Pres Trump can legally "out" the whistleblower

Jan 2015
53,966
16,110
Great State of Texas
The witnesses opening statements were freely distributed.

There are people who truly believe that the WB is a traitor and would feel justified in physically harming them.

It seems to me that Sondland decided he wasn't going to sacrifice himself for the orange idiot.
The Leaker, Eric Ciaramella, is in no danger except for being exposed as a fraud.
 
Jan 2012
1,075
382
SoCal
The witnesses opening statements were freely distributed.

There are people who truly believe that the WB is a traitor and would feel justified in physically harming them.

It seems to me that Sondland decided he wasn't going to sacrifice himself for the orange idiot.
They were freely leaked in many cases.

That said what can you draw from an opening statement?

I mean that seriously. If you were to go to a trial and listen to only the opening statement from the prosecutor and nothing else, are you making an informed conclusion?
 
Dec 2006
90,105
70,266
In the Witness Protection Program
Let's take your claim at 100% on the money... wouldn't the best course of action then to publicly testify and show how different and truthful the whistleblower is in comparison to insane, ranting Trump tweets?

If I went about this post and decided to systematically and dishonestly attempted to discredit you, would the HayJenn best response be to go hide in a corner while saying and doing nothing?

Also point blank since these have been closed sessions and we don't have all the transcripts any claims or judgements drawn from them at this stage should be treated as lacking credibility. If this were a court hearing it would be like hearing the leaked opening statement of the prosecutor and nothing else. Why would or should anyone draw conclusions from a few leaks and bits of gossip?



If you believe speech is the same as an action or saying someone's name is the same thing as a threat then you are creating and endorsing an authoritarian police state. That is both sick and terrifying.



I'm pretty sure what you are asserting was spood fed to you or are you claiming you read all 379 pages of it?

That said when most witnesses reverse themselves does that make them more credible or less credible?

If I swore in testimony that TennesseRain didn't rape a puppy and then revised my testimony to say that he did rape a puppy which version is to be believed? Am I more credible when I give you the answer you want? He reversed himself. He didn't just add a few details or change a few particulars. This wasn't something like I thought it happened on Friday but turns out it was Thursday. Why should someone be trusted and believed when they reverse themselves in testimony?
Yes. I read it. And he changed his testimony because, after hearing what the others said, he knew congress had him dead to rights on perjury charges. There are times when someone reversed themselves and what they Said the second time is more believable. This is certainly one of these times.

And next time you post to me, show some fucking class and don’t infer that I’d rape a puppy. That’s some seriously sick shit right there.
 

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
77,965
69,809
So. Md.
They were freely leaked in many cases.

That said what can you draw from an opening statement?

I mean that seriously. If you were to go to a trial and listen to only the opening statement from the prosecutor and nothing else, are you making an informed conclusion?
The opening statements were not leaked. And any testimony that is not classified can be shown to the public and that's what has been done.

I'm the one who is perfectly content to allow the impeachment inquiry to follow its natural course and allow the Intelligence Committee to collect its evidence and then it will be turned over to the Judiciary Committee and the hearing will be public where we'll all get to hear the evidence. It's Trumpsters who insist an impeachment vote be held NOW! Before all of the testimony has been heard.

BTW, if there was anything good for Trump in the closed hearings, you can bet your ass the Republicans on the Intelligence Committee would have leaked it far and wide by now. There just isn't anything good for Trump in those hearings.
 
  • Love
Reactions: the bull59
Jan 2012
1,075
382
SoCal
Yes. I read it. And he changed his testimony because, after hearing what the others said, he knew congress had him dead to rights on perjury charges. There are times when someone reversed themselves and what they Said the second time is more believable. This is certainly one of these times.

And next time you post to me, show some fucking class and don’t infer that I’d rape a puppy. That’s some seriously sick shit right there.
So he's a liar but since he was caught lying now he is telling the truth and so that makes him... a truthful liar?

What would your preferred analogy be when discussing perjury? Does it really matter? Shouldn't the point be the perjury and lack of credibility?

That is the motive of using shock with the puppy point. The real point should be when someone is lying, it doesn't really matter what it is about... they are a liar.

You say this man perjured himself and then reversed that perjury under threat or prosecution. Does that mean the prosecution is credible? Does it mean he is credible when altering testimony under that threat of prosecution? Does it mean he was credible the first time?

You don't want to seem to focus on the main points. If a puppy can help with that then I'll use them.

If I testify that you didn't rape a puppy... Am I credible?

If I change and reverse my testimony that you did rape a puppy...Am I credible?

If you claim the reason I changed my testimony is because the prosecution declared I was perjurying myself and under their threat to prosecute me, I reversed and revised my testimony from you not raping a puppy to having raped a puppy...Am I credible?

There's only one real question there... AM I CREDIBLE?

In my view a witness cannot fully reverse themselves and be credible. Either they lied the first time or the second. Either way they are a liar.

I mean look at your own words.... we are talking about impeachment and you are uttering phrases like MORE BELIEVABLE.

This is supposed to be about facts and high crimes. This isn't supposed to be about two conflicting statements but one of them is now MORE BELIEVABLE.

Such thinking is more offensive to me than mean puppy analogies. We can't have such nonsense be a system of justice.
 
Jan 2015
53,966
16,110
Great State of Texas
The opening statements were not leaked. And any testimony that is not classified can be shown to the public and that's what has been done.

I'm the one who is perfectly content to allow the impeachment inquiry to follow its natural course and allow the Intelligence Committee to collect its evidence and then it will be turned over to the Judiciary Committee and the hearing will be public where we'll all get to hear the evidence. It's Trumpsters who insist an impeachment vote be held NOW! Before all of the testimony has been heard.

BTW, if there was anything good for Trump in the closed hearings, you can bet your ass the Republicans on the Intelligence Committee would have leaked it far and wide by now. There just isn't anything good for Trump in those hearings.
No it's not.

You are parroting fake news ..... AGAIN.

The only thing Adam Schitt leaked was Sondland's opening statement.

Nothing else .... including Rep. John Ratcliffe's questions to Sondland.

So all the Sheeple hear, are the damning accusations in the opening statement.

Not the rest of the transcrpit where the Republicans prove Sondland's testimony to be meaningless.

What excuse do you give for Schitt only leaking his selected out of context parts of the transcripts?

Don't cite classified.

Schitt has already stated there is no classifed information being discussed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trumptman

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
77,965
69,809
So. Md.
So he's a liar but since he was caught lying now he is telling the truth and so that makes him... a truthful liar?

What would your preferred analogy be when discussing perjury? Does it really matter? Shouldn't the point be the perjury and lack of credibility?

That is the motive of using shock with the puppy point. The real point should be when someone is lying, it doesn't really matter what it is about... they are a liar.

You say this man perjured himself and then reversed that perjury under threat or prosecution. Does that mean the prosecution is credible? Does it mean he is credible when altering testimony under that threat of prosecution? Does it mean he was credible the first time?

You don't want to seem to focus on the main points. If a puppy can help with that then I'll use them.

If I testify that you didn't rape a puppy... Am I credible?

If I change and reverse my testimony that you did rape a puppy...Am I credible?

If you claim the reason I changed my testimony is because the prosecution declared I was perjurying myself and under their threat to prosecute me, I reversed and revised my testimony from you not raping a puppy to having raped a puppy...Am I credible?

There's only one real question there... AM I CREDIBLE?

In my view a witness cannot fully reverse themselves and be credible. Either they lied the first time or the second. Either way they are a liar.

I mean look at your own words.... we are talking about impeachment and you are uttering phrases like MORE BELIEVABLE.

This is supposed to be about facts and high crimes. This isn't supposed to be about two conflicting statements but one of them is now MORE BELIEVABLE.

Such thinking is more offensive to me than mean puppy analogies. We can't have such nonsense be a system of justice.
He wanted to avoid a perjury charge. It's that simple. Trump is not worth that.
 
Jan 2012
1,075
382
SoCal
He wanted to avoid a perjury charge. It's that simple. Trump is not worth that.
Don't most people avoid a perjury charge by not lying in their testimony?

You say he perjured himself and thus we should believe him....

That is just nuts.

Make the cause a dozen different ways with a hundred other witnesses. Use the same standard.

Trump is not worth....destroying our entire justice system and fighting for impeachment with phrases like "more believable" or gave proper testimony under threat of perjury charges.

That sounds like a banana republic.
 

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
77,965
69,809
So. Md.
No it's not.

You are parroting fake news ..... AGAIN.

The only thing Adam Schitt leaked was Sondland's opening statement.

Nothing else .... including Rep. John Ratcliffe's questions to Sondland.

So all the Sheeple hear, are the damning accusations in the opening statement.

Not the rest of the transcrpit where the Republicans prove Sondland's testimony to be meaningless.

What excuse do you give for Schitt only leaking his selected out of context parts of the transcripts?

Don't cite classified.

Schitt has already stated there is no classifed information being discussed.
That's not true. Vindman's, Yavonovitch's, Taylor's and Sondland's opening statements have all been released to the public.





How do you explain that none of the Republicans on the Intelligence Committee have leaked anything good coming out of these hearings? You know damn well they would if there was anything good for Trump. There just isn't.
 
  • Love
Reactions: the bull59