Whistleblower Has Been Backed Up By Multiple Witnesses

[Numark3]

1 minute ago, whatdrought said:

 

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.

 

Probably nothing.  But no harm I guess.  Maybe they can provide additional context?

[B-Man]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Crayola64 said:

 

You just said no one else was present in the call.  You were wrong.  People can see it.

 

moving on

 

And I clarified -- because I am posting on the run -- that no one was present who can/will be called. Because of protections. 

You're wrong. 

 

And your only hope is to try to niggle the words into something I didn't say. Because you're dishonest and an intellectual coward. You're terrible at this.

[Numark3]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

And I clarified -- because I am posting on the run -- that no one was present who can/will be called. Because of protections. 

You're wrong. 

 

And your only hope is to try to niggle the words into something I didn't say. Because you're dishonest and an intellectual coward. You're terrible at this.

 

Yes White House officials cannot be subpoenaed.  Eye roll

[Deranged Rhino]

Same could be said of Crayola

 

Just now, Crayola64 said:

 

Yes White House officials cannot be subpoenaed.  Eye roll

 

Can't/won't

 

You're exposing you're real bad at reading. Or honesty. Or logic. Or reason. 

 

Keep going. You're winning hearts and minds  

[Capco]

Some of you are trying to say that if this EXACT situation happened to Obama in 2011 that you (the same people rushing to Trump's defense) would also be rushing to Obama's defense as Republicans in Congress tried to use a whistleblower complaint and a transcripted phone call to impeach a duly elected president, right?  Hahaha. 

 

Some of you would be jumping on this and get caught up just as hard if not harder as some of the Never-Trumpers are now.  The history of Obama's presidency post 2010 midterms makes that very clear. 

 

Imagine #WalkAway referring to Republicans telling other Republicans to change party because Obama was being unfairly besmirched by the opposition at every level.  

[John Adams]

11 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Im just pointing out someone being wrong.  Why is that such an issue?  Do you think he is right?

 

DR was wrong about a lot of stuff yesterday (like most days). 

 

1 - He said Zelensky brought up US aid on the call first. (He didn't.)

2 - He said Trump didn't withhold the funding. (He did)

 

He's trying really hard to fit everything into his "Trump is a white knight" narrative. On this topic, it's not working. 

 

He's out doing another Twitter search now. Give him some more time. 

[B-Man]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

And I clarified -- because I am posting on the run -- that no one was present who can/will be called. Because of protections. 

You're wrong. 

 

And your only hope is to try to niggle the words into something I didn't say. Because you're dishonest and an intellectual coward. You're terrible at this.

 

 

 

For those "reading on the run......................?

 

 

 

 

 

nig·gle

/ˈniɡəl/

Learn to pronounce

verb

 

1. cause slight but persistent annoyance, discomfort, or anxiety.

   "a suspicion niggled at the back of her mind"

    

noun

 

1. a trifling complaint, dispute, or criticism.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

******************

 

Some of the better moments:

 

[Numark3]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Same could be said of Crayola

 

 

Can't/won't

 

You're exposing you're real bad at reading. Or honesty. Or logic. Or reason. 

 

Keep going. You're winning hearts and minds  

 

Bored.  Your answer to someone’s question showed you didn’t read that part of the complaint.  Anyways....keep posting tweets lol

[John Adams]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

You're terrible at this.

 

DRINK!

[whatdrought]

1 minute ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Probably nothing.  But no harm I guess.  Maybe they can provide additional context?

 

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.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, John Adams said:

 

2 - He said Trump didn't withhold the funding. (He did)

 

There's been zero evidence of this but hearsay. None. It's not real -- like the "all 17 intel agencies agreed with the ICA" line. 

[Numark3]

Just now, John Adams said:

 

DR was wrong about a lot of stuff yesterday (like most days). 

 

1 - He said Zelensky brought up US aid on the call first. (He didn't.)

2 - He said Trump didn't withhold the funding. (He did)

 

He's trying really hard to fit everything into his "Trump is a white knight" narrative. On this topic, it's not working. 

 

He's out doing another Twitter search now. Give him some more time. 

 

Its maddening to see him do it so frequently 

Just now, whatdrought said:

 

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.

 

Yea it might not be anything of value.  But a dozen White House officials are probably worth talking to just to be sure.  If anything, it can confirm the transcript is accurate and nothing was missing or said before/after.  Isn’t that something?

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[whatdrought]

2 minutes ago, Capco said:

Some of you are trying to say that if this EXACT situation happened to Obama in 2011 that you (the same people rushing to Trump's defense) would also be rushing to Obama's defense as Republicans in Congress tried to use a whistleblower complaint and a transcripted phone call to impeach a duly elected president, right?  Hahaha. 

 

Some of you would be jumping on this and get caught up just as hard if not harder as some of the Never-Trumpers are now.  The history of Obama's presidency post 2010 midterms makes that very clear. 

 

Imagine #WalkAway referring to Republicans telling other Republicans to change party because Obama was being unfairly besmirched by the opposition at every level.  

 

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?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[whatdrought]

3 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Its maddening to see him do it so frequently 

 

Yea it might not be anything of value.  But a dozen White House officials are probably worth talking to just to be sure.  If anything, it can confirm the transcript is accurate and nothing was missing or said before/after.  Isn’t that something?

 

 

 

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. 

[Rob's House]

3 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

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.

We need a leftist to tell us what dog whistles we're made on the call.

 

A dog whistle is a statement that can only be heard by someone with the correct bias.

[Numark3]

Just now, whatdrought said:

 

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. 

 

Yea, true.  But I’m just answering your questions.

 

nothing says impeach to me so far.  But let’s investigate and see?  It’s going to be a circus with lots of lies, but that’s our climate now