Whistleblower

[beezzz]

Urgent and credible.

you and your elk said the same about



RUSSIA HOAX

 

[doowdniw]

Anonymous tips can be urgent and credible. That doesn't automatically make them true.

Doesn't automatically make them false, either.

That's why they get investigated.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Did I ever say it wasn't?

Do you believe that the opposite side's beliefs aren't?


Seriously, you need to just STFU.

I suggest you slow your roll.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Legal Experts Demolish Lindsey Graham’s ‘Hearsay’ Defense of Trump

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...ish-lindsey-grahams-hearsay-defense-of-trump/

 

[Adre]

Legal Experts Demolish Lindsey Graham’s ‘Hearsay’ Defense of Trump

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...ish-lindsey-grahams-hearsay-defense-of-trump/

Lindsey was well advised to give up lawyering in favor of being a partisan hack and Trump sycophant.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Lindsey and Harpy are getting all Tripp ed up.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Legal Experts Demolish Lindsey Graham’s ‘Hearsay’ Defense of Trump

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...ish-lindsey-grahams-hearsay-defense-of-trump/

Timmeh is NOT gonna click that link.

 

[DeluxAuto]

I doubt that we see HisArpy anytime soon.

 

[BizzaBizza]

Legal Experts Demolish Lindsey Graham’s ‘Hearsay’ Defense of Trump

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...ish-lindsey-grahams-hearsay-defense-of-trump/

Lawyers & Legal Experts arguing with each other over what's Hearsay and what's not? Oh, my, fucking, God. I've never seen that before. What is this world coming too when lawyers don't agree with each other?!

 

[doowdniw]

Lawyers & Legal Experts arguing with each other over what's Hearsay and what's not? Oh, my, fucking, God. I've never seen that before. What is this world coming too when lawyers don't agree with each other?!

Harpy's whole argument is that if it's hearsay, it must be fabricated false evidence, which is itself a false argument.

 

[moonflasher]

Cock blowers are more fun

 

[jomar]

Lindsey was well advised to give up lawyering in favor of being a partisan hack and Trump sycophant.

Senator remora is probably finding himself wishing he’d latched onto a different host.

 

[jomar]

I doubt that we see HisArpy anytime soon.

I hope not, he’s fun.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

You know, when I've cited Fox News, many Lit Lefties, including perhaps you, have claimed it's an illegitimate source due to bias.



Seriously, though, while I still don't see evidence of any quid quo pro, if Napolitano is right, then it's not necessary. Unfortunately, he does not cite the statute, and two issues remain in my mind:

1. Does the statute include an element of intent?

2. Would Biden be deemed a political opponent at the time of the call, given that he has not yet been nominated for anything?​

If intent is unnecessary, or if it is established, and if Biden would be in the statute's definition of political opponent under these circumstances, then it seems to me you're right.

Can someone please cite the applicable statute for me?

Trump literally asked for a "favor", that the President of the Ukraine investigate a US political rival, while Trump was withholding $350M + in military aid needed to stop Russian aggression. If that does not define a quid pro quo than someone is not speaking the English language.

You cannot ignore the context.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsuYJstAS4k

Trump and Giuliani have been supporting and cultivating a relationship with Lutsenko. Poroshenko loses the election and so Lutsenko is out. Giuliani goes back to work and tells Zelensky to get in line. So then Trump freezes the Aid, Trade and Javelins until Zelensky gets in line. And we hear the call where Zelensky does, in fact, get in line.

Zelensky: "I·wili.personally tell you that one· of my assistants· spoke with Mr.
Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr.
Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once
he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that
you have nobody but friends around us."

Meanwhile Trump removes the Ambassador to the Ukraine because she (Marie Yovanovitch) was doing here job and refuting Giuliani's absurd assertions and efforts to cultivate Lutsenko.

This is not complicated.

 

[jomar]

Then there’s the $140 million sweetener on top of the funds that were finally released. Wink wink, nudge nudge.

 

[BizzaBizza]

Trump literally asked for a "favor", that the President of the Ukraine investigate a US political rival, while Trump was withholding $350M + in military aid needed to stop Russian aggression. If that does not define a quid pro quo than someone is not speaking the English language.

You cannot ignore the context.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsuYJstAS4k

Trump and Giuliani have been supporting and cultivating a relationship with Lutsenko. Poroshenko loses the election and so Lutsenko is out. Giuliani goes back to work and tells Zelensky to get in line. So then Trump freezes the Aid, Trade and Javelins until Zelensky gets in line. And we hear the call where Zelensky does, in fact, get on line.

Zelensky: "I·wili.personally tell you that one· of my assistants· spoke with Mr.
Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr.
Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once
he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that
you have nobody but friends around us."

Meanwhile Trump removes the Ambassador to the Ukraine because she (Marie Yovanovitch) was doing here job and refuting Giuliani's absurd assertions and efforts to cultivate Lutsenko.

This is not complicated.

Trump's DOJ clears president of violating campaign finance law in Ukraine-Biden call


Justice Department found Trump didn’t commit a campaign finance crime raised by whistleblower

It's not complicated at all.

 

[HisArpy]

Harpy's whole argument is that if it's hearsay, it must be fabricated false evidence, which is itself a false argument.

If you say that something happened, but did not witness that event happening or if it even actually DID happen, what do you call it?

Hearsay.
Lie.
Fabricated evidence.

The word you use depends on the circumstances surrounding the need to choose which word to use.

Good luck with trying to say otherwise.

 

[HisArpy]

I doubt that we see HisArpy anytime soon.

*snort*

You wish.

 

[doowdniw]

If you say that something happened, but did not witness that event happening or if it even actually DID happen, what do you call it?

Hearsay.
Lie.
Fabricated evidence.

The word you use depends on the circumstances surrounding the need to choose which word to use.

Good luck with trying to say otherwise.

Your argument has been: it's hearsay, therefore it's fabricated and false.
Bless your heart.

 

[HisArpy]

Your argument has been: it's hearsay, therefore it's fabricated and false.
Bless your heart.

If it's hearsay, it's not truth. If it's not truth, it's a lie. If it's a lie that you're trying to use as evidence, it's fabricated.


Other than that, you have attention deficit issues you need to work on because the concept isn't that difficult to understand or retain. Unless you have those attention deficit issues I just mentioned.

 

[doowdniw]

If you say that something happened, but did not witness that event happening or if it even actually DID happen, what do you call it?

Hearsay.
Lie.
Fabricated evidence.

The word you use depends on the circumstances surrounding the need to choose which word to use.

Good luck with trying to say otherwise.

If I say something happened, and it even actually DID happen, I'd call that an accurate statement. What would you call it?
In other cases, one might call it a reasonable deduction.

How about if someone told you that something happened, and you said that someone told you that something happened? What would you call it?

Is all hearsay a lie? It's a simple yes or no question.

What you have consistently attempted to argue is that hearsay is by it's nature fabricated false evidence. I have tried to persuade you that you are incorrect.
We appear to be at an impasse.

 

[jaF0]

There are an awful lot of people in prison because Person A heard Person B say Person C did something. Person A becomes the complainant, Person B becomes the witness and Person C becomes the inmate.

 

[doowdniw]

If it's hearsay, it's not truth. If it's not truth, it's a lie. If it's a lie that you're trying to use as evidence, it's fabricated.


Other than that, you have attention deficit issues you need to work on because the concept isn't that difficult to understand or retain. Unless you have those attention deficit issues I just mentioned.

Then if hearsay is a fabricated lie (not truth) why are there more than 20 exceptions to the hearsay rule that allow such a fabricated lie to come into evidence?

I agree that hearsay is not a difficult concept, and the rule itself is almost consumed by the exceptions to it. Your logic that hearsay is by definition a lie is just flat out wrong. Your ad homs don't change that fact.

 

[HisArpy]

If I say something happened, and it even actually DID happen, I'd call that an accurate statement. What would you call it?
In other cases, one might call it a reasonable deduction.

How about if someone told you that something happened, and you said that someone told you that something happened? What would you call it?

Is all hearsay a lie? It's a simple yes or no question.

What you have consistently attempted to argue is that hearsay is by it's nature fabricated false evidence. I have tried to persuade you that you are incorrect.
We appear to be at an impasse.

Dude, just stop before you strain your brain or something. You've gone totally around the bend in trying to twist this into something it isn't.

If you didn't SEE or HEAR or FEEL it, you can't say it happened. Not truthfully. All you can say is that someone told you it happened.

If you say something happened when you don't actually know it happened, what you say is a lie. Period.

I find it amazing that you are trying to argue that lying is acceptable. No court allows it. No parent allows it. Friends and family don't allow it either. NOT EVEN THE GB ON LIT allows it (other than the Ad Hom crap) because a request for citation to authority is common here.

You can't just make up shit and pass it off as truth.

Yet here you are trying to say that if someone "deduces" something they didn't witness it's not a lie. Or that they're not trying to create/fabricate events they don't know actually occurred.

Finally we get to your "yes or no question". Hearsay is a statement offered to prove the truth of the matter about which the speaker has no actual knowledge.

What do you call it when you say something you don't know is true or not? It doesn't matter if it really is true, YOU DON"T ACTUALLY KNOW IT. And, without actual knowledge, it's a lie on your part.

When you create a lie to accuse or support an accusation, it's fabrication of evidence. This is why the words "lie" and "fabrication" are often synonymous.

 

[DeluxAuto]

I hope not, he’s fun.

You're right, though. He's entertaining me more than I thought anyone could.