Vindman just lied under oath…

That's right. For that reason the vote may fail in the House. Otherwise it would be a pleasure to see Schiff and the Whistle Blower under oath in front of the Senate..

 

No he didn't. Why are you making false claims?

 

No, you justify your false claim. How did he lie?

 

This reminds me of people who think denial is evidence of truth. A guy drinks too much, therefore he's an alcoholic. If he dares to deny it, he's "in denial," this constituting one more symptom of his alcoholism.

"Maybe he doesn't like being called an alcoholic because he isnt an alcoholic."

Aha! Told ya!!

Trump is worried about the press claiming he's in Putin's pocket, so he's obviously in Putin's pocket.

(Is it still Mueller time? Or are we now in Schiff time?)

 

A lot going on there. I am a trial lawyer myself, and I never accuse an adverse witness of lying, because, as in the case of Vindman, we can't know that he isn't misspeaking or misremembering or recalling an erroneous impression or just honestly mistaken. And of course he may be telling the truth. Some things only God knows. It is nonetheless important to point out a witness's bias or errors, whether they are lies or not, to raise questions as a check on their testimony.

As for perjury, it's a waste of time since even that question has already become purely political, the liberals here already sure that Vindman is a saint, and the conservatives that he's a villain.

That said, no, Vindman being wrong doesn't make Trump right. But unless there is a tape of Trump bragging about lying about this call, we'll never know for sure. And even if we do know, we'll never agree on whether conditioning aid on an investigation into an opponent is a high crime or misdemeanor (obviously it isn't.)

As for lying to protect a whistleblower, no, you can't do that under oath. If a question gets too close to the truth, you can decline to answer on advice of counsel, unless ordered by a court, or decline to answer except in a closed session.

 

I got a question. Suppose Giuliani testifies at the senate trial that he discussed the possible ramifications of the phone call with Trump and testifies that "I specifically advised the President before he made the call that asking for this favor was completely lawful in my opinion." Assume Giuliani is telling the truth (that he really gave that advice.) Is "reliance on the advice of counsel" helpful to Trump's case?

 

This is literally the first time that I have heard ANYONE link Biden and Burisma to 2016 elections. So you just made that up. But anyway:
- the evidence in these hearings is that the "Ukraine interfered in the 2016 elections" is a false narrative spread / started by Russia
- the evidence is that it WOULD be wrong for a president to ask a foreign government to investigate an American citizen. That is the job of American investigators.
- anyone who says that a foreign investigation into Biden would not help Trump politically is either completely naive, wilfully blind or - more likely - intentionally duplicitous.

He mentioned the Bidens on that July 25 call several times. Never mentioned corruption. There is no evidence that either Biden has done anything wrong. There is no evidence that either of them are being investigated in USA (and corruption abroad is a crime at home, so if they did do something they could be investigated by FBI).

Can you point to anything coming from a major MSM story that is factually wrong?

 

Hmmm was it helpful to the dems that Trump was being investigated and got a Russian dossier in 2016?

 

No. That information was not revealed before the election.
Anyway, Obama did not ask a foreign government to do that. He didn’t ask his domestic agencies to do it. They followed legitimate leads themselves.

Can you identify any other instance when a president has asked for an investigation of ANY American citizen? Either by domestic agencies or a foreign government?

 

You are wrong, lots of Ukrainian officials made very public statements and even wrote articles in American publications condemning and smearing Trump and supporting Hillary.. who knows what else they might have done. Especially considering that DNC operatives were active in Ukraine at the time.
And there is plenty to warrant the start of an investigation into Biden and Burisma..

 

Yes, because it makes sense to isolate a portion of one sentence from a 448 report and proclaim that it was magically considered "evidence" in that report.

Read the report. All of it.

 

What's the "plenty"? Fake conspiracy fairytales are now enough? I wonder why AG Porky Pig hasn't started an investigation.

 

You're right. Post #245 isn't true. It is incoherent, though.

 

Fat shaming from a liberal? Really? That seems to violate your own play book... just sayin...

 

A Republican making a strawman argument? Shocking.

 

Only for someone not familiar with the English language.

 

You mean pointing out left wing hypocrisy is a strawman?

 

He's busy? And it will all come out in the Senate, if the Democrats have the guts to let it go there.

 

What good is a report about scumbags in investigating another scumbag and coming up with inconclusive results? In this case inconclusive meaning the subject of the investigation must be considered innocent.

 

Busy doing what? Too busy to start an investigation where it looks so terrible, and stuff?

 

Trump's a blimp, too.

Why do you think that if I disagree with "liberals" that it makes ME a "hypocrite"?

Maybe you don't understand what the word means?

 

Ah, so you are not a liberal but a lefty. The left hates America as they think it is the evil of the world and hate patriotism.

 

Ohh i dunno getting ready for an impeachment trial in the Senate, investigating the 2016 election. Investigating all kinds of allegations floating around congress.

 

And the Bidens. Alexandra Chalupa is also fair game, she's the Democratic operative who worked with Ukraine to find dirt on Trump for the 2016 campaign.

 

*LOL*

You sound like you need a break.