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? 

[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