Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, a paraphrase would be what the paraphrase-er deems to be the gist of the conversation.
par·a·phrase
/ˈperəˌfrāz/
verb express the meaning of (the writer or speaker or something written or spoken) using different words, especially to achieve greater clarity.
Yes, the gist of the conversation, not the I'm going to lie my ass off in front of congress, that suits my agenda. But do tell, what greater clarity did he provide, after the actual transcript was out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Are you arguing that he didn't actually believe his summation was "expressing the meaning" of Trump's phone call with Zelensky?
Of course not, if he did, why did he walk it back?
Yes, the gist of the conversation, not the I'm going to lie my ass off in front of congress, that suits my agenda. But do tell, what greater clarity did he provide, after the actual transcript was out?
Of course not, if he did, why did he walk it back?
He didn't walk anything back. He reiterated that it was a paraphrasing or summary of his opinion of the thrust of the conversation.
The definition is right there in black and white for anyone with enough intelligence to read and comprehend.
Was the transcript already out? Simple question, yes or no? It's a simple question, that people who can follow the bouncing ball should be able to figure out......lets see what you say? Have you figured it out?
Was the transcript already out? Simple question, yes or no? It's a simple question, that people who can follow the bouncing ball should be able to figure out......lets see what you say? Have you figured it out?
What bearing does that have on your contention that Schiff "lied"? Oh, that's right! None.
1) He didn't do it.
2) Ok, he did it but it's not a crime.
3) He did it, and it's a crime, but it was a setup!
Trump Boot Lickers crack me up. You don't even try to deny his crimes any more. Instead, you accuse the investigators of malfeasance. "OHMIGOSH, the FBI spied on Trump". And why the hell wouldn't they? Trump stood on the world stage and proclaimed, "I have no deals with Russia". Remember that one? That was a total straight-up lie. That, not to mention that you have Trump's son bragging that they get most of their money from Russia. So why the hell wouldn't the FBI start paying closer attention? There were hundreds of contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia all along the way. Sorry, that's not normal. I'm damn glad that the FBI was watching him. Now, did they break any laws along the way? Maybe, and if so then they should suffer the consequences. But that doesn't let Trump off the hook. There's way too much evidence for that.
Since the beginning of the Russia investigation Trumpers have been screaming about corruption in the investigations. How many threads have you guys started about how investigators are all about to go to jail. "Subpoenas will be raining down on those dirty Democrats next week." Over and over again. And not a single arrest. Well wake up and smell the coffee. It's all a big diversion to get you guys to take your eyes of the ball of corruption that is Trump.
1) "He didn't do it." - You say that like it's crazy to even suggest he didn't do it (conspire with Russia to hack/influence the 2016 election) despite the fact that a two year investigation came to that conclusion. Not only could he not find conspiracy, there is evidence that Mueller came to that conclusion very early on soon after he was named Special Counsel and started pushing a BS "obstruction" narrative to save the reputation of the FBI and to cover up the highly unethical (and possibly illegal) tactics some high level FBI and DOJ officials used in their investigation of the Trump campaign. They've pushed this BS obstruction narrative for two years as a way to not only try to impeach the president (since there was no conspiracy) but also as a way to paint any legitimate effort by the Trump administration to defend themselves and to look into any possible violations of the FBI and DOJ's SOP for investigating a president or any potential future investigation by Trump's DOJ of possible violations of the law by the DOJ and intelligence community officials in the Trump Russia investigation. Although a highly hypocritical, arrogant, and devious plan/narrative by anti-Trump investigators in the Deep State, it's actually a smart plan by anti-Trumpers to paint any pushback no matter how legitimate by Trump or his administration as further proof of "obstruction".
2) "Ok. He did it but it's not a crime" - He didn't do anything illegal. That's the point that Trump supporters (or "cultists" as you people call them) are trying to get through to you guys. Meeting or having "contact" with Russians is not a crime no matter how badly y'all want it to be. Discussing a Trump tower project in Moscow with Russians or even Putin himself (a project that never even happened btw) before becoming President is not a crime either no matter how badly y'all want it to be. A campaign staffer having a conversation with a foreigner with "Russian contacts" about having "dirt on Hillary" in the form of e-mails when you don't have the e-mails and conspired with no one to get or release them especially when there is evidence that the person with "Russian contacts" is likely a Western (or friendly) asset trying to set you up is not a crime at least a crime on the part of the campaign staffer. No evidence of Trump Russia conspiracy being found by Mueller despite the White House's release of 1.4 MILLION documents and 2,300 subpoenas not only proves there's no evidence of conspiracy but also makes the allegations of "obstruction" look even more ridiculous.
3) He did it, and it's a crime, but "it was a setup" - Even if you overlook the incredibly shady (and arguably unconstitutional and illegal) tactics the investigators used against Trump, I would have been totally willing to agree that Trump should be impeached and removed from office if there was solid evidence that he did in fact conspire with Russians to unfairly win the 2016 election. I was totally on board with his impeachment when Mueller was first appointed because I assumed (perhaps naively) that the investigation into Russian election interference was completely above board and legitimate because I assumed the FBI must have uncovered enough very strong evidence of conspiracy to be able to prove Trump Russia conspiracy in a clear and convincing way. Unlike the modern day Democratic party, non-establishment non-RINO Republicans and most moderates and independents still believe in the rule of law and in innocent until proven guilty and silly things like ACTUAL PROOF AND EVIDENCE of a crime before they're convinced that impeachment is appropriate. That goes for all presidents including those we strongly disagree with.
I realize the traditional standard of justice of "innocent until proven guilty" our country was founded on and has operated under the entire life of our country since it was founded in the late 1700s is out of fashion with the left and other anti-Trumpers (see the Kavanaugh hearing fiasco and the ridiculous bogus Trump Russia investigation as examples) because it didn't satisfy the bloodlust of those who want Trump removed from office but a lot of people still believe it's not worth throwing out the Constitution, supporting the weaponization of the intelligence community against political opponents, and throwing out due process just to get rid of a politician we disagree with or don't like. Then again, I guess those of us who aren't willing to flush our civil liberties or even the civil liberties of those we disagree with (even presidents we hate) just for the sake of political power or to punish our political enemies isn't worth it. If that makes those people "cultists" then count me as a cultist.
"In part" a parody. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together could tell that if they listened to what he said.
The point being he was forthright, from the beginning, that this wasn't a literal transcript or recounting of what was said.
It's certainly no more egregious a misrepresentation than Trump himself has been guilty of time and time again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
