-
You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Lol
You can make up a scenario (with no facts) to fit any argument. Wild ass conjecture. Of course that kinda describes House Dems and this whole deal, so it kinda fits for you, huh?
I’d love to see Trump removed so we can get a better GOP in the office. But I kinda want the impeachment thingy to fail miserably just to laugh at knuckleheads like you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You can make up a scenario (with no facts) to fit any argument. Wild ass conjecture. Of course that kinda describes House Dems and this whole deal, so it kinda fits for you, huh?
I’d love to see Trump removed so we can get a better GOP in the office. But I kinda want the impeachment thingy to fail miserably just to laugh at knuckleheads like you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I keep thinking the ego too but a couple of things make me think otherwise. 1st he has a history of settling. He fights until he exhausts all remedies and then settles/files bankruptcy. Not saying that’s a bad thing it’s just what he has done.
And 2nd he’s smart enough to know that in the end if it looks like he loses an election (recession all but assures that) or loses his $ then he will cut bait. Ego aside.
And 2nd he’s smart enough to know that in the end if it looks like he loses an election (recession all but assures that) or loses his $ then he will cut bait. Ego aside.
Doesn’t matter how many times you type or say it, it is not the transcript of the call. It is a legal CYA that the WH calls a memo and says is not word for word. The footnote that Trump’s people wrote say that the memo was taken from notes and recollections and It even says “A number of factors can affect the accuracy of the record.”
They are telling you on page 1 that if the actual transcript ever gets out and there are conflicts between the actual and the memo that they told us it could contain inaccuracies and 1 of the reasons for that is someone’s recollection after the fact maybe wasn’t clear.
And are you really that dense to believe for one second that if Schiff subpoenaed the actual transcribers to testify under oath that Trump would let them? If Trump’s team for 1 second thought he had the upper hand with the actual transcript they would have released that by now. They tried to Bill Barr it w the memo and get out in front.
They are telling you on page 1 that if the actual transcript ever gets out and there are conflicts between the actual and the memo that they told us it could contain inaccuracies and 1 of the reasons for that is someone’s recollection after the fact maybe wasn’t clear.
And are you really that dense to believe for one second that if Schiff subpoenaed the actual transcribers to testify under oath that Trump would let them? If Trump’s team for 1 second thought he had the upper hand with the actual transcript they would have released that by now. They tried to Bill Barr it w the memo and get out in front.
Last edited:
Is this Adam Schiff? Because you make stuff up just like him.
1. The transcribers are not Trumps people. They are career NSC staffers not hired or appointed by Trump.
2. The factors affecting accuracy are stated to be telecommunication issues or variations in accent or interpretation. Nothing about recollection as a reason for inaccuracies. Using multiple transcribers significantly reduces the possibility of inaccuracies.
3. Give me a break. Schiff subpoenas everything, even attorney-client privileged documents which he knows he has zero chance of getting, even in a court battle.
4. Memcons ( memorandums of conversations) have been utilized as the official record for decades.
5. Help me out. Has there been a first-hand listener that disputes the content of the memo? Or are you just making up your claim it’s inaccurate?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
1. The transcribers are not Trumps people. They are career NSC staffers not hired or appointed by Trump.
2. The factors affecting accuracy are stated to be telecommunication issues or variations in accent or interpretation. Nothing about recollection as a reason for inaccuracies. Using multiple transcribers significantly reduces the possibility of inaccuracies.
3. Give me a break. Schiff subpoenas everything, even attorney-client privileged documents which he knows he has zero chance of getting, even in a court battle.
4. Memcons ( memorandums of conversations) have been utilized as the official record for decades.
5. Help me out. Has there been a first-hand listener that disputes the content of the memo? Or are you just making up your claim it’s inaccurate?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
They quit recording calls after Nixon. As I understand it, all calls are now transcribed by at minimum 2 NSC staffers as they occur. To help insure accuracy, the transcribers then compare their transcriptions to create the final version which is then reviewed for further accuracy by Situation Room Duty Officers (listeners), and then finally in certain circumstances is further reviewed by other listeners for final editing and approval.
A materially inaccurate transcription (memcon) is highly unlikely as it would likely require a massive conspiracy amongst all transcribers, situation room personnel, other listeners (in this case interpreters, State Dept officials, NSA personnel, and multiple CIA personnel) The President and in some circumstances the other party to the call and their respective listeners.
Hackman is just making stuff up, just like his idol, Adam Schiff.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A materially inaccurate transcription (memcon) is highly unlikely as it would likely require a massive conspiracy amongst all transcribers, situation room personnel, other listeners (in this case interpreters, State Dept officials, NSA personnel, and multiple CIA personnel) The President and in some circumstances the other party to the call and their respective listeners.
Hackman is just making stuff up, just like his idol, Adam Schiff.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
-
1
- Show all
You are getting closer. It clearly says a number of factors can influence the accuracy of the record including ....That memo is one giant CYA attempt.
Nowhere does it say it’s limited to the reasons you state. Go ahead and keep your head up your ass if you think this call happened the way Trump says it did.
Nowhere does it say it’s limited to the reasons you state. Go ahead and keep your head up your ass if you think this call happened the way Trump says it did.
-
1
- Show all
“A number of factors can affect the accuracy of the record, including poor telecommunications connections, and variations in accent and/or interpretation.” Since multiple people are transcribing real time, I don’t think recollection is an issue.
But in your world, I guess the phase of the moon can affect accuracy.
Regardless, give me one single FACT that even suggests the memo is inaccurate. Yeah, you can’t. Thus you’re entire position is yet another made-up story and the Dems current wet dream.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But in your world, I guess the phase of the moon can affect accuracy.
Regardless, give me one single FACT that even suggests the memo is inaccurate. Yeah, you can’t. Thus you’re entire position is yet another made-up story and the Dems current wet dream.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Why do you think they added that footnote w the language they used. Recollection is used as the “get my ass out of trouble card” and the fact they put that and made sure it’s clear as day that the memo is not the actual transcript and not verbatim. Sure there will be some that nitpick words and phrases but the use of the word recollection is the key.
You are right nothing we’ve heard/seen contradicts the fact the WB was right and the memo lays out an impeachable offense. What we have seen so far lays that out and there have been no contradictions to the memo.
There should then be no problem w letting us see everyone that was listening to the call. Letting them testify under oath. And letting us see the actual transcript.
You are right nothing we’ve heard/seen contradicts the fact the WB was right and the memo lays out an impeachable offense. What we have seen so far lays that out and there have been no contradictions to the memo.
There should then be no problem w letting us see everyone that was listening to the call. Letting them testify under oath. And letting us see the actual transcript.
Last edited:
-
1
- Show all
Okay Adam, there you go again misrepresenting what someone (me) says. BTW, the whistleblower provided no facts (hearsay is not a fact) other than his/her use of previously published press reports.
Give us one FACT the memo was inaccurate.
Give us the sections of the memo verbatim that lays out an impeachable offense.
I have no problem letting all the listeners testify, but apparently Mr. Schiff does. Your argument should be with him.
Give us one FACT the memo was inaccurate.
Give us the sections of the memo verbatim that lays out an impeachable offense.
I have no problem letting all the listeners testify, but apparently Mr. Schiff does. Your argument should be with him.
Everyone knows and acknowledges the memo is not verbatim. The footnote correctly explains the complete accuracy of the memo can be affected by bad transmission and interpretation. Nobody is betting their career on the "cell signal" or their understanding of a foreign person's ability to accurately convey a thought in a manner understood by everyone.
So now your position is the transcribers and their supervisor(s) all recalled the same materially inaccurate substance of the call? And that's reason to impeach the President?
So now your position is the transcribers and their supervisor(s) all recalled the same materially inaccurate substance of the call? And that's reason to impeach the President?
So you finally acknowledge it’s not the transcript and it’s not verbatim and it can be inaccurate. Keep feeding the hamster and you will eventually see that yes while the memo correctly states it’s accuracy can be influenced by the factors you mention it is not a self limiting document in that regard. It’s good lawyering.
And I’m not calling into question anything regarding the transcribers and neither should anyone be basing a defense off of the transcribers because we haven’t seen what they transcribed.
It’s funny that Trumpers bring up this deep state stuff and needing to bring it to the light of day when isn’t that 1 of the things that is exactly what trump is accused of in regards to Ukraine? Also where are all those indictments we were promised a month or more ago that were days away? Deep state exposed my ass.
And I’m not calling into question anything regarding the transcribers and neither should anyone be basing a defense off of the transcribers because we haven’t seen what they transcribed.
It’s funny that Trumpers bring up this deep state stuff and needing to bring it to the light of day when isn’t that 1 of the things that is exactly what trump is accused of in regards to Ukraine? Also where are all those indictments we were promised a month or more ago that were days away? Deep state exposed my ass.
Yet you're calling into question the MATERIAL accuracy of the memo, while maintaining the transcribers did nothing wrong. Are you saying the transcript is materially inaccurate by simple bad recollection? In other words, the transcribers and their supervisor(s) all recalled the same materially inaccurate substance of the call? Stay focused and answer a question since heretofore you have all the answers.
Remember, you told me I have my head up my ass because I believe it is accurate.
Remember, you told me I have my head up my ass because I believe it is accurate.
