking about the impeachment because it's something I've studied a little and it's something I care about, even when I disagree with whoever I'm talking about it with.
I don't like being called a liar....
I know I'm just an internet person, but you did not even ask me where I get my information from, when I say that I'm not just listening to liberal news sources, which I KNOW are biased (not that that makes everything they say is false, especially when what they say is corroborated by freely accessible public information). For the record, I'll say what I meant. I'm talking about witness testimony from people who are and were in the State Department, at least one of whom I know is a Trump appointee. And I'm not talking about sound bites. I listened to the hearings as they happened, and to both Democrat and Republican questions. And there is also the transcript, which you asked if I asked myself if I know how the liberal media got the transcript...I actually know exactly how they got it...and I DID find it strange at first, but after thinking about it, I came up with a good theory on that...but I wonder if you know where they got it?
I've challenged things you've said and when I've doubted the veracity of something, I didn't just say you weren't being honest. In order for a civil debate about something to work, you have to assume a certain amount of good faith in your interlocutor or it's no longer a meaningful debate.
For the record. The poll I mentioned DID come from a liberal media outlet (CNN), so if you want to say that the number is just made up by them, fine. I disagree because I haven't heard any evidence that the poll is made up and I haven't seen any counter polls, but who cares, it's just a poll and they're not the most reliable source of information for lots of reasons. I have a lot of feelings about polls and how people use them. In any case i'd be interested if you've seen another poll that contradicts it.
- writtenSlash wrote:
You assume if I admit to a call that I acknowledge a criminal act. And this is why the power of the pen should not be allowed in the hands of many.
I didn't assume at all. I said I didn't understand and asked if what I said is what you meant, which is the opposite of assuming. You responded by clarifying that what I said is not, in fact, what you meant.
Slash wrote:
No you haven't. Considering that President Nixon was caught in a criminal situation that was called Watergate, the transcription of those recordings have never been released to the public and likely never will.
If there was any real criminality of his phone call, Donald would be offered the chance to resign.
You're watching liberal journalism and you know it.
Ok...so you're saying I'm lying...there's nothing really more to talk about then. If you think I'm a liar then nothing I say can convince you.
- writtenThat's the thing....people get distracted with what they hate about the people on the other side of the aisle and aren't focusing on the facts.
The Clintons did this or that...okay, then investigate the Clintons...it doesn't make Trump innocent.
Democrats are corrupt and stupid......their policies aren't right for the country, etc, etc.ok, then...investigate them. Or vote them out of office. But it still doesn't make Trump innocent.
Let the Republican party take over for the next ten thousand years and only Republican Presidents are elected and only Republican Congressman...everyone in the US just republican. It won't change the facts.
Truth is not a democracy...something either is or is not the case. Doesn't matter if Trump says it, or if I say it, or anyone else who has lived or will ever live. The truth isn't Republican or Democrat...it's not even bi-partisan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be as objective as you can. Try to bracket everything you feel about Democrats. Bracket, as well, everything you feel about Trump. Let it go. Put it aside for a few minutes. You don't have to bring it up to me, I'm not a Democrat.
Now look at the evidence...think about the evidence. Play the devil's advocate for both sides. Assume the facts are true and that you have no stake in it. Then decide what you want to believe.
Slash wrote:
Where is the crime so heinous that it calls for impeachment?
It's the part where he refused to give bi-partisan congress-approved aid unless President Zelensky helped him smear his most likely Democratic opponent next year.
Slash wrote:
The Democrats have had a nice long run - nearly 16 years worth for the spoiling of a complete generation.
But in 2016, they lost. The real adults are back in control, making America great again after countless nights spent in tears wondering where the goodness of America went.
The Dems couldn't even lose with dignity - they sit at home, on campus, in the workplace braying. Unless it's in the form of some sort of activism, dems and liberals are some of the lowest producing, highest liability people that demand the most accommodations.
None of this has anything to do with whether or not President Trump is guilty.
Slash wrote:
We all should get along with our fellow citizen. Calling this a hoax, at very least, gives our fellow dems and libs a doorway out of the collective insanity their groups have occulted.
I'm not sure what you mean by this...are you agreeing it's not a hoax?
Slash wrote:
- No, you're listening only to yourselves, that or the liberal media news agencies that pulp out such rhetoric.
It's like - hmm, Trump bashing, I believe it, don't turn that dial.
On the impeachment issue I have not been taking my cues from the liberal (or conservative) media. I listened to the hearings...the witnesses...read testimony...I read the transcript which is a direct recording of Trump's wrongdoing.
Slash wrote:
Who are these "many" who have "seen" and when?
I'm referring to polling that shows that about half of americans are in support of impeachment...and I am presuming that at least some of the people polled have done due diligence to the issue. Granted, of course, polls can be deceiving.
Slash wrote:
All truth is strong, Lano. But assuming truth varies in strength, this is a case where only enough strength is needed to swat buzzing mosquitos.
Donald isn't going anywhere and he's going to be around for sometime yet to come.
And this game over the word "THOUGH." Lol! This really takes me back to the good 'ol Clinton days when Bill was on trial - damn well knowing his guilt, his entire defense hung on the word "IS."
I don't really understand the metaphor here...and the stuff about Clinton is irrelevant because he's not the one being impeached right now.
Slash wrote:
When it comes to foreign affairs regarding aid, the President can make as many conditions as he wants as long it's in the best interest of the U.S. If that's a crime then all Presidents are guilty - time to get the indictments rolling and make the children pay for the sins of the fathers....
But he didn't do it for us, he did it for himself. Specifically, he wanted Zelensky to provide dirt on his most likely democratic opponent, i.e., Biden.
Slash wrote:
And would Donald finally free of "charges" if he spoke over the phone using sign-language?
No, it wouldn't matter if he asked for a bribe in English, sign-language, Japanese, or Swahili...asking for a bribe is wrong for the President to do, regardless of which language he decided to speak in.
The transcript wasn't invented by the liberal media.
aeolians.revenge wrote:
Lano. I just watched slashes sjw videos.
Ooops, sorry.
- writtensoco wrote:
The "do us a favor though" was highly edited. The entire recorded phone call still exists on the highly classified server. I would like to see a word for word transcript of the entire phone call. I bet Biden was mentioned more than just 3 times.
That's the question...why release the transcript, and not the recording?
If the transcript was edited though, it's probably only minor differences, such that people who were on the call, like Vindman, couldn't tell from memory and their notes...though the fact that their notes differs slightly from the call transcript might be evidence that there was such an edit...we won't know unless the White House releases it though.
Though....when the transcript is so incriminating even edited, why would they bother?
aeolians.revenge wrote:
Ooo the sjw are white privledged uni kids who live in their parents basement.
Idiots. Get a job and pay your own way.
You know what. I hope you get ypur way and have socialism communism. Ive lived most of my life. I hope you uni brats gets your wish. Idiots Idiots. Idiots
That has nothing to do with why Trump is being impeached.
- writtenTo use this site you must be 13 years or older and occasionally submit your email address. Your email address is only shared with your explicit permission.