Whistleblower Has Been Backed Up By Multiple Witnesses

[3rdnlng]

Remember this: if the so called whistleblower has/had no direct knowledge of the basis for his complaint, who leaked the contents of a presidential conversation? Did they violate a law? Did they reveal classified information?

[whatdrought]

28 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

It doesn’t consist of hearsay you clown.  And that is irrelevant.  The whistleblower is using appropriate channels to get an issue investigated.  It shouldn’t be discounted because of hearsay.....the investigation can look at the credibility of it.

 

are you really that dumb that you think only people with direct knowledge can report stuff?  Seriously, read a book.  

 

Are you saying the whistleblower complaint doesn't consist of hearsay?

[B-Man]

Just now, Tiberius said:

William Barr's justice department? Ok 

 

 

 

 

[Numark3]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Note the intentional disinformation since the transcript was released. First, the MSM clipped 500+ words from the transcript to link "do me a favor" with the "Joe Biden" bit of the call when the "favor" was about investigating the 2016 election, not Biden. 

 

But the media is your friend. They're being honest. They're not intentionally deceiving you and framing the narrative in a way that's dishonest.

 

You have a lot of opinions for a guy who admits he doesn't read any of the necessary material to understand the subject. 

 

Sadly, all you're doing is embarrassing yourself and exposing your legal expertise as... wanting.

 

Says someone who won’t respond to the substance of my posts because he can’t win. What were you saying about quid pro quo again?

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, whatdrought said:

 

Are you saying the whistleblower complaint doesn't consist of hearsay?

 

He's not good at this whole "reading" thing.

[whatdrought]

 

Also, anyone with the knowledge of: was the July 25th call ref. in the complaint the one we saw the transcript from?

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Crayola64 said:

 

Says someone who won’t respond to the substance of my posts because he can’t win. What were you saying about quid pro quo again?

 

You don't have substance, because you're not a serious person. 

 

There was no quid pro quo. Full stop. Read the complaint for yourself and see. 

Just now, whatdrought said:

 

Also, anyone with the knowledge of: was the July 25th call ref. in the complaint the one we saw the transcript from?

 

It was.

[Uncle Joe]

Of course the media is my friend. That is why this Schiff show has preempted all my local news /smh

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

Are you saying the whistleblower complaint doesn't consist of hearsay?

I'd just like to point out that this is nitpicking. 

 

Does the complaint match the primary document released by the WH? 

 

Yes 

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Note the intentional disinformation since the transcript was released. First, the MSM clipped 500+ words from the transcript to link "do me a favor" with the "Joe Biden" bit of the call when the "favor" was about investigating the 2016 election, not Biden. 

 

But the media is your friend. They're being honest. They're not intentionally deceiving you and framing the narrative in a way that's dishonest.

 

You have a lot of opinions for a guy who admits he doesn't read any of the necessary material to understand the subject. 

 

Sadly, all you're doing is embarrassing yourself and exposing your legal expertise as... wanting.

Don't fault him for not reading the underlying material. They didn't have enough copies to get all the way down to the 3rd chair.

[Numark3]

6 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

Are you saying the whistleblower complaint doesn't consist of hearsay?

 

Correct.  Hearsay is something that involves trial testimony/evidence.  This is a whistleblower complaint, not evidence.  It is not hearsay.

 

And also note that anything allegedly said by the president would not be hearsay if offered as evidence.

5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You don't have substance, because you're not a serious person. 

 

There was no quid pro quo. Full stop. Read the complaint for yourself and see. 

 

Correct...the complaint does not allege explicit quid pro quo, and that is consistent with the transcript.  Thus all of the tweets and posts about this inconsistent are false.  

 

 

6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

He's not good at this whole "reading" thing.

 

Explain how it is hearsay.  I’ll wait 

Edited September 26, 2019 by Crayola64

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Don't fault him for not reading the underlying material. They didn't have enough copies to get all the way down to the 3rd chair.

 

For a guy who brags he's a big time successful lawyer, he think he'd remember what they teach in 1L. But nah. He heard there was quid pro quo so there must have been! (there wasn't). He heard the transcript and the complaint matched up so they must (which is meaningless/not accurate).

 

He could avoid this embarrassment by reading for himself and thinking about the worth of the "extra information" added in the complaint -- but instead he didn't. Do you know what the added information is from the whistleblower? MEDIA reports of OS stories from months ago, not new information. From the WaPo of all sources.  

 

Had he read it for himself he could have spared himself the embarrassment. But read the complaint for himself? NO WAY! That's the stuff conspiracy nuts do! Not big time lawyers.  

 

***************

Here's Castro's brother doing Biden dirty for his brother's campaign... 

 

And making himself look foolish, even more so than he does with that "beard"

[3rdnlng]

4 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Correct.  Hearsay is something that involves trial testimony/evidence.  This is a whistleblower complaint, not evidence.  It is not hearsay.

 

And also note that anything allegedly said by the president would not be hearsay if offered as evidence.

 

Correct...the complaint does not allege explicit quid pro quo, and that is consistent with the transcript.  Thus all of the tweets and posts about this inconsistent are false.  

 

 

 

Explain how it is hearsay.  I’ll wait 

You aren't very bright, are you? It is hearsay whether or not it is in court or outside court. It is legally treated differently though.

[whatdrought]

2 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Correct.  Hearsay is something that involves trial testimony/evidence.  This is a whistleblower complaint, not evidence.  It is not hearsay.

 

And also not that anything allegedly said by the president would not be hearsay if offered as evidence.

 

Okay... You're completely missing the point. This isn't your Harvard pre-law class or whatever the hell you say you do. 

 

The reality is this- this person HEARd someone SAY something and then repeated it in this complaint. He has no verifiable evidence and admits as much. He has no primary sources, and he has no tangible proof (as of yet released, unless I have missed something) that what he is espousing is true- furthermore, and this is really an important distinction, he definitely has no tangible evidence allowing him to arrive at the conclusions that he has arrived at with his testimony. He's hearing a regurgitated conversation and making wide declarations about the intentions of the speakers. Investigate everything, who cares. Either way, mister whistleblower made some leaps and it's really fair to ask if he had partisan motives in that. 

[Numark3]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

For a guy who brags he's a big time successful lawyer, he think he'd remember what they teach in 1L. But nah. He heard there was quid pro quo so there must have been! (there wasn't). He heard the transcript and the complaint matched up so they must (which is meaningless/not accurate).

 

Never said there was quid pro quo.  The irony of you telling me to read is funny.  I kept telling you all (since yesterday) that quid pro quo is irrelevant because the complaint likely doesn’t allege it.  And it does not.  I was right.

 

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

He could avoid this embarrassment by reading for himself and thinking about the worth of the "extra information" added in the complaint -- but instead he didn't. Do you know what the added information is from the whistleblower? MEDIA reports of OS stories from months ago, not new information. From the WaPo of all sources.  

 

I did read it.  And I can process it and analyze it better than you.  

 

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Had he read it for himself he could have spared himself the embarrassment. But read the complaint for himself? NO WAY! That's the stuff conspiracy nuts do! Not big time lawyers.  

 

I did read it lol.  I like how you are constantly wrong and never acknowledge  it

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

You aren't very bright, are you? It is hearsay whether or not it is in court or outside court. It is legally treated differently though.

 

Nahhhhh. Not true lol

[whatdrought]

9 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

I'd just like to point out that this is nitpicking. 

 

Does the complaint match the primary document released by the WH? 

 

Yes 

 

Admitting that the complaint doesn't diverge from the document that showed no wrong doing isn't how you're gonna get your impeachment... Careful bud. 

[Numark3]

Just now, whatdrought said:

 

Okay... You're completely missing the point. This isn't your Harvard pre-law class or whatever the hell you say you do. 

 

The reality is this- this person HEARd someone SAY something and then repeated it in this complaint. He has no verifiable evidence and admits as much. He has no primary sources, and he has no tangible proof (as of yet released, unless I have missed something) that what he is espousing is true- furthermore, and this is really an important distinction, he definitely has no tangible evidence allowing him to arrive at the conclusions that he has arrived at with his testimony. He's hearing a regurgitated conversation and making wide declarations about the intentions of the speakers. Investigate everything, who cares. Either way, mister whistleblower made some leaps and it's really fair to ask if he had partisan motives in that. 

 

Well stop calling it hearsay then.  And this is what you don’t get.  His allegations are second hand.  Now people can investigate primary sources.  This normal and proper and it’s odd you can’t grasp it.  

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, whatdrought said:

 

Okay... You're completely missing the point. This isn't your Harvard pre-law class or whatever the hell you say you do. 

 

The reality is this- this person HEARd someone SAY something and then repeated it in this complaint. He has no verifiable evidence and admits as much. He has no primary sources, and he has no tangible proof (as of yet released, unless I have missed something) that what he is espousing is true- furthermore, and this is really an important distinction, he definitely has no tangible evidence allowing him to arrive at the conclusions that he has arrived at with his testimony. He's hearing a regurgitated conversation and making wide declarations about the intentions of the speakers. Investigate everything, who cares. Either way, mister whistleblower made some leaps and it's really fair to ask if he had partisan motives in that. 

No, he heard things from very informed people that concerned him and he turned the concerns over to the IG who agreed with him/her. And it looks like that concerns are justified

[whatdrought]

Just now, Crayola64 said:

 

Well stop calling it hearsay then.  And this is what you don’t get.  His allegations are second hand.  Now people can investigate primary sources.  This normal and proper and it’s odd you can’t grasp it.  

 

Is your username crayola cause you sniff markers?... 

 

noun

noun: hearsay

1. information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

   "according to hearsay, Bob had managed to break his arm"

    

    

    

    

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

No, he heard things from very informed people that concerned him and he turned the concerns over to the IG who agreed with him/her. And it looks like that concerns are justified

 

I'm not sure how this differs from what I said...?

[Tiberius]

Just now, whatdrought said:

 

Admitting that the complaint doesn't diverge from the document that showed no wrong doing isn't how you're gonna get your impeachment... Careful bud. 

The document does some wrong doing, he asked for a favor. Right? 

That favor was to investigate Biden. Right? 

That favor was asked for right after the Uk pres said they need the defense missiles 

 

Right?