Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Whistleblower identified
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostHere's a look at Sondland's actual words:
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post"Presumptions" and "I came to understands" are simply ways of shielding the source out of which those beliefs were conveyed. Use your brain once in a while, MM. One doesn't just "presume" or "come to understand" the details of what someone else wants. Sondland didn't just presume that the president wanted investigations into the Bidens and crowdstrike, he didn't just presume that they wouldn't get their desperately needed military aid unless publicly opening investigations against the Bidens. Besides that, he at first denied he even knew or conveyed any such message to Ukraine only to revise his testimony after hearing the contradictory testimony of everyone else concerned who testified under oath. Don't be such a dumbell!Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by RumTumTugger View PostWhat evidence? So far All the Democrats have is third hand information based on peoples feelings or peoples feelings and opinions, presumptions on what was going on.
When someone accepts non evidence as evidence that wrong has been done because of what the person did in the past rather then wait for real evidence; or even hand waves the real evidence away presuming they know what a person really thinks happened but is afraid to say it, Is in my OPINION their showing hatred towards the person not what he's done.
Oxmix, When have you ever acknowledged the good things trump has done without qualifying with but he's done this evil thing even if there is no basis to think he did it or that it was done with malice in his mind*?
The issue - especially the last few months - is that Trump is engaged in impeachable behavior. So even if there are things out there he is doing that are good, they are not the topic of discussion - anywhere. And especially not here.
Right now the single most important element of this entire discussion to me is not Trump himself, but the fact that a large portion of the Evangelical Christian Church supports him. If you want to focus on what might be wrong with my thinking, or how I might be misguided, you need to either engage that issue directly, or provide actual evidence that the elements that rise to such a level of general badness that it would concern me a large part of the Evangelical Christian Church supports him are not what they appear to be.
so please show me. show me my opinion is wrong about your bias being so bad agasint trump that you let it color your mind on what evil is.
*and no I'm not saying that Trump hasn't done things I think are wrong I'm just saying I know human beings are not perfect and not all the things you say Trump did are things.
1. he actually did
or
2 wrong.
That is what I see RTT.Last edited by oxmixmudd; 11-09-2019, 09:56 AM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostThat would be the line that is being pushed from the conservative news outlets. It simply does not line up with that actual evidence. I'm hearing this line from some republican senators, and from people like rogue who are normally capable of a reasoned evaluation of the evidence. And yet, I can see looking at the content of the transcripts that it simply is not true. And so I have no explanation for how intelligent people can believe that claim makes sense, but I am aware of the fact they, and apparently you, do. However, given you are intelligent and have access to information, I will assume you've read it. And given that, if you can accept that 'explanation' for the actual evidence, then I doubt very much there is anything I can say that will convince you otherwise.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View Post"Presumptions" and "I came to understands" are simply ways of shielding the source out of which those beliefs were conveyed. Use your brain once in a while, MM. One doesn't just "presume" or "come to understand" the details of what someone else wants. Sondland didn't just presume that the president wanted investigations into the Bidens and crowdstrike, he didn't just presume that they wouldn't get their desperately needed military aid unless publicly opening investigations against the Bidens. Besides that, he at first denied he even knew or conveyed any such message to Ukraine only to revise his testimony after hearing the contradictory testimony of everyone else concerned who testified under oath. Don't be such a dumbell!
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View Post"I came to understands" is a way of saying that you changed your mind.
In many ways, it's a way of not saying "my lawyer coached me to say...."The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostAnd it's a well known fact that witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and the further away you get chronologically from the event under examination the less reliable that testimony is -- particularly when it significantly differs from testimony given at the time of the event.
In many ways, it's a way of not saying "my lawyer coached me to say...."
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostMany a case has imploded spectacularly because of witness' testimony differing wildly from the statements they gave the police
Or, more harshly, "So, should the jury believe you were lying THEN, or you're lying NOW?"The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostConsidering the content of your posts over the past few months I'm no longer certain that you are capable of determining what actual evidence is. Don't believe me? Go back and look through some of it. You have consistently conflated rumors, suppositions and opinions with facts and evidence. You never would have done something like this previously.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostAnd it's a well known fact that witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and the further away you get chronologically from the event under examination the less reliable that testimony is -- particularly when it significantly differs from testimony given at the time of the event.
In many ways, it's a way of not saying "my lawyer coached me to say...."
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostSondland changed his testimony only after hearing the contradictory testimony of honorable witnesses.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostHere's a look at Sondland's actual words:
This goes to guilty knowledge. Why wouldn't Sondland just leave it alone if it was some nebulous, maybe true, maybe not true divination of Trump's motive? Because he knows it happened, he knows it took place, and he just can't take the chance other people or sources will back up Hill's testimony. The cost to him would be too great.
And by his confirmation of her testimony, we have two witnesses to the conversation, one of whom was quite clearly a staunch Trump supporter. So we have clear evidence the money was conditioned on the investigation of the Bidens, and that that fact was made absolutely clear to Ukraine by Sondland.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostThe change in Sondland's testimony has a much simpler and more credible explanation than a million dollar supporter of Trump being persuaded to make something up or change his mind about something that was vague or ill defined (Trump's purpose in the investigation). Fiona Hill described the conversation he 'remembered' in detail in her testimony. If that description were to validated by other witnesses, other sources, then Sondland would be guilty of perjury. And so, the most likely explanation is that he realized he'd better 'remember' the conversation before he could be proven to be hiding it.
This goes to guilty knowledge. Why wouldn't Sondland just leave it alone if it was some nebulous, maybe true, maybe not true divination of Trump's motive? Because he knows it happened, he knows it took place, and he just can't take the chance other people or sources will back up Hill's testimony. The cost to him would be too great.
And by his confirmation of her testimony, we have two witnesses to the conversation, one of whom was quite clearly a staunch Trump supporter. So we have clear evidence the money was conditioned on the investigation of the Bidens, and that that fact was made absolutely clear to Ukraine by Sondland."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
180 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
417 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Yesterday, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
86 responses
394 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Today, 09:01 AM
|
Comment