whatdrought

One thing the liberals actually got right... There can never be too many pancake days.

Worthless too- those men were dead going into the hearing, and they're still dead now. Are you fat shaming him? You intolerant bigot! You're gonna lose your woke card for that.

That whistle is actually the constitution blowing a rape whistle as the dems force their impeachment on it...

Not for Schiff and the other ######s on the committee who are trying to lie (excuse me, "parody") their way into a story with this. That would be devastating for their attempts.

So if this was 2011 and Obama, then he should be impeached? Or you're saying this is a *****-show now and it would have been then as well?

Non-participants can't add context to a phone call unless that context is based on additional (withheld) comments made during the call. An outsider doesn't have the right to interpret what was actually meant, so unless they're going to say there's something missing, or something else was said that isn't in the transcript, the only thing they have is their conclusions based on the call. That's where the partisanship comes in.

Oh my gosh. This might be the best thing I've ever seen.

More to the point, it's actually a bad move by the dems as the witnesses verifying the authenticity of the transcript would be another sinking mark on this.

I haven't been following y'all's B word fight, just wondering what gain there is from the call witnesses if the transcript is accurate - which I suppose we assume it is until something else comes out about it, or unless the "we" we're referring to is Tibs.

2 things: 1- Don't step to me and then claim it's not worth it to actually quote what you're accusing me of. It makes you look like a schmuck. 2- What i said, consistently throughout this whole damn dialogue, to you and to others, is that in the absence of additional, as of yet unreleased evidence, his complaint is suspect because there's no evidence supporting it. The media was reporting one thing about the report, the transcript showed something entirely different. Now we've seen both and in the absence of additional evidence, his/her complaint is worthless. 2b. Here are the two quotes of mine that I could find that seem somewhat relevant to what you're accusing me of. Please note that I am consistent throughout that in order for his complaint to be deemed credible, there needs to be evidence, or else he is a boy crying wolf and doing so only because someone else told him that there might be a wolf... maybe.

What gain is that unless they are going to testify that the transcript is deceptive/wrong? (which is a whole other ball of wax)

You obviously do care, and you're now backtracking. It is not wrong, it's 100% correct. Look at the definition that I provided, and then find a single post that doesn't reflect that definition. I have not once said that second hand information is suspect. I said conclusions based on second hand information is suspect. Thus, we investigate. His conclusions are worthless, and I think (and this is my conclusion, so it's also worthless) that it looks highly partisan.

Dude. You're beating a dead horse. Nobody here has claimed that it is hearsay in the context of legal proceedings. We have stated, rightfully so, that it is hearsay in that one person said something, and another person heard it. I know you're busy prepping your intro to law course for Harvard, but come on. Try to keep up.

So yes to the markers then... I haven't seen anybody claim that it's legal hearsay, we're arguing that it's hearsay in reality. People say something, someone else hears it and repeats it. That's the ***** word. Law degrees don't have English components anymore?

According to you, your reflection, and your imaginary best friends maybe. Again, I have no issue with the investigation- which has already been tainted by the dems and the media claiming this is the nail in Trumps coffin- But his complaint is thick with conclusions made by someone who doesn't have primary and first hand knowledge of the situation, which is suspect.

No it doesn't. Favor asking is in no way illegal, wrong, or amoral. The favor had nothing to do with Biden.

Is your username crayola cause you sniff markers?... noun noun: hearsay information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor. "according to hearsay, Bob had managed to break his arm" I'm not sure how this differs from what I said...?

Admitting that the complaint doesn't diverge from the document that showed no wrong doing isn't how you're gonna get your impeachment... Careful bud.

Okay... You're completely missing the point. This isn't your Harvard pre-law class or whatever the hell you say you do. The reality is this- this person HEARd someone SAY something and then repeated it in this complaint. He has no verifiable evidence and admits as much. He has no primary sources, and he has no tangible proof (as of yet released, unless I have missed something) that what he is espousing is true- furthermore, and this is really an important distinction, he definitely has no tangible evidence allowing him to arrive at the conclusions that he has arrived at with his testimony. He's hearing a regurgitated conversation and making wide declarations about the intentions of the speakers. Investigate everything, who cares. Either way, mister whistleblower made some leaps and it's really fair to ask if he had partisan motives in that.

Also, anyone with the knowledge of: was the July 25th call ref. in the complaint the one we saw the transcript from?

Are you saying the whistleblower complaint doesn't consist of hearsay?

You kinda look like a smaller Harrison Phillips...

Yuck! What the hell about his history makes him worth one second, let alone 2+?

I like it. I went into this expecting us to be last, but I was pleasantly surprised. Brandt is an actual football guy who doesn’t just take any chance to slam the bills. I was struck by the fact that we have 3 wins, and we’re playing 4 more games against teams we have no right losing to... that’s crazy.

Well gosh darn... I was just assuming that the righteous media of CNN, MSNBC, and whatever other ones you slurp up would be completely accurate in their reporting of the WB report... I mean, they are the bastions of honor and truth in our frail society. You are right. What the WB report contains is yet to be seen. The supposed contents are refuted and disproved by the transcript. Continue on with your "orange man bad" march please. I know your time is valuable.