- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 10/1/19 at 1:29 pm to bmy
quote:
Why would you expect to see a quid pro quo in the actual transcript?
What facts do you have to allege a quid pro quo? You are basing your entire knowledge on the WB statement that was PROVEN FALSE. And negating the actual transcripts because they are contrary to your beliefs. The transcript completely destroys the WB argument. Sorry, you lost again.
When supporting losers, expect to lose.
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 1:30 pm
Posted on 10/1/19 at 1:38 pm to bmy
quote:
Really? You want it thrown out on a technicality? Seems a little desperate/suggests you lack confidence in Trumps innocence.
You are such a tool. The whistleblower is actually irrelevant since WE HAVE THE ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT. There is nothing in the actual transcript that indicates Trump did anything wrong. Oh, and the president of Ukraine backs Trump’s account of what happened.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 1:44 pm to MontanaTiger
Where in the complaint did the whistle blower claim firsthand knowledge on all counts, in fact I see several instances of him stating that the info was from other government officials. And on the conspiracy concerning the law being recently changed to allow secondhand information to be considered acceptable, well that was debunked by the trump appointed Intelligence Community IG just today.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 1:46 pm to bmy
Why do you keep ignoring the fact that he lied about 1st hand knowledge? Is it because it doesn't fit your narrative?
Posted on 10/1/19 at 1:56 pm to SOSFAN
quote:
Why do you keep ignoring the fact that he lied about 1st hand knowledge? Is it because it doesn't fit your narrative?
Try reading comprehension for a change
In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals. The President’s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well.
Over the past four months, more than half a dozen U.S. officials have informed me of various facts related to this effort. The information provided herein was relayed to me in the course of official interagency business. It is routine for U.S. officials with responsibility for a particular regional or functional portfolio to share such information with one another in order to inform policymaking and analysis.
I was not a direct witness to most of the events described. However, I found my colleagues’ accounts of these events to be credible because, in almost all cases, multiple officials recounted fact patterns that were consistent with one another. In addition, a variety of information consistent with these private accounts has been reported publicly.
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 1:58 pm
Posted on 10/1/19 at 1:57 pm to SOSFAN
He doesn't care because he's a radical leftist.
By any means necessary
By any means necessary
Posted on 10/1/19 at 2:01 pm to The1TrueTiger
quote:
I was not a direct witness to most of the events described.
You forgot to bold this part.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 2:05 pm to bmy
quote:
The complaint alleges that... Ukrainian officials were "led to believe that a [future] meeting or phone call between" Trump and Zelensky would depend on Zelensky's willingness to "play ball"
Help me understand.
Which Ukrainian officials are being referred to in this quote? I thought the call was between Trump and Zelensky. Was there another part of the call with other parties conversing?
Why is future bracketed in your quote?
Thanks.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 2:05 pm to The1TrueTiger
quote:
Try reading comprehension for a change
He lied about it when he submitted the form, checking the box for first hand knowledge. Thus he perjured himself and should be prosecuted. Again, though, the complaint is irrelevant since WE HAVE THE ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT! Reading comprehension, right?
Posted on 10/1/19 at 2:15 pm to bamarep
quote:
When, exactly were the rules changed?
They weren't. You've been lied to.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 2:17 pm to MontanaTiger
quote:
The whistleblower is actually irrelevant since WE HAVE THE ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT.
Are you speaking of the document which actually says on its face that it is not a transcript?
Posted on 10/1/19 at 2:18 pm to TBoy
Call it Carl for all I care.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 2:31 pm to Jbird
quote:
I was not a direct witness to most of the events described. You forgot to bold this part.
why bold that part? "I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials" and "more than half a dozen U.S. officials" already show that he was not a direct witness.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 2:33 pm to bmy
quote:
1) There is no law requiring first hand information
That wasn't the point of the OP now was it. You are disgusting for defending this whole thing, but you always were a hack.
quote:No
authorized access to documents that would have given him first hand knowledge. Right?
Reading a document is not the same as first hand knowledge. Being on the call, or in the room listening to Trump his or herself would be first hand. We read a Transcript of the call. That doesn't mean we have first hand knowledge now does it?
Overlooking they changed the law just recently isn't even suspect to you hack?
Posted on 10/1/19 at 2:40 pm to Jbird
quote:
Call it Carl for all I care.
If it says on its face that it isn't a transcript, then it isn't a transcript.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 2:42 pm to RockyMtnTigerWDE
quote:
Overlooking they changed the law just recently isn't even suspect to you hack?
This is a lie, it's not true, fake news, a B.S conspiracy that has been debunked, how do you not get this simple fact?
Posted on 10/1/19 at 2:53 pm to The1TrueTiger
Oh my bad, the form was recently changed. I see the big difference now.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 3:14 pm to The1TrueTiger
You first.
He lied about having first hand knowledge. When you say you have 1st hand knowledge it means you were in the room and heard it if not then its not 1st hand knowledge.
Do we have to spell everything out to you limp wristed liberal snowflakes?
You do know how stupid your response made you look don't you?
He lied about having first hand knowledge. When you say you have 1st hand knowledge it means you were in the room and heard it if not then its not 1st hand knowledge.
Do we have to spell everything out to you limp wristed liberal snowflakes?
You do know how stupid your response made you look don't you?
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 3:17 pm
Posted on 10/1/19 at 3:21 pm to TBoy
quote:
Are you speaking of the document which actually says on its face that it is not a transcript?
So what is it then? And why do all the news reports call it a transcript?
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News