The Impeachment Thread

#19,811
#19,811
NorthDallas40 said:
Nice try.

Your first post asked “so... not a transcript?”

In your next post you asked “so consensus it isn’t a transcript”

during that I engaged you multiple times asking for a link to a more complete transcript or to an official with direct knowledge attacking the transcript. You ignored all of them. Because you have nothing to offer in reply.

The fact is it is the most complete record we’ve got and absolutely nobody has gone on record saying the content is not accurate.

You have continually been a part of “release the real transcript” camp. All you are doing is attempting to discredit the WH transcript again because it’s all you’ve got

Nobody can produce a more accurate record or even state one exists. When this all started I said let’s put the Situation Room stenographers under oath and ask them. I still think we should.

However the Morrisson transcript today utterly shreds Vindman. He stated outright he incorporated all of Vindmans edits. So one of them is lying. Wonder which one? The one who has already been labeled a leaker and purposely excluded from events due to security concerns. 🤔

U LOSE counselor. Your “not a transcript” narrative is DOA. I attacked your inability to provide an alternate document. You don’t have one. And if it hasn’t shown up now I’d guess you won’t be able to.

You can now do another elitist reply trying to show your superior intellect and wit to us red hat simple rubes and deflect away from my explanation if you like. At this point the elitist condescending reply is about all you and @evillawyer have left. Feel free to lace it with more cycling ad homs too. Or other ad homs again it’s all you have now. Enjoy
Click to expand...

There's no dispute that (1) the transcript is not a transcript in the commonly accepted sense of a word-for-word record of the phone call, and (2) we know that it is not "complete" because burisma was specifically mentioned on the call but is not found in the transcript. It looks like you're using the word "content" as synonymous with "substance." That's fine. That's one sense of the word. But the more common meaning is literally the "contents" of something; that is, everything that's included in that thing. Here, the "transcript" is incomplete--and therefore not completely accurate--because it does not contain the specific reference to burisma.
 
#19,815
#19,815
NorthDallas40 said:
Nice try.

Your first post asked “so... not a transcript?”

In your next post you asked “so consensus it isn’t a transcript”

during that I engaged you multiple times asking for a link to a more complete transcript or to an official with direct knowledge attacking the transcript. You ignored all of them. Because you have nothing to offer in reply.

The fact is it is the most complete record we’ve got and absolutely nobody has gone on record saying the content is not accurate.

You have continually been a part of “release the real transcript” camp. All you are doing is attempting to discredit the WH transcript again because it’s all you’ve got

Nobody can produce a more accurate record or even state one exists. When this all started I said let’s put the Situation Room stenographers under oath and ask them. I still think we should.

However the Morrisson transcript today utterly shreds Vindman. He stated outright he incorporated all of Vindmans edits. So one of them is lying. Wonder which one? The one who has already been labeled a leaker and purposely excluded from events due to security concerns. 🤔

U LOSE counselor. Your “not a transcript” narrative is DOA. I attacked your inability to provide an alternate document. You don’t have one. And if it hasn’t shown up now I’d guess you won’t be able to.

You can now do another elitist reply trying to show your superior intellect and wit to us red hat simple rubes and deflect away from my explanation if you like. At this point the elitist condescending reply is about all you and @evillawyer have left. Feel free to lace it with more cycling ad homs too. Or other ad homs again it’s all you have now. Enjoy
Click to expand...

While your points are accurate, I suggest you let Mickey continue to rant on this. I believe he’s clearly susceptible to regurgitating the narratives of the talking heads on the left.

The only thing this is going to lead to is severe disappointment. Their lead off witnesses were complete duds. The impeachment is DOA outside of the House.

🥚 👩
 
  • Like
Reactions: Franklin Pierce
#19,820
#19,820
evillawyer said:
There's no dispute that (1) the transcript is not a transcript in the commonly accepted sense of a word-for-word record of the phone call, and (2) we know that it is not "complete" because burisma was specifically mentioned on the call but is not found in the transcript. It looks like you're using the word "content" as synonymous with "substance." That's fine. That's one sense of the word. But the more common meaning is literally the "contents" of something; that is, everything that's included in that thing. Here, the "transcript" is incomplete--and therefore not completely accurate--because it does not contain the specific reference to burisma.
Click to expand...
There is indeed a dispute. What was released is exactly on par with every other WH phone log transcript. Your side of the aisle is just desperately trying to come up with any means to discredit it and show it incomplete because it shows NOTHING illegal.

And I explicitly used content because I wanted to point out nobody is willing to go on record that any statement in that transcript is not accurate. Nobody will give you girls that sound bite.

You attempting to substitute substance for content again is trying to sell the “not a transcript” narrative. It’s the only document that exists. Nobody you keep trotting our will state it isn’t factual. And nobody except primarily Vindman who was shredded today and Williams who bailed on you yesterday would even try to offer support.

All you’ve got left is Vindman on content of the transcript. He’s going to get shredded from Morrison’s deposition transcript. At this point I’m wondering if Schitt is even going to call him.

So you’re all in on Sondland getting you to the promised land. He’s no where near as cooperative as Vindman and he’s got issues too with his amendments.

U LOSE simply put girl. What has been offered but not proven to date comes no where near “high crimes and misdemeanors” and you Dims cannot even sell that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volinsd and VolnJC
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top