Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by mchammer, Sep 24, 2019.
It's not the Daily Caller.
@Garmel are you laughing because you were gullible?
The headline of that article could have easily been "Schiff asks biased question of Volker during sworn testimony"
Of course, that wouldn't have prompted @horninchicago to quickly post it here and the "I KNEW they were corrupt" responses.
Sorry, Daily Wire. You can have your pick of conerservative or progressive blogging sites. The question still stands, is the Daily Wire part of the MSM or are they explicably imune from your ire? Enquiring minds want to know.
Gullible? This from the guy who has bought into every MSM anti-Trump story? Watching you act like you have completely debunked this story is hilarious.
SH believes anything negative reported about Trump but not Schiff. Okay.
@Garmel and @horninchicago is this seriously the story you want to blow your credibility on?
That's not an answer. You might even say it's a bit Elizabeth Warren-like. Keep moving forward never admitting you might have been wrong, right?
From the guy who has already blown his credibility a thousand times? If you have proof show us where this story isn't true. The conjecture you put up earlier isn't proof. At this point I'll believe anything negative about Schiff after the crap he has pulled.
So what is incorrect about it? If any leaks or “reports” about Trump or any republican come out, you don’t discredit them.
I freely admit I don’t spend nearly as much time on this stuff as you seem to, so, please, tell me where I’m going wrong. How do you know Schiff didn’t pressure him? How do you know that isn’t accurate as to how the questioning went? After all, Schiff, et al, aren’t releasing anything.
BTW, I’m not concerned about losing credibility with you. Surprised I had it in the first place.
There it is which is deliciously ironic given @horninchicago 's simultaneous claims that I'm unable to see through my own anti-Trump bias to see this article for what it is.
It's okay for him to believe an MSM story but if a conservative story goes negative against Schiff, who we know is a liar, we're wrong.
Notice I haven't debated that Schiff actually said this? In fact I believe he did this. @Mr. Deez can weigh in but I suspect prosecutors often pressure witnesses to divulge damaging information. At least it occurrs a lot in court room movie scenes.
What I'm calling into question is the inference that it was a clandestined meeting that would have occurred on the same day as Volkers 6(?) Hours of testimony. Can I assume you think it was a private meeting with Schiff or did you think it a seminal moment in the impeachment inquiry that Schiff asked Volker a biased question in front of Ds and Rs at the sworn deposition?
If you claim you have an anti-Trump bias,there goes your credibility, which I’m sure you don’t care about.
That article implied a clandestine meeting? I must have posted the wrong article. Oh wait, no, I didn’t. That article made clear that was all from the closed door testimony.
Except Schiff has shown himself to actually have lied at the beginning of this farce. We're not talking about a boastful ego thing. he actually lied in the opening testimony. He has shown to be corrupt to his very core.
I've never said I don't have an anti-Trump bias. We all have biases just like you have a Pro-Trump anti-progessive bias, right? The mere presence of a bias doesn't automatically remove credibility. It's the conclusions one reaches after being presented with the evidence that ultimately impacts credibility. At this point in time we don't know if Schiff met with Volker privately to pressure him, as the article you posted inferred, or if it was done in full view of the committee's. My money is on the latter but I'll happily take my swig of mea culpa should the former be proven.
If I were you I wouldn't stand so far out on the edge of the limb though.
I have an anti-Loon bias.
Man...if ONLY you applied that same logic to Trump we might actually find agreement more often.
There's also a difference between Schiff trying to be a prosecutor and actually trying to pressure the witness to say something untruthful. He's pressuring the witness to be untruthful.
I'll consider that confirmation of my comment. Thank you.
Just curious where you received your Juris Doctorate from. Willing to share that info here?
Your comment was rambling drivel, so I can confirm that as well. You’re welcome.
I'll just put you in the clandestined meeting category. Have a wonderful day.
Heh, this is mostly in fun as I know I will never change your views and you won’t change mine. The country will be better off with 4 more years Trump vs. any of he train wrecks running on the Democratic side.
I believe I'm correct but I'll get some lawyer friends to take a look at it. Of course, if you ask a hundred lawyers the same question you'll get a hundred different answers.
As soon as Trump leads an impeachment inquiry and openly lies in front of America then we might come to an agreement. You know, something important.
As an aside, the Washington Examiner article referenced by the Daily Wire also describes the meeting as a "secret" meeting. It goes on to say as if this is new news.
Not until you get to the end do you recognize that it actually was the Volker testimony because they reference a different Representative following up on Schiff's line of questions.
I just get a chuckle at the attempt by these conservative new sources to paint a meeting everyone and their mother knew was occurring behind closed doors, like ALL depositions, as "secret". Afterall, media literally is camped outside the room.
Are you claiming that nothing Trump says is important? Tisk tisk. And you call yourself a good Trump supporter?
Please, you know damn well Schiff is a bad actor and he's running this **** behind closed doors. This is Washington's corruption at it's finest and you have no problem with it.
You're reading into **** that isn't even there. By definition this is a secret meeting. A secret meeting being run by one of the most corrupt men in Washington.