Message from @Platinum Spark

Discord ID: 631127933930438657


2019-10-08 13:46:10 UTC  

So to be clear, you’ve withdrawn your statement that he lied

2019-10-08 13:46:12 UTC  

Correct?

2019-10-08 13:47:33 UTC  

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

2019-10-08 13:47:57 UTC  

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

2019-10-08 13:49:08 UTC  

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

2019-10-08 13:49:57 UTC  

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

2019-10-08 13:52:09 UTC  

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.

2019-10-08 13:52:10 UTC  

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

2019-10-08 13:52:29 UTC  

You did not understand that to mean that he is paraphrasing

2019-10-08 13:52:35 UTC  

Or when, at the end, he said:

2019-10-08 13:52:54 UTC  

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

2019-10-08 13:53:40 UTC  

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?

2019-10-08 13:54:09 UTC  

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.

2019-10-08 13:54:33 UTC  

Your expertise on the strategy of congressional hearings notwithstanding

2019-10-08 13:54:50 UTC  

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

2019-10-08 13:55:03 UTC  

Every single person in the room had read the memo

2019-10-08 13:55:33 UTC  

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

2019-10-08 13:55:50 UTC  

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

2019-10-08 13:55:54 UTC  

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.

2019-10-08 13:56:38 UTC  

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.

2019-10-08 13:57:05 UTC  

Do you have a quote?

2019-10-08 13:57:12 UTC  

You are currently lying.

2019-10-08 13:57:29 UTC  

About what specifically?

2019-10-08 13:57:39 UTC  

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

2019-10-08 13:57:49 UTC  

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

2019-10-08 13:57:49 UTC  

For instance, quoting part of it

2019-10-08 13:57:52 UTC  

<:peepodumb:538083903835996176>

2019-10-08 13:58:23 UTC  

Have you read or heard Schiff’s statement?

2019-10-08 13:58:27 UTC  

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?

2019-10-08 13:59:03 UTC  

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

2019-10-08 13:59:29 UTC  

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

2019-10-08 13:59:36 UTC  

Back that with any evidence whatsoever

2019-10-08 13:59:53 UTC  

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

2019-10-08 13:59:53 UTC  

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

2019-10-08 14:00:03 UTC  

I literally just watched it again

2019-10-08 14:00:10 UTC  

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

2019-10-08 14:00:31 UTC  

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

2019-10-08 14:00:38 UTC  

Because you’re a liar.

2019-10-08 14:01:10 UTC  

Okay “I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you, though. And I'm going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent. Understand? Lots of it, on this and on that."

2019-10-08 14:01:20 UTC  

This isn’t supported by the content of the transcript

2019-10-08 14:01:25 UTC  

"Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There's a lot of talk about *Biden's son*, that *Biden* stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. *Biden* went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me."