@Cobra Commander waiting on your answer from yesterday

oh adam schiff's job wasn't to make a parody of trump's transcript, it was to deliver what he actually said to congress. If that in and of itself were good enough for impeachment then I don't see why he had to change the wording.

Although I will agree that the Ambassador stuff is suspicious

So to be clear, you’ve withdrawn your statement that he lied

Correct?

Not really? I just said that he changed the wording of the transcript while speaking to congress, that can absolutely be considered a lie.

My point is that if the transcript were enough, then there was no reason for him to do that there.

So you think he did not make it clear that he was characterizing, rather than reciting, the memo?

This sophistacted chick needs to find something to do with her life

yeah really. Also yes, he only stated that it was a parody afterwards. He said "it read like a classic mobster shakedown" but this is not an indication that he is about to make a parody of the transcript, it would make sense for him to actually read the transcript verbatim if he wants to actually demonstrate this. Making shit up helps nobody here.

So when he started “"Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates:”

You did not understand that to mean that he is paraphrasing

Or when, at the end, he said:

“"This is, in sum and character, what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine. “

You feel those words, explicitly saying that it is not a recitation, are not enough to make it clear to you that it is not a recitation?

I know he tried to paraphrase it, but you're missing the point that if you're in a congressional hearing you should be telling this exactly like how it's worded, not abridging it, so that you can get the full context and information.

Your expertise on the strategy of congressional hearings notwithstanding

A lie is a willful misrepresentation of the truth (what you’re doing right now, for instance)

Every single person in the room had read the memo

Now that we’ve established that you were lying about what Schiff said

What part of his statement do YOU feel was a mischaracterization or the memo?

Yeah, and this seems to have misrepresented the transcript. There's still no quid pro quo in the transcript itself, and it still stands that Hunter and Joe were both mentioned a collective amount of three times tangentially.

note that it is still possible for other evidence to show evidence of a quid pro quo with Ukraine, but it's not in this transcript.

Do you have a quote?

You are currently lying.

About what specifically?

Without regurgitating partisan talking points, what part of his characterization do you believe was inaccurate?

Does he have a quote showing there’s no quid pro quo and a quote showing there’s only 3 mentions of the Bidens?

For instance, quoting part of it

<:peepodumb:538083903835996176>

Have you read or heard Schiff’s statement?

Shouldn’t it be your job to be able to provide evidence that there is quid pro quo in the transcript, and that there are more than a few tangential mentions of the Bidens?

Like he can’t show you a quote that these things are evident without just showing you the entire transcript

You’re asserting that Schiff claimed something in his statement that was not represented in the memo

Back that with any evidence whatsoever

i can give you the lines where he mentions the bidens, posting everything that *doesn;t* mention them would be almost the entire thing.

Because it does not seem like you are familiar with Schiff’s statement

I literally just watched it again

Yes, please give me the lines in Schiff’s statement that you feel are misrepresentations

You claimed Schiff represented a quid pro quo where none existed, quote it

Because you’re a liar.