Democrats using Intel Committee to keep impeachment facts hidden from the public, says WSJ's Kim Str

[Belk]

"If the so called 'whistleblower' really had serious evidence of wrong doing the Democrats would have had him testify by now."

What part don't you get? The part that if the so called whistleblower had real evidence that the Democrats would want to get his testimony NOW before, as has been suggested here, Trump 'gets to him' and he changes his mind?.....that part?

The part I don't get is where you make up a scenario in your head about what those you disagree with would do and then use that made up scenario as evidence. How does that work exactly?

 

[Tom 1]

Can you point out where hearsay is considered more reliable than a written transcript and the testimony of those directly involved in a conversation.

Where as in where in the world? It's a rather disengenuous question, it seems to me, and avoids the actual point, which would be what exactly are you referring to? It would help if you could go through the complainer's account and pick out something you think is inaccurate, I don't see the benefit of discussing some general flannel comparing notions you have about abstract ideas.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

The US is at a tipping point where it's about to permanently tip into the dark-side.

About to? You’re thinking of November 2016. Now it’s about righting this ship that’s clearly gone way off course.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Because the President can't be removed from office with a "shaped narrative." There has to be trial in the Senate. All you can do with a "shaped narrative" is insult the President. I suppose you think that in itself is a serious crime against the Chosen One which would need to be avenged, but it actually wouldn't hurt him any. Sticks and stones, don't you know...

If you would use logic and evidence rather than supposition, perhaps you would reach more reasonable conclusions.

 

[whatbogsends]

They can't even get him to testify privately let alone publicly.
As of 10/14......Adam Schiff Says Whistleblower May Not Testify, Safety ‘Primary Interest’
...and this after all the claims of him 'WANTING" and 'AGREEING' to testify.....sounds like a whole lot of nothing.....again. "Mueller ver. 2.0".....

Mueller ver. 2.0. Good one.

Remember when Trump said he'd testify for Mueller? That was funny.

But it wasn't safety concerns that caused Trump not to testify. It was fear of a "perjury trap", primarily because Trump's lawyers knew full well Trump couldn't testify for any period of time without lying.

 

[Speedwell]

If you would use logic and evidence rather than supposition, perhaps you would reach more reasonable conclusions.

More reasonable, I hope, than your ludicrous fantasies about the Democrats' intentions.

 

[Tom 1]

If you would use logic and evidence rather than supposition, perhaps you would reach more reasonable conclusions.

I think the supposition that an impeachment needs to be tried by congress is a fairly solid one, being as that is what happens.

There's a breakdown of the process here:
How the Impeachment Process Works

 

[grasping the after wind]

Where as in where in the world? It's a rather disengenuous question, it seems to me, and avoids the actual point, which would be what exactly are you talking about? It would help if you could go through the complainer's account and pick out something you think is inaccurate, I don't see the benefit of discussing some general flannel comparing notions you have about abstract ideas.

I suppose I should not be surprised that you don't see the benefit of discussing that you cannot point out anywhere or at anytime or in any case in any world where hearsay is considered more reliable than a transcript or first hand testimony. However, I would think you ought to be able to point out where you saw the ellipses in the transcript that was linked to.

 

[grasping the after wind]

More reasonable, I hope, than your ludicrous fantasies about the Democrats' intentions.

Which fantasies are those? Are they in any way similar to the ellipses I asked about?

 

[Speedwell]

Which fantasies are those? Are they in any way similar to the ellipses I asked about?

That the Democrats have no intention of bringing Articles of Impeachment, that they are merely "shaping a narrative" to insult the President.

 

[Tom 1]

I suppose I should not be surprised that you don't see the benefit of discussing that you cannot point out anywhere or at anytime or in any case in any world where hearsay is considered more reliable than a transcript or first hand testimony. However, I would think you ought to be able to point out where you saw the ellipses in the transcript that was linked to.

The point here is that your reducing the argument to some vague notion about hearsay doesn't address anything but your idea about hearsay. If you want to actually discuss the whistle blower report and Trump's response to it then using those readily available materials would be a way of doing that. Your notions about hearsay or whatever have nothing to do with anything, that kind of smoke and mirrors approach is typically how Trump and the like try to distract attention from the actual issues, something you unfortunately appear to have fallen for.
I sent you a quote from the text showing some of the gaps, marked by ellipses, as you can see in my response to your earlier post.

 

[grasping the after wind]

That the Democrats have no intention of bringing Articles of Impeachment, that they are merely "shaping a narrative" to insult the President.

I believe the "insult the President" thing was your words, not mine. After all insulting the President has become a national pastime and a daily exercise for House Democrats no need to start formal hearings for that. Nor was it I that said they would never bring Article of Impeachment. You really need to start seeing people as individuals rather than stereotypes so that you can distinguish which people that oppose your position are saying which things. I fully expect the 1House democrat leaders would most like to bring Articles of Impeachment at the most opportune time for political expediency. Say sometime next fall. Whenever a Senate trial could not be concluded prior to the election.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The part I don't get is where you make up a scenario in your head about what those you disagree with would do and then use that made up scenario as evidence. How does that work exactly?

It is not a made up scenario. Posters throughout this forum claim that Trump goes after those who oppose him and if this guy has real info why wouldn't the Dems want him to testify before The Don 'gets' to him.....unless, of course, he does not have any real info and they know it. Wonder which one is the more likely 'scenario'?

 

[civilwarbuff]

"perjury trap",

Accurate description of what the dems were attempting at that time.


Perjury trap - Wikipedia
Perjury trap - Wikipedia
Perjury trap. A perjury trap is a form of prosecutorial misconduct in which a prosecutor calls a witness to testify, typically before a grand jury, with the intent of coercing the witness into perjury (intentional deceit under oath). Most often a perjury trap is employed because the prosecutor is unable to prosecute the defendant on other charges.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Could you point out where there is an ellipses in that transcript as I have not been able to locate it.

Ukraine Call Transcript

Page 3, first paragraph. Page 4, first paragraph (which is a continuation from the bottom of pg 3)

 

[grasping the after wind]

The point here is that you're reducing the argument to some vague notion about hearsay doesn't address anything but your idea about hearsay. If you want to actually discuss the whistle blower report and Trump's response to it then using those readily available materials would be a way of doing that. Your notions about hearsay or whatever have nothing to do with anything, that kind of smoke and mirrors approach is typically how Trump and the like try to distract attention from the actual issues, something you unfortunately appear to have fallen for.
I sent you a quote from the text showing some of the gaps, marked by ellipses, as you can see in my response to your earlier post.

Sorry I missed the post where you answered the ellipses questions but have found it now.
Do you have knowledge that those ellipses are hiding something?

I keep bringing up hearsay because hearsay is not reliable , never has been and is understood in law not to be. I am not interested in discussing a hearsay complaint when a transcript of the conversation the complaint is alleging to be based upon has contradicted points in that complaint that were leaked to the public. If the leaks were inaccurate and misrepresented what was in the complaint and the complaint was not directly contradicted in any point , then I might be persuaded to change my mind on the usefulness of that complaint but would still remain somewhat skeptical of both the motives for and the accuracy of the complaint. I would just not dismiss it summarily as I now do. If you have first hand , not hearsay, evidence you would like to discuss about what might have been included in the conversation but omitted from the transcript, I would be happy to discuss that. Someone saying that someone else told them that someone else altogether did something is not enough to convince me of anything.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Ukraine Call Transcript

Page 3, first paragraph. Page 4, first paragraph (which is a continuation from the bottom of pg 3)

Thank you . Your directions are excellent.

 

[Belk]

It is not a made up scenario. Posters throughout this forum claim that Trump goes after those who oppose him and if this guy has real info why wouldn't the Dems want him to testify before The Don 'gets' to him.....unless, of course, he does not have any real info and they know it. Wonder which one is the more likely 'scenario'?

So now you have decided that adding embellishments to your made up scenario lends it more credence?

 

[Speedwell]

Nor was it I that said they would never bring Article of Impeachment.

Sure looked like it to me.

The Intel Committee. I noticed you did not object to the secret witnesses part. Why should the House leadership allow the Senate to expose them as political hacks pursuing their political agenda when they can simply hold faux trials with secret witnesses and shape a narrative based upon what they permit to be leaked without ever sending the matter to the Senate?

(emphasis added)

 

[grasping the after wind]

Sure looked like it to me.
(emphasis added)

Words have meanings. "Never would " means one thing "Why would" means something else.