Originally posted by Sparko
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Alexander Vindman and his twin brother were abruptly fired
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostWhat parts were redacted JimL? Show me the blacked out parts where they redacted anything.Last edited by JimL; 02-11-2020, 04:15 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostWell, of course you don't believe the testimony, under oath, of Vindman who testified that parts of the transcript summary was missing. Second, I read the transcript itself, which was said to be a thirty minute call, and what is actually there only amounts to a 10 minute conversation at best. Besides that, if there was nothing of the original convesation to hide, then White House Council, Eisenberg, wouldn't have suggested it be hidden away on a highly classified server as soon as Vindman reported it to Eisenberg. Common sense!
*sorry, I just felt the need to be dramaticThe first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostYou know, Jim, if the House Mangers had put you in charge of the scam impeachment, instead of lying Schiff and his flying monkeys*, you might have gotten the Senate to vote to remove!
*sorry, I just felt the need to be dramatic
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostInsinuations without evidence don't help your case, CP.
It just makes you look naive and easily led.
*sorry, I just felt the need to be dramaticThe first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimLamebrain View PostWell, of course you don't believe the testimony, under oath, of Vindman who testified that parts of the transcript summary was missing. Second, I read the transcript itself, which was said to be a thirty minute call, and what is actually there only amounts to a 10 minute conversation at best. Besides that, if there was nothing of the original convesation to hide, then White House Council, Eisenberg, wouldn't have suggested it be hidden away on a highly classified server as soon as Vindman reported it to Eisenberg. Common sense!
Second, I believe they were speaking through interpreters which will slow down any conservation and explains why the transcript appears short for a 30-conversation.
But keep pushing those wild-eyed conspiracy theories. They might pan out one of these days.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThat's because you're not introspective, CP.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostWell, of course you don't believe the testimony, under oath, of Vindman who testified that parts of the transcript summary was missing. Second, I read the transcript itself, which was said to be a thirty minute call, and what is actually there only amounts to a 10 minute conversation at best. Besides that, if there was nothing of the original convesation to hide, then White House Council, Eisenberg, wouldn't have suggested it be hidden away on a highly classified server as soon as Vindman reported it to Eisenberg. Common sense!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostFirst of all, we only have Vindman's word that some content was left out.
At the time, he proposed additions and alterations, some of which were accepted, others which were rejected by people who were themselves witnesses to the call.
Second, I believe they were speaking through interpreters which will slow down any conservation and explains why the transcript appears short for a 30-conversation.
But keep pushing those wild-eyed conspiracy theories. They might pan out one of these days.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimLamebrain View PostBelieving a highly credible witnesses testimony under oath...
Vindman is not "highly credible", and lying under oath is not unheard of in a legal proceeding.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 11:24 AM
|
3 responses
39 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 11:16 PM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, Yesterday, 09:13 AM
|
14 responses
92 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by eider
Yesterday, 11:43 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 06-02-2024, 09:15 AM
|
27 responses
117 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 09:41 PM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, 06-01-2024, 04:11 PM
|
14 responses
100 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Yesterday, 08:11 AM
|
||
Started by seer, 06-01-2024, 03:50 PM
|
2 responses
55 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
06-02-2024, 06:35 AM
|
Comment