Numark3

Why cant people listening to the call firsthand be called? you are diggggging that hole.

You just said no one else present for the call lol.

WAKE UP SHEEPLE lol Omg. You didn’t read the complaint lol.

Balbla. I don’t care about the hearsay argument, just pointing out it is wrong. Sorry I pointing out something is factually wrong, I know that is not looked at favorably here. i keep telling you that complaints based on second hand information is not suspect. For example, every single police tip that isn’t from a first hand witness...is second hand. That is fine, police investigate it and see if it is credible. The fact it is second hand isn’t what makes it suspect or not true. So stop saying that.

Not in the context of legal proceedings.... 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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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?

Are you honestly suggesting a complaint shouldn’t be investigated even if it contains second hand information (let’s not call it hearsay as you don’t know what it is)? You do realize an investigation can uncover first hand sources. and do you know that hearsay is something that involves whether or not information is admissible at trial? Which is not at issue here at all.

So he shouldn’t report stuff because he doesn’t have direct knowledge...and no one should investigate it. good logic

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.

Also, this whistleblower must be a plant for the new age COUP

Yea he posted about ten THERE IS NO QUID PRO QUO AS THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED. Welp, his far-right twitter feed was wrong lol. for someone who prides himself on spreading information, it’s a shame he constantly spreads false narratives (thankfully, his information actually doesn’t spread).

Oh look at that...the complaint doesn’t conflict with the transcript. And look at that, the allegations go beyond that call. It appears to be a credible complaint that went through appropriate channels. This is why saying things like Direct knowledge and quid pro quo is dumb DR. Both are irrelevant now. maybe you should start listening to me?

Lol at mocking the path big law attorneys take. Ohhhhh It burns so bad...

Like I said, I hope it proves fruitful. I sincerely doubt it has, but fingers crossed for you.

Nah man, it’s actually true. I know you won’t admit to yourself. But you are peddling a false, middle-school theory. And you spend a lot of time doing it. That is objectively sad as an adult. I hope your screenwriting career or whatever takes off, sincerely. But as a tip, keep your political views far from it, as they are dumb, generic, and been done to death by (again) children and, no, you do post tweets of weirdos constantly like a school girl would. Grow up.

Dude, you are posting weird far-right talking points constantly. It’s what you do. Paint it however you want. I don’t know if you know this, but your conspiracy theories sound like a middle schooler. Most of the people talking about them, are literally children. It’s sad you aren’t also child ?

Idk man, on one hand you keep complaining about media...on the other you keep regurgitating social media of biased nuts. coup coup

“But what if, like, it is a coup man.”

“Dur me thinks the media being sensaliationist and biased is indicative of a coup. coup coup coup”