Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And the Captain has no plans on going down with the ship.About to? You’re thinking of November 2016. Now it’s about righting this ship that’s clearly gone way off course.
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.
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
Trapping Trump in a lie takes less than five minutes unless he is reading a prepared text.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.
What embellishment?So now you have decided that adding embellishments to your made up scenario lends it more credence?
Still, he was right to avoid what was likely an illegal perjury trap....as per the definition.Trapping Trump in a lie takes less than five minutes unless he is reading a prepared text.
What embellishment?
So, you don't agree that posters on this forum believe that Trump goes after people who oppose him?The embellishment that "The Don" is going to attack the whistle blower. That you believe this based on "what posters on the forum" are saying. Those Embellishments to an already made up scenario were the Democrats would rush to have the whistle blower testify.
When the captain isn’t trying to steer the ship off course he’s actively trying to fill it with water.And the Captain has no plans on going down with the ship.
Really? They were going to go after Trump for something unrelated to his campaign's alleged dealings with Russia? What might that be?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.
Sorry. I thought you meant it as a rhetorical question.
So, you don't agree that posters on this forum believe that Trump goes after people who oppose him?
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?
It isn’t illegal to subpoena someone to testify. It can be contested.Still, he was right to avoid what was likely an illegal perjury trap....as per the definition.
Your opinion is duly noted.....Irrelevant. I don't agree that Democrats would rush to have this person testify and that not doing so is evidence of nefarious purpose.
Does the Judiciary Committee ever meet behind closed doors when they are investigating something or someone?Congressional Democrats are skirting the past precedent of using the Judiciary Committee to impeach the president, and are instead relying on the House Intelligence Committee to shroud their work in darkness and keep vital facts hidden from the public, said Wall Street Journal columnist Kim Strassel.
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'?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?