whatdrought

That's fine, but It has to be proven eventually, or else it is just rumor mongering (whatever the motives are don't really matter)

This is correct- they don't exonerate him, but he doesn't need exoneration because, as of yet, there is no evidence that he did anything. The only thing behind this is the WB report that has been contradicted by the transcript, so until we see more, Trump is innocent. That being said, Zelensky's comments don't end the conversation, but they definitely give credence to Trump's side of the story while doing harm to the WB's side- we'll see what happens.

How can they be credible without direct knowledge if no evidence can be provided? I get your premise- If I work at company x and they're doing some shady stuff and I've heard it through the grape vine, I might not have first hand knowledge about it, but I go report it to SEC or whoever. That's gonna drive an investigation. But if the investigation produces jackshit, I am no longer credible. I have been proven to be a false witness, or at least to have misunderstood what I thought I know. That's what (seemingly so far at least) is happening here.

Well, if anyone knows overrated, it's Rex Ryan.

Aw darn. Yer gun hert my feelins.

*Actual photo of average PPP member floating in the ***** spewed from Tibs and GB.

Tibs really has some endurance when it comes to beating dead horses. The man has a gift.

You're making a lot of assumptions about his capacity.

A lot of those little things come from being a young team learning how to play together. Obviously, they need to be cleaned up and we will not beat the Patriots if we're playing against ourselves as well. That being said, teams pull out miraculous, everything goes perfectly games all the time. The narrative around the Patriots this year is that they're unbeatable.. I think time will tell how good they are, but I'd be happy with us breaking that narrative. Yeah, except that on that first rep he would juke the first guy, stiff arm the second, and then throw a 20 yard laser to John Brown.

Aw man... Not even a little?

So here's the thing Tibs. You're a pretty lost cause, but I'll explain my reasoning on this and let you take it for what it is.. The transcript is the only primary source- thus it is, at this time, the only evidence in this whole twisted case. The transcript disproves major portions of the WB's original testimony/statement/accusations. This is where we stand. In order for something to change, one of two things will have to happen: 1- Another primary source would need to be released proving the first primary source wrong, or at least adding additional information to the whole situation. 2- Some evidence would need to be discovered indicating that the primary source is doctored/invalid/a lie. Unfortunately for your presuppositions, saying "Trump is corrupt" isn't proof that the primary source is incorrect. It's an opinion that you hold, and others disagree with.Without evidence, it's just you proving to all of us for the millionth time that you care more about your identity as a resistance fighter, than you do about the verifiable, provable truth. If you can prove that the transcript is incorrect/doctored/a lie, please show that information here.

That's alright man. I hear Rosetta Stone is a great resource for learning English.

Yes.

Dems: "Trump probably did the thing that Biden definitely did and now we have to impeach Trump and replace him with Biden."

I didn't mean to imply that they can never be reliable, just against the primary sources. As in this case, without the production of additional primary sources, the secondary source is contradicted by the primary source and thus, worthless.

You've never played that game telephone have you. A secondary source that contradicts a primary source, without any backing from other primary sources is called a fictional retelling of history. Alright, I'm blowing the whistle. Crayola64 is a squirrel rapist. Evidence you say? Hah! I blew the whistle. That's my evidence!

Without Direct Sources, there is no evidence..... It's called hearsay. A whistleblower without direct sources is just a guy putting words together.

A secondary source is not as credible as a primary source. So far we have a secondary source that conflicts with the primary source. Until such a time as more primary sources are released, we have what is legally known as hear-say.

No, I don't think that's wrong.

Okay... Someone help me out here as I am new to this thing and not wanting to get much deeper than the knees... If, (and so far this seems unlikely) Trump did what the Dems. are accusing, and withheld aid or whatever in order to assert pressure over a Ukrainian investigation body, he was doing so following the precedent of Biden, who did the same thing and admitted it in front of hundreds of people? Also, what distinction is there between investigating a political opponent and a former Vice President?

And here I am trying to keep track of which of them are actually the same...

Agreed. I think it just goes to show that instead of building hills to die on about these guys, we should have open conversations and let history do what it does- separate the men from the boys.

That's a good point. I think that played on both sides with some preferring him because of his views, and others disliking him cause of that. I think there was a lot of ideological things going on as well. For whatever reason, the new age commentators found in themselves a desire to hold up Rosen as the prototype while deriding Allen as the beacon of what used to be and what needed to be passed away. Many are still holding onto that view and it's super annoying.