It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: mtnshredder
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Lumenari
More seriously though ... damning all the testimony as hearsay is absurd. The transcript of the call is known and attested to by the White House.
These “non-elected officials” make up the great bulk of the working staff of the United States Government ... so your idea is that they for some reason can’t testify to meetings, conversations, memos, etc. that they have had regarding the subject matter?
That’s absurd.
Attested or not, to say a transcript that is NOT verbatim and is someone’s recollection of a conversation is 100% factual is absurd isn’t it? This whole premise of this charade is in a sense hearsay in many respects.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66
Trump still resides at 1600 Pennsylvania ave; mueller got squat.
She lost to a reality tv star.
Nancy took the required vote.
In reality you understand very little and babble idly a lot.
originally posted by: Arnie123
Thanks for that OP, I appreciate the context.
His opinions on Taylor are exactly as expected them to be, Political Theatrics. He looked convincing, intelligent and composed, every they had hoped for at the Mueller hearing, which was an incoherent babble of sorts.
As for his views on the Dems case, he is essentially saying that there simply isn't enough to prove a crime and impeachable offense, the premise is too narrow in other words, they have no case.
As Steve Bannon said recently, this is the start of their 2020 Political Campaign.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: mtnshredder
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Lumenari
More seriously though ... damning all the testimony as hearsay is absurd. The transcript of the call is known and attested to by the White House.
These “non-elected officials” make up the great bulk of the working staff of the United States Government ... so your idea is that they for some reason can’t testify to meetings, conversations, memos, etc. that they have had regarding the subject matter?
That’s absurd.
Attested or not, to say a transcript that is NOT verbatim and is someone’s recollection of a conversation is 100% factual is absurd isn’t it? This whole premise of this charade is in a sense hearsay in many respects.
Claiming that the whistleblower (who hadn’t heard the phonecall at the time) was reporting on hearsay had some tiny relevance.
.
Claiming that these members of the NSC et. al. don’t have knowledge of the situation surrounding the call based on their meetings with principals involved, discussion of the situation via emails and in personal conversations ... is absurd.
originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Lumenari
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said tonight that he will not put President Trump on trial based on HearSay evidence. The House needs to do better, or drop the witch-hunt.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: mtnshredder
Yeah, I often read what other posters write and shake my head. Welcome.
See, that’s the thing. Some folks have seemed to retreat even further into a bubble where all input other than their chosen ideological programming is ignored. Bureaucrats aren’t leftists, they’re usually authoritarian. Perceiving a threat to the focus of the current cult-of-personality, Mr. Trump, doesn’t justify the complete denial of reason and logic seen on the part of his zealous groupies.
Use of the word “coup” in any way other than metaphorical regarding this sht-show is in my opinion merely a laughable repetition of partisan BS talking points. Kind of a tip-off or tell as it were to one’s real motivations lie.
Believe what you want as well, of course. For my part, I want to see less belief and more analysis.
Belief is what has gotten us into this mess. Best.
originally posted by: mtnshredder
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: mtnshredder
Yeah, I often read what other posters write and shake my head. Welcome.
See, that’s the thing. Some folks have seemed to retreat even further into a bubble where all input other than their chosen ideological programming is ignored. Bureaucrats aren’t leftists, they’re usually authoritarian. Perceiving a threat to the focus of the current cult-of-personality, Mr. Trump, doesn’t justify the complete denial of reason and logic seen on the part of his zealous groupies.
Use of the word “coup” in any way other than metaphorical regarding this sht-show is in my opinion merely a laughable repetition of partisan BS talking points. Kind of a tip-off or tell as it were to one’s real motivations lie.
Believe what you want as well, of course. For my part, I want to see less belief and more analysis.
Belief is what has gotten us into this mess. Best.
Did you say something?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: mtnshredder
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: mtnshredder
Yeah, I often read what other posters write and shake my head. Welcome.
See, that’s the thing. Some folks have seemed to retreat even further into a bubble where all input other than their chosen ideological programming is ignored. Bureaucrats aren’t leftists, they’re usually authoritarian. Perceiving a threat to the focus of the current cult-of-personality, Mr. Trump, doesn’t justify the complete denial of reason and logic seen on the part of his zealous groupies.
Use of the word “coup” in any way other than metaphorical regarding this sht-show is in my opinion merely a laughable repetition of partisan BS talking points. Kind of a tip-off or tell as it were to one’s real motivations lie.
Believe what you want as well, of course. For my part, I want to see less belief and more analysis.
Belief is what has gotten us into this mess. Best.
Did you say something?
Nah. Just making reasonable observations in front of a block wall.
It’s all good!
And so they made a lot of progress in establishing that the view of virtually everyone involved was that there was a quid pro quo connecting the military aid to an investigation of the Bidens. And also, I think they also made a nice connection at the very end of the hearing, when Chairman Schiff said that it's true that the military aid was indeed given to Ukraine without those demands being fulfilled. But it actually occurred 48 hours after it became known that the IG report involving this whistleblower had gone to Congress, and so the White House was aware that this was about to blow open into the public sphere.
originally posted by: Arnie123
As for his views on the Dems case, he is essentially saying that there simply isn't enough to prove a crime and impeachable offense, the premise is too narrow in other words, they have no case.