Whistleblower Has Been Backed Up By Multiple Witnesses

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Crayola64 said:

 

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.

 

No, you were wrong because that was NEVER the point. If you were a serious person, not a troll with a suspect understanding of the law, you would realize the people screaming about quid pro quo was the democrat side of the aisle and the media. For DAYS before it was revealed, "oops, we made that up". 

 

THAT'S why it matters. It's proof again that the media is gaslighting the public on the basic facts of this issue. Saying for three days that there was quid pro quo on every banner headline and news channel was WRONG.

 

Like you're understanding of this topic. You still think it's about Biden. It's not. It's about the 2016 election which you've decided not to do your own due diligence on -- because you're a joke, not a serious person. 

 

Keep trying. You're SO close to making a salient point on this topic. Not there yet, but you're getting there! 

[Tiberius]

Just now, whatdrought said:

 

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"

    

    

    

    

 

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

It differs in the fact the concerns were justified 

[Rob's House]

12 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Are you honestly suggesting a complaint shouldn’t be investigated even if it contains second hand information?  

 

You do realize an investigation can uncover over first hand sources.

Categorically, no. But it's gone far beyond the point of absurdity with the constant calls for politically motivated investigations into any and every possible break with puritanical ethical idealism, regardless of the severity of the charge alleged or reliability of the person bringing the allegation.

 

The fact that this is front page news and you have major news outlets and elected members of Congress discussing impeachment with a straight face is far more concerning than anything alleged in that complaint.

[Tiberius]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

No, you were wrong because that was NEVER the point. If you were a serious person, not a troll with a suspect understanding of the law, you would realize the people screaming about quid pro quo was the democrat side of the aisle and the media. For DAYS before it was revealed, "oops, we made that up". 

 

THAT'S why it matters. It's proof again that the media is gaslighting the public on the basic facts of this issue. Saying for three days that there was quid pro quo on every banner headline and news channel was WRONG.

 

Like you're understanding of this topic. You still think it's about Biden. It's not. It's about the 2016 election which you've decided not to do your own due diligence on -- because you're a joke, not a serious person. 

 

Keep trying. You're SO close to making a salient point on this topic. Not there yet, but you're getting there! 

Pretty obvious there was a quid pro quo 

[Numark3]

Just now, whatdrought said:

 

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"

    

    

    

    

 

Cool dictionary.  Here is the actual definition from the rules of evidence:

 

Hearsay. “Hearsay” means a statement that:

(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and

(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

 

do you see how those two requirements aren’t met.  Drop it, stop calling it hearsay.

 

[3rdnlng]

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 see. Who are these very informed people? Do you know? How about the so called whistleblower, do you know who that is?

[RoyBatty is alive]

The whistelblower used beyond second hand what he heard, but also cited "evidence" from the Politico, Washington Post, Bloomberg and other media sources,  Hilarious. 

[3rdnlng]

5 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

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.

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

Nahhhhh. Not true lol

Boy, you certainly told me.

[whatdrought]

Just now, Tiberius said:

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? 

 

No it doesn't. 

Favor asking is in no way illegal, wrong, or amoral. 

The favor had nothing to do with Biden.

[Deranged Rhino]

Note one side of the aisle asking the questions KEEPS LYING. They keep tying the "favor" to the 2020 election and Biden. It wasn't. It was about the 2016 election. 

 

When they have to lie about a basic fact every American can read for themselves is indeed a lie -- then their case for impeachment is WEAK. This isn't about impeachment ultimately. This is about getting rid of Biden and getting in front of the looming OIG report which is going to lay out how the Obama Administration actually pressured allies to spy on their political opponents in order to subvert the 2016 US election. 

 

They're terrified. Terrified.

[whatdrought]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

It differs in the fact the concerns were justified 

 

According to you, your reflection, and your imaginary best friends maybe. 

 

Again, I have no issue with the investigation- which has already been tainted by the dems and the media claiming this is the nail in Trumps coffin- But his complaint is thick with conclusions made by someone who doesn't have primary and first hand knowledge of the situation, which is suspect. 

[Numark3]

1 minute ago, Rob's House said:

Categorically, no. But it's gone far beyond the point of absurdity with the constant calls for politically motivated investigations into any and every possible break with puritanical ethical idealism, regardless of the severity of the charge alleged or reliability of the person bringing the allegation.

 

The fact that this is front page news and you have major news outlets and elected members of Congress discussing impeachment with a straight face is far more concerning than anything alleged in that complaint.

 

Thats fine.  I don’t disagree with all of that.  This complaint itself seems fine and should be followed up appropriately.

 

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

No, you were wrong because that was NEVER the point. If you were a serious person, not a troll with a suspect understanding of the law, you would realize the people screaming about quid pro quo was the democrat side of the aisle and the media. For DAYS before it was revealed, "oops, we made that up". 

 

THAT'S why it matters. It's proof again that the media is gaslighting the public on the basic facts of this issue. Saying for three days that there was quid pro quo on every banner headline and news channel was WRONG.

 

Like you're understanding of this topic. You still think it's about Biden. It's not. It's about the 2016 election which you've decided not to do your own due diligence on -- because you're a joke, not a serious person. 

 

Keep trying. You're SO close to making a salient point on this topic. Not there yet, but you're getting there! 

 

You don’t realize how nutty you sound.  I don’t think or care about virtually anything you say because it’s conspiracy nonsense.  You wanna discuss the media angle, which has some truth to it.  I just care about the issue of whether or not this complaint is credible.

[Tiberius]

From Jennifer Rubin just now: 

 

The complaint says:

• Quote

   

  • “More than a half dozen” officials provided information to the whistleblower
  • “Multiple White House officials” confided in the whistleblower about the call
  • “Approximately a dozen” White House officials listened to the July 25 call; “multiple” White House officials told him the transcript had been moved to a protected computer system to avoid its discovery
  • U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland and U.S. special representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker gave advice to the Ukrainians as to how to deal with Trump (making these officials witnesses, if not participants, in the scheme)
  • The U.S. ambassador to Ukraine was recalled apparently as a result of a Ukrainian official (whose patron was an anti-reformer and opponent of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky) who demanded to talk to Attorney General William P. Barr about the arrangement
  • And multiple State Department officials tried to “contain the damage” from Giuliani’s activities.

   

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Gavin in Va Beach]

Just now, Tiberius said:

From Jennifer Rubin just now: 

 

The complaint says:

•  

 

I stopped reading after 'Jennifer Rubin'...

[Numark3]

Just now, whatdrought said:

 

But his complaint is thick with conclusions made by someone who doesn't have primary and first hand knowledge of the situation, which is suspect. 

 

You keep saying that.  It is completely normal and not suspect at all.  Someone heard something that might be illegal and reported it appropriately.  They didn’t leak it or claim to have first hand knowledge.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Crayola64 said:

You don’t realize how nutty you sound.  I don’t think or care about virtually anything you say because it’s conspiracy nonsense.  You wanna discuss the media angle, which has some truth to it.  I just care about the issue of whether or not this complaint is credible.

 

What an incredibly cowardly thing to say. It's THE issue. If you can't see the connection you don't know the subject that is being discussed. 

 

If you read the material for yourself, you'd understand the game being played and how you've been had. They lied to you for three years because they think you're too stupid to think for yourself. 

 

And you're proving them correct over and over in this very thread.

[whatdrought]

3 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Cool dictionary.  Here is the actual definition from the rules of evidence:

 

Hearsay. “Hearsay” means a statement that:

(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and

(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

 

do you see how those two requirements aren’t met.  Drop it, stop calling it hearsay.

 

 

So yes to the markers then...

 

I haven't seen anybody claim that it's legal hearsay, we're arguing that it's hearsay in reality. People say something, someone else hears it and repeats it. That's the ***** word. Law degrees don't have English components anymore? 

[B-Man]

Sure Adam ..........?

‘Absolutely unreal’!

Adam Schiff’s ‘fictional retelling’ of the Trump call transcript was so shameless he later admitted it was ‘parody’ [video]

 

 

 

And again:

 

Former NSC official Fred Fleitz unloads on the whistleblower complaint, questions if there was coordination with the House Intel Committee

[Numark3]

1 minute ago, whatdrought said:

 

So yes to the markers then...

 

I haven't seen anybody claim that it's legal hearsay, we're arguing that it's hearsay in reality. People say something, someone else hears it and repeats it. That's the ***** word. Law degrees don't have English components anymore? 

 

Not in the context of legal proceedings....

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

What an incredibly cowardly thing to say. It's THE issue. If you can't see the connection you don't know the subject that is being discussed. 

 

If you read the material for yourself, you'd understand the game being played and how you've been had. They lied to you for three years because they think you're too stupid to think for yourself. 

 

And you're proving them correct over and over in this very thread.

 

You are loony.  Yes, most people understand the biased and awful nature of the media lol.  

 

But um, dousing it in conspiracy is why you are a nutjob