John Solomon refutes Vindmans testimony his reporting was innaccurate

a reply to: Dfairlite
If it is off the record then how would that mean he perjured himself?

Let's keep things straight we are not talking about how they could have communicated. We are talking about what is on the record. The record shows that he only spoke about what Trump told him so it isn't perjury. Which was what you brought up first as...

a reply to: daskakik

If it is off the record then how would that mean he perjured himself?

It wouldn't

The record shows that he only spoke about what Trump told him so it isn't perjury.

oooooooohhhh I see your angle. I believe that sondland testified that the call took place on the 9th. He said he vividly remembered it because of taylor's text message on the morning of the 9th. But I'd have to look up the transcript to confirm.

To make myself clear, I don't think that sondland perjured himself.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
To make myself clear, I don't think that sondland perjured himself.

So why this:

So you're suggesting sondland is a perjurer?

Grimpachi didn't say that. He was putting it on trump, which makes me think we sorted out, maybe?

a reply to: daskakik

Grimpachi wants to insinuate things then backtrack from them. What is the point of saying that the phone call sondland testified to (between himself and trump) didn't happen, if not to accuse sondland of perjury? The purpose for the accusation, that makes sense to me, is to say it never happened and trump never said that. Ergo, trump withheld aid for help with a political campaign or whatever their impeachable offense if the day is, not for other reasons.

Thats a sincere question I have. What does this contention that the phone call may not have happened, prove?

I really hate it when people try to attribute things to me that I never said.

"So you're contending that >Trump stages text specifically saying "no quid pro quo" Do I have that right? "

No

"But isn't that your whole point? Trump knew what he was accused of so he made a trail of plausible deniability?"

No


"So you're suggesting sondland is a perjurer?"

No

You keep asking me if I am saying things I never said. No is a simple answer that you should have an easy time understanding. If I have something to say I say it. Like when I said "And yeah I am saying that Trump's appointee let Trump know about the complaint." And either that day or the next news broke that Trump had been briefed on the Whistleblower complaint near the end of August.

I have added facts about the case like there is no record of the Sept 9 No QPQ call. If you are connecting the dots and comming up with the idea that Trump was trying to cover his tracks or something that is on you. My advice is go with it because your instincts may be right.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I hate it when people want you to go some direction then say that's not what they're doing but then refuse to clarify what it is they're doing. So let me ask one more time:

What do you think it proves if trump was aware of the "whistleblower" complaint before the no QPQ phone call?

That's all I've wanted out of you. The truth is, your motive is exactly as I've ascribed but you know it has more holes than finely aged swiss cheese and you don't want to look like a fool. Otherwise you'd clearly spell out what it is you believe that proves. Here we are a page and a half later having made no progress because you're acting like a petulant child.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Before I could claim to know what it proves I would need to know just how much Trump was briefed on WB complaint back in August by his staff and lawyers. Did they know that Schiff and the House were aware that the complaint was filed at that time or did they think that Trump's appointee Joseph Maguire Acting Director of National Intelligence would be able to keep it hidden from Congress? That is an important piece of information that we are missing.

According to 1 50 U.S.C. 2 50 U.S.C. 3033(k)(5)(A) requires that upon receipt of a transmittal from the Inspector general. . .the Director shall, within 7 calendar days of such receipt, forward such transmittal to the congressional intelligence committees,together with any comments the Director considers appropriate.
The statute does not provide the Director of National Intelligence with discretion to withhold a whistleblower disclosure. He had the authority to add any comments that he thought appropriate but it was to be delivered no later than September 2, 2019.

Sept 10 Schiff sent a letter to Maguire questioning why the WB report had not been forwarded yet and reminding him of his duty. The whole thing raises more questions. Did Maguire withhold the report at his own discretion or did he receive direction from the Whitehouse to bury it? We don't know because Maguire refuses to confirm or deny either. We can better guess the motivation if we knew when the Whitehouse and Maguire became aware that Schiff had knowledge of the report being filled.

Him knowing the whistleblower complaint was about QPQ then claiming afterword that he didn't want a QPQ is almost as believable as Tricky Dick stating he was not a crook.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Before I could claim to know what it proves...

Lucky for you, I'm not asking what you know it proves. I'm asking, specifically, what you think it proves. You can be wrong. It's ok. I'm wrong from time to time, just like all of us. Quit being so defensive and have a real conversation for once. So what do you think it proves?

What's with your hard on for me to make a claim based on a single piece of information?

I don't like to be like those idiots that jump at a scrap of info then make dumb claims. This impeachment has a lot of parts there are testimonies, texts, memos, moves made by Whitehouse associates many of which refuse to testify, public and private statements made by the president on the subject. What seems to be a shadow policy that was being implemented and kept out of proper channels, and the timeline for all of it matters.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I know, you're not used to people being interested in what you think, but I am. I like to understand what people think and why.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Find someone else to... whatever it is you think you are doing. Maybe find a shrink and let them know about your need to analyze others. Who knows maybe they will put you on track for a career or write you a script to help deal with your needs.

a reply to: Grimpachi

LOL, well I can't say I've ever met a bigger dick on this board than you. So congrats.

ETA:
The best part is you and I both know what you're thinking and where you're going, you've spelled it out a few times but when pressed at all to come out and actually say it, you backtrack. It's really kind of funny. I guess if I had bought hook line and sinker into all the prior trump conspiracies I might be hesitant to admit I was doing it again too.

a reply to: Dfairlite

You seem to have issues and I don't want to be dragged into them. I am almost interested in what you think I won't say, but if I asked I am pretty sure you would slide back into whatever creepy game you are playing.

I offered facts and information on the subject of the impeachment, you made some conclusions of what that information meant then tried to make it like I was telling you what it all meant. That is cowardly. I never told you what to think and you seem very upset about it.

Calling me a dick because I won't play your game or tell you what to think... well you should go look in the mirror because I am pretty sure you will see a big a##hole.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Oh this is too good!

You seem to have issues and I don't want to be dragged into them.

Yes, curiosity is probably foreign to you.

I am almost interested in what you think I won't say, but if I asked I am pretty sure you would slide back into whatever creepy game you are playing.

...I've already said it, like four times. Can you read? Can you comprehend what you read?

I offered facts and information on the subject of the impeachment, you made some conclusions of what that information meant then tried to make it like I was telling you what it all meant.

No, I asked you what you *thought* they meant. I know this is hard. I've only told you multiple times that I wondered what you thought about it, but hey you don't seem to have thoughts, so kudos to you on that. It's impressive.

I never told you what to think and you seem very upset about it.

No, you never told me what you think... I know what I think. I asked what you think. I think you're relying on "sources familiar with..." and very narrow "white house call records" as the only means of possible communications to justify your taking of the current bait. It's hilarious to watch you guys fall flat on your face over and over. What's entertaining about this conversation is that you seem subconsciously aware you're going to fall on your face (evidenced by your refusal to write in plain english that you're taking the bait) but are also unwilling to come out and express skepticism about maybe falling on your face in the near future.

Calling me a dick because I won't play your game or tell you what to think...

I called you a dick because you basically called me mentally ill for being curious about your thinking. It was accurate.

well you should go look in the mirror because I am pretty sure you will see a big a##hole.

You'll get no argument from me there. So lets run full steam ahead with that and look at the following paragraph from your prior post that really is a microcosm to the game that you're playing:

I don't like to be like those idiots that jump at a scrap of info then make dumb claims. This impeachment has a lot of parts there are testimonies, texts, memos, moves made by Whitehouse associates many of which refuse to testify, public and private statements made by the president on the subject. What seems to be a shadow policy that was being implemented and kept out of proper channels, and the timeline for all of it matters.

You start off calling the people who buy hook line and sinker into all these "facts" idiots. Then your next line was an attempt at stating facts but it was betrayed when you couldn't help but put the "refuse to testify" portion in there (yes, it's factual, but it's irrelevant to the other facts in the sentence). You're trying to hedge your bets but you just can't quite help it... "We got drumpf this time!" nearly slipped out but you subdued it (this is metaphorical). Then, like a dog to vomit you show your true colors in the next sentence with phrases like "shadow policy" and "proper channels." See under any administration you viewed semi-favorably these would be known as simply "policy" and "back-channels."

The words you use betray your attempts at "neutrality." The sources you believe confirm it. Your inability to admit it out loud, while funny, is sad. You're just another narrative parrot but one that's too scared to admit to himself the reality of it. Have a great rest of your day.

Pay attention!

If Trump runs for the next election I have stated here on ATS that I will vote for him. I don't like him, but some of the things he has done have been what I think are correct. He is the lesser of two evils when compared to democrats, but I will not act like what can only be considered a Trumptard or libtard where they make up "facts" and ignore real facts just to satisfy a confirmation bias.
You have stated what you thought I meant and I told you "NO" that wasn't what I thought then later you basically call me a liar well I got nothing but a middle finger to show you.
And to be clear I call people idiots that latch on to a single fact or scrap of info then proceed to make assumptions. I have seen plenty of threads with those idiots claiming things like Treason or that some person is anti-Trump because they said something that didn't paint Trump in a good light.

Facts are facts even if you don't like them. Backchannels are one thing but pushing an agenda that you keep secret from those officially entrusted with furthering the policy of the united states is a shadow policy and if you think different then tough. I get the impression you think facts are bait.

The only bait I have seen is what you have been doing. You kept trying to draw me into making some claim about the impeachment all based on a single event. Maybe you resorted to playing games because I kept shutting down your incorrect claims about the facts. Aug 12 was when the WB complaint was filled not the date you claimed that the WB met with Schiff. You claimed no one knew about the whistleblower complain until Sept 9. I showed that Trump had been briefed on it near the end of August by WH lawyer and council. You claimed Director Maguire Tumps appointee for National Intelligence looked at the complaint and I quote "The same trump appointee who looked through it and said it had basis only to later actually find out it had none??" Then I showed he tried to conceal the whistleblower disclosure from congress which he had neither the legal authority nor the discretion to overrule a determination by the IC IG. He refused to follow the statute to provide the whistleblower with required direction, through the IC IG, on how to contact the Committee directly in a secure manner and that he refuses to affirm or deny that he that officials or lawyers at the White House have been involved in his decision to withhold the complaint from the Committee.

Looking back I can see why you have an aversion to facts and have switched to playing some game trying to bait me into making claims. Have a nice day.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Grimpachi wants to insinuate things then backtrack from them.

Did they or is that what you want to see?

What is the point of saying that the phone call sondland testified to (between himself and trump) didn't happen, if not to accuse sondland of perjury?

I didn't see anyone say it didn't happen so the foregoing insinuation isn't really there.

The purpose for the accusation, that makes sense to me, is to say it never happened and trump never said that. Ergo, trump withheld aid for help with a political campaign or whatever their impeachable offense if the day is, not for other reasons.

Did anyone actually say it never happened? Honest question. Sometimes things get overlooked.

a reply to: daskakik

I didn't see anyone say it didn't happen so the foregoing insinuation isn't really there.

Then you have been skipping posts and not reading linked articles.

Here's just one time that it was said in a prior post:

Oh, and BTW it has come out that the claimed Sept 9th call never happened. Look it up. Search Sept 9th call.

So yes, right here in this thread it was claimed to have never happened.

Did anyone actually say it never happened?

See above. Grimpachi even gave me a link that he thought proved it didn't happen.

What is it with you guys and the inability to keep your story straight? I mean, grim told me he never backtracked earlier so I provided him with the quotes from our back and forth where he took seemingly contradictory positions (backtracking). Now you've forgotten that the entire basis of this two page discussion is whether the phone call happened or not and are seriously asking if anyone ever said it didn't happen.

I'm done in this thread unless you have something of substance to add. Here is my position:

The entire impeachment narrative is backwards as hell. It's based on insinuation not fact. Here are the cold hard facts which lay waste to the insinuations:
Sondland texted taylor: no quid pro quo of any kind.
Sondland testified: no one on this planet told him aid was tied to the investigations or announcement of them
The OMB rep testified: the reason he was given for the hold on aid was due to trump's concern that others weren't giving aid to ukraine.
The aid was released with no statement on the investigations
Trump met with zelensky with no statement on the investigations
Ukraine has said they weren't pressured into investigations

Let's pretend for a moment that there was some secret motive that really was tying the aid to the investigations. Does it matter? It's like the tree falling in the forest with no one around to hear it. Does it matter that it made a sound? The idea that such a well covered motive (ie, no one ever having been told that the motive was aid for investigations) is an impeachable offense is laughable. Especially when you consider that corruption investigations would be a quite legitimate reason to withhold foreign aid.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
What is it with you guys and the inability to keep your story straight?

Probably lack of caring.

I even quoted the post you linked.

You also posted

The articles I read have said that it likely wasn't on the 9th as there is no record of a call between them on that day.

We are a hot mess.

I'm done in this thread unless you have something of substance to add.

Sounds good.

Let's pretend for a moment that there was some secret motive that really was tying the aid to the investigations. Does it matter? It's like the tree falling in the forest with no one around to hear it. Does it matter that it made a sound? The idea that such a well covered motive (ie, no one ever having been told that the motive was aid for investigations) is an impeachable offense is laughable. Especially when you consider that corruption investigations would be a quite legitimate reason to withhold foreign aid.

That is a matter of opinion. Does it matter?