Whistleblower Has Been Backed Up By Multiple Witnesses

[whatdrought]

Just now, Crayola64 said:

 

Not in the context of legal proceedings....

 

Dude. You're beating a dead horse. Nobody here has claimed that it is hearsay in the context of legal proceedings. We have stated, rightfully so, that it is hearsay in that one person said something, and another person heard it. I know you're busy prepping your intro to law course for Harvard, but come on. Try to keep up.

[Deranged Rhino]

It's fine, guys. Crayola has spoken. He's fine with a media which lies to the public and sensationalizes a nothing event into a scandal worthy of impeachment. And it doesn't matter if the whole story about the complaint has changed since it was first leaked from "explosively bad" to "incredibly dull". He's got it all sorted for us. 

 

Even though he hasn't read any of the relevant material.

Hasn't paid attention to what's actually happening post 2016. 

And has no idea how badly he's been lied to. 

 

It's fine! 

 

 

1 minute ago, whatdrought said:

 

Dude. You're beating a dead horse. Nobody here has claimed that it is hearsay in the context of legal proceedings. We have stated, rightfully so, that it is hearsay in that one person said something, and another person heard it. I know you're busy prepping your intro to law course for Harvard, but come on. Try to keep up.

 

He has nothing else to offer. He's been reduced to arguing minutia of a position no one took. 

 

Because he's not a serious person.

[ALF]

So now that the whistleblower complaint is declassified , Congress can subpoena those present at call to testify ? 

Edited September 26, 2019 by ALF

[Deranged Rhino]

 

THIS is the head of the committee... 

 

 

(In best Jim Mora voice)

PARODY?! PARODY?!?!

 

He's such an asshat.

[Numark3]

1 minute ago, whatdrought said:

 

Dude. You're beating a dead horse. Nobody here has claimed that it is hearsay in the context of legal proceedings. We have stated, rightfully so, that it is hearsay in that one person said something, and another person heard it. I know you're busy prepping your intro to law course for Harvard, but come on. Try to keep up.

 

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.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, ALF said:

So now the the whistleblower complaint is declassified , Congress can subpoena those present at call to testify ? 

 

There was no one present but Trump and the President and they've both spoken in public. Not even the whistleblower himself was present for anything "wrong" he reported. 

[Numark3]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

It's fine, guys. Crayola has spoken. He's fine with a media which lies to the public and sensationalizes a nothing event into a scandal worthy of impeachment. And it doesn't matter if the whole story about the complaint has changed since it was first leaked from "explosively bad" to "incredibly dull". He's got it all sorted for us. 

 

Even though he hasn't read any of the relevant material.

Hasn't paid attention to what's actually happening post 2016. 

And has no idea how badly he's been lied to. 

 

It's fine! 

 

 

 

WAKE UP SHEEPLE lol

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

There was no one present but Trump and the President and they've both spoken in public. Not even the whistleblower himself was present for anything "wrong" he reported. 

 

Omg.  You didn’t read the complaint lol.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Crayola64 said:

Omg.  You didn’t read the complaint lol.

 

I did. Twice. 

 

The subject of the complaint was the call -- on which the two principle parties have already given public statements. The CIA transcribers can't/won't be called. No one is getting called before congress based on a WaPo story for anything other than a laugh. 

[3rdnlng]

The Rose Law Firm is representing the so called whistleblower. I've heard of them, maybe somewhere in the past.

 

https://compassrosepllc.com/whistleblower-lawyer/

[Numark3]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I did. Twice. 

 

The subject of the complaint was the call -- on which the two principle parties have already given public statements. The CIA transcribers can't/won't be called. No one is getting called before congress based on a WaPo story for anything other than a laugh. 

 

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

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Crayola64 said:

 

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

 

That can/would be called. 

 

You're REAL bad at this. 

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

The Rose Law Firm is representing the so called whistleblower. I've heard of them, maybe somewhere in the past.

 

https://compassrosepllc.com/whistleblower-lawyer/

 

It's one big club.

[Numark3]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

That can/would be called. 

 

You're REAL bad at this. 

 

Why cant people listening to the call firsthand be called?

 

you are diggggging that hole.

Edited September 26, 2019 by Crayola64

[whatdrought]

1 minute ago, Crayola64 said:

 

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.

 

You obviously do care, and you're now backtracking. It is not wrong, it's 100% correct. Look at the definition that I provided, and then find a single post that doesn't reflect that definition. 

 

I have not once said that second hand information is suspect. I said conclusions based on second hand information is suspect. Thus, we investigate. His conclusions are worthless, and I think (and this is my conclusion, so it's also worthless) that it looks highly partisan.

[Rob's House]

Has anyone noticed that it appears Biden is guilty of actual corruption, but the scandal is Trump finding out about it?

[Numark3]

Just now, whatdrought said:

 

You obviously do care, and you're now backtracking. It is not wrong, it's 100% correct. Look at the definition that I provided, and then find a single post that doesn't reflect that definition. 

 

I have not once said that second hand information is suspect. I said conclusions based on second hand information is suspect. Thus, we investigate. His conclusions are worthless, and I think (and this is my conclusion, so it's also worthless) that it looks highly partisan.

 

Im backtracking?  You just posted all day yesterday about the complaint being suspect because it conflicts with the transcript.  Now it’s a new dumb reason.  It’s not even worth quitting your posts to show that you did say it was suspect because it is secondhand

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Why cant people listening to the call firsthand be called?

You're an attorney asking why CIA transcribers cannot be called before an open session of Congress for a show trial?  How many of these hearings have you watched? Has the president ever prevented people from appearing due to executive privilege? 

 

You are exposing your ignorance. Again. 

Edited September 26, 2019 by Deranged Rhino

[whatdrought]

1 minute ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Why cant people listening to the call firsthand be called?

 

What gain is that unless they are going to testify that the transcript is deceptive/wrong? (which is a whole other ball of wax)

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Rob's House said:

Has anyone noticed that it appears Biden is guilty of actual corruption, but the scandal is Trump finding out about it?

 

That's the giveaway. 

 

This move was about two things for the DNC: 

1) Distancing/sacrificing Joe for Warren's campaign

2) Getting ahead of the OIG report which will lay out political persecution and corruption on a grand scale. 

 

[Numark3]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

You're an attorney asking why CIA transcribers cannot be called before an open session of Congress for a show trial?  How many of these hearings have you watched? Has the president ever prevented people from appearing due to executive privileged? 

 

You are exposing your ignorance. Again. 

 

Um the complaint says approximately a dozen White House officials listened to the call (including policy officials, whitehouse personnel, and Brechbuhl).  And that participation in the call was not restricted...

 

are you sure you read the complaint?  Keep digging lol.

[ALF]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

You're an attorney asking why CIA transcribers cannot be called before an open session of Congress for a show trial?  How many of these hearings have you watched? Has the president ever prevented people from appearing due to executive privileged? 

 

How about testify behind closed doors ?