Whistleblower Has Been Backed Up By Multiple Witnesses

[3rdnlng]

BREAKING NEWS:  The whistleblower has just been named and it's proven beyond a shadow of doubt that no bias was involved in the claim:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Blasey_Ford

[Warren Zevon]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

BREAKING NEWS:  The whistleblower has just been named and it's proven beyond a shadow of doubt that no bias was involved in the claim:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Blasey_Ford

 

LOL

[Numark3]

3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

BREAKING NEWS:  The whistleblower has just been named and it's proven beyond a shadow of doubt that no bias was involved in the claim:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Blasey_Ford

 

FUNNNNNNY JOKE!!!!

 

i now see why you don’t post anything original.  Because, wow, this is...geesh 

 

 

go back to riding other’s posts. Leave the big boy dumb posts to people like DR lol

Edited September 26, 2019 by Crayola64

[3rdnlng]

7 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

What an insult lol!  My job is not an area to insult me in haha.

 

Lol, that’s me!  An unsuccessful lawyer haha

Do you have to bring your own chair?

[Foxx]

1 hour ago, whatdrought said:

Are you fat shaming him? You intolerant bigot! You're gonna lose your woke card for that. 

woke card?? Tibs has a woke card??

 

now that ***** right there is..

[Numark3]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

Do you have to bring your own chair?

Nice thing about my job is I don’t have to ever bring anything.  Stuff is always paid for

[3rdnlng]

Just now, Crayola64 said:

Nice thing about my job is I don’t have to ever bring anything.  Stuff is always paid for

Maybe I'm confusing you with someone else like Tibs, but didn't you claim to have only actually sat as the 3rd chair ONCE in a trial? Seems like that's the epitome of your profession.

[LB3]

 

[whatdrought]

This has actually devolved into someone bragging about their job... on the internet. 

 

Welp, as Judge Judy's chamber maid, I can personally assure you this man is no lawyer. 

[Numark3]

Just now, whatdrought said:

This has actually devolved into someone bragging about their job... on the internet. 

 

Welp, as Judge Judy's chamber maid, I can personally assure you this man is no lawyer. 

 

Or people constantly insulting me.  Or DR bringing up his job as relevant first.  But whatever

 

i dont expect you to be objective

2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Maybe I'm confusing you with someone else like Tibs, but didn't you claim to have only actually sat as the 3rd chair ONCE in a trial? Seems like that's the epitome of your profession.

 

Lol burnnnnnn.  The career path of big law attorneys is soooooo funny.  

 

Maybe when I was a newbie this would have stung a little lol

[whatdrought]

1 minute ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Or people constantly insulting me.  Or DR bringing up his job as relevant first.  But whatever

 

i dont expect you to be objective

 

I don't expect you to be sane, so we're both playing from behind the others expectations.

[Numark3]

Just now, whatdrought said:

 

I don't expect you to be sane, so we're both playing from behind the others expectations.

 

Why don’t you just go ramble more about the whistleblower complaint conflicting with the transcript.  It’s funny how each of you clowns have been objectively wrong in the past 24 hours.

 

must be tough

On 9/25/2019 at 11:02 AM, whatdrought said:

 

A secondary source is not as credible as a primary source. So far we have a secondary source that conflicts with the primary source. Until such a time as more primary sources are released, we have what is legally known as hear-say. 

 

 

How many wrong things you can you say?

 

Was there a conflict? no.

 

And were we talking about the legal definition of hearsay?  Or not?

[Foxx]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Yup. 

 

FUSION GPS still at it. 

[Glenn Simpson]

 

thread.

https://twitter.com/FredFleitz/status/1177206661603348480

 

[John Adams]

5 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Or people constantly insulting me.  Or DR bringing up his job as relevant first.  But whatever

 

 

DR posts things here and they get picked up and reported in the media, sometimes verbatim. He's amazing. 

[Numark3]

2 hours 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? 

 

On 9/25/2019 at 11:02 AM, whatdrought said:

 

A secondary source is not as credible as a primary source. So far we have a secondary source that conflicts with the primary source. Until such a time as more primary sources are released, we have what is legally known as hear-say. 

 

 

Don't recall anyone eh?

 

 

 

Yeaaaaa.  Maybe you shouldn't argue with me.  No conflict.  No hearsay.  And you were also wrong about saying we weren't talking about legal hearsay lol

 

2 hours 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.

 

Ya sure? (I'll give you a hint who)

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, John Adams said:

 

DR posts things here and they get picked up and reported in the media, sometimes verbatim. He's amazing. 

 

Well yea man.  He posts all that amazing content (twitter posts and ramblings akin to a 12 year old reddit user)

Edited September 26, 2019 by Crayola64

[whatdrought]

9 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Why don’t you just go ramble more about the whistleblower complaint conflicting with the transcript.  It’s funny how each of you clowns have been objectively wrong in the past 24 hours.

 

must be tough

 

Hey- I admitted when I was wrong about that as the complaint wasn't released yet and my assertion that it conflicted was regarding what the media had said was in the complaint (which was proven wrong by the transcript and the complaint itself). I backed off my stance when I knew I was wrong. 

 

You stepped to me earlier, got shot down and then didn't bother responding (see below) because you don't care to have intellectual conversations. You prefer to randomly comment on certain things, take comments out of context, and then have one sided debates about legal terms because "er meh gash i'm a lawyer." 

 

 

2 hours ago, Crayola64 said:

 

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

 

2 hours ago, whatdrought said:

 

2 things: 

 

1- Don't step to me and then claim it's not worth it to actually quote what you're accusing me of. It makes you look like a schmuck. 

 

2- What i said, consistently throughout this whole damn dialogue, to you and to others, is that in the absence of additional, as of yet unreleased evidence, his complaint is suspect because there's no evidence supporting it. The media was reporting one thing about the report, the transcript showed something entirely different. Now we've seen both and in the absence of additional evidence, his/her complaint is worthless.

 

2b. Here are the two quotes of mine that I could find that seem somewhat relevant to what you're accusing me of. Please note that I am consistent throughout that in order for his complaint to be deemed credible, there needs to be evidence, or else he is a boy crying wolf and doing so only because someone else told him that there might be a wolf... maybe. 

 

That's fine, but It has to be proven eventually, or else it is just rumor mongering (whatever the motives are don't really matter)

 

How can they be credible without direct knowledge if no evidence can be provided? I get your premise- If I work at company x and they're doing some shady stuff and I've heard it through the grape vine, I might not have first hand knowledge about it, but I go report it to SEC or whoever. That's gonna drive an investigation. But if the investigation produces jackshit, I am no longer credible. I have been proven to be a false witness, or at least to have misunderstood what I thought I know. That's what (seemingly so far at least) is happening here. 

 

 

But please, tell me more about how you're a great lawyer and teacher because if there is one thing we know for certain, it's that the louder a person shouts about being a genius and having a prestigious job, the more likely they are to indeed be the big-shot they claim. 

 

 

 

** You got me on the above- I should not have said legally. It's still hearsay in the practical sense. But congats on your semantic win.

 

(quotes from earlier post copied and pasted to avoid going back to find them- again.)

Edited September 26, 2019 by whatdrought

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Or people constantly insulting me.  Or DR bringing up his job as relevant first.  But whatever

 

i dont expect you to be objective

 

Lol burnnnnnn.  The career path of big law attorneys is soooooo funny.  

 

Maybe when I was a newbie this would have stung a little lol

I would think it would have much less sting when you were just starting out but one hell of a lot of sting when you've toiled in the background for so long and all you have to show for it is sitting in the 3rd chair, once. That sounds very big time lawyerlike. No wonder you have to teach reading and writing at Crayola Community College.

[Tiberius]

Trump’s other Ukraine problem: New concern about his business

Comments by Ukraine’s leader are the first known example of an interaction ethics experts feared — a foreign leader seeking to influence Trump by staying at his properties and telling him.

• By Jonathan O'Connell and David A. Fahrenthold

[Numark3]

2 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

Hey- I admitted when I was wrong about that as the complaint wasn't released yet and my assertion that it conflicted was regarding what the media had said was in the complaint (which was proven wrong by the transcript and the complaint itself). I backed off my stance when I knew I was wrong. 

 

You stepped to me earlier, got shot down and then didn't bother responding (see below) because you don't care to have intellectual conversations. You prefer to randomly comment on certain things, take comments out of context, and then have one sided debates about legal terms because "er meh gash i'm a lawyer." 

 

 

 

 

But please, tell me more about how you're a great lawyer and teacher because if there is one thing we know for certain, it's that the louder a person shouts about being a genius and having a prestigious job, the more likely they are to indeed be the big-shot they claim. 

 

 

 

** You got me on the above- I should not have said legally. It's still hearsay in the practical sense. But congats on your semantic win.

 

Only brought up my job because DR brought up his.  And you all ran with it.  Oh well

[B-Man]

 

WASHINGTON — The whistle-blower who revealed that President Trump sought foreign help for his re-election and that the White House sought to cover it up is a C.I.A. officer who was detailed to work at the White House at one point, according to three people familiar with his identity.

 

The man has since returned to the C.I.A., the people said. Little else is known about him. His complaint made public Thursday suggested he was an analyst by training and made clear he was steeped in details of American foreign policy toward Europe, demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of Ukrainian politics and at least some knowledge of the law.

 

The whistle-blower’s expertise will likely add to lawmakers’ confidence about the merits of his complaint, and tamp down allegations that he might have misunderstood what he learned about Mr. Trump. He did not listen directly to a July call between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine that is at the center of the political firestorm over the president’s mixing of diplomacy with personal political gain. Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer

 

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...

 

 

 

.