Whistleblower

[doowdniw]

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.

If you say that someone told you something happened, and that someone had actually told you that something happened, you have not told a lie. Get it?

 

[KeithD]

If you say that someone told you something happened, and that someone had actually told you that something happened, you have not told a lie. Get it?

And when it turned out to have happened and the one who did it admits it happened, any suggestion it happened is borne out--it's not a fabrication.

Get that in your pointy little head, Harpy?

 

[phrodeau]

And when it turned out to have happened and the one who did it admits it happened, any suggestion it happened is borne out--it's not a fabrication.

Get that in your pointy little head, Harpy?

Not likely to.

 

[KeithD]

Not likely to.

And what are the bets that he hasn't actually read either complaint or the version of the transcript that has been released?

The only purpose of Harpy and the other Trumpettes here is to be contrary (and ridiculous).

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

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?

Foreign nationals

Campaigns may not solicit or accept contributions from foreign nationals. Federal law prohibits contributions, donations, expenditures and disbursements solicited, directed, received or made directly or indirectly by or from foreign nationals in connection with any election — federal, state or local.

<SNIP>

A person acts knowingly for the purposes of this section when he or she has:

Actual knowledge that the funds have come from a foreign national;
Awareness of certain facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that there is a substantial probability that the money is from a foreign national; or
Awareness of facts that should have prompted a reasonable inquiry into whether the source of funds is a foreign national.


https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates...-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/


I thought I had posted this before in this thread.

That cannot be the regulation to which Napolitano refers. It only addresses monetary contributions. There is no allegation I am aware of that the Trump campaign accepted any monetary contributions from any Ukrainian.

The regulation you cite does not appear to apply in this case.

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.

My understanding is that the aid and weapon sales were frozen before Zelensky was even elected, but that's just a minor quibble. I think you make the point that there is at least sufficient circumstantial evidence to go to a jury (or the Senate) on any element of intent.

That does not address, however, the other two interrelated questions I raise above. First, what is the statute or regulation that applies, and what are its specific elements? The regulation Aglaopheme cites does not apply. It only addresses monetary donations from foreign nationals.

Second, and more specifically, given that he has not yet been nominated to run against Trump, does Biden meet the definition of a "political opponent" under the applicable law. I have yet to see that addressed by anyone, either Trump friend or foe.

It looked to me originally that Trump had probably broken some law but, the more I study it, there does not seem to be any law that actually applies.

 

[RobDownSouth]

That cannot be the regulation to which Napolitano refers. It only addresses monetary contributions. There is no allegation I am aware of that the Trump campaign accepted any monetary contributions from any Ukrainian.

The regulation you cite does not appear to apply in this case.

If you hover over the word "contributions" in the text he gave you a link to, you will see a popup box defining the word contribution for the purposes of the law. Money is addressed, but so is "anything of value given to influence a federal election". I took a screen shot for you.

 

[KeithD]

My understanding is that the aid and weapon sales were frozen before Zelensky was even elected, but that's just a minor quibble.

No. Trump instructed the freezing of the transfer three days before the telephone call. You also are wrong in thinking that the quid pro quo has to be in money. It doesn't.

I suggest you drop back and research again with a more objective eye before commenting further. And stop wasting our time and effort.

 

[KeithD]

An aspect of this I find interesting is the apparent effort being put into identifying the whistleblower. If, as has been "revealed" already, it's a CIA detailee to the White House who is an Eastern European affairs expert (and the expertise is exhibited in detail in the complaint, as is a thorough understanding of the whistleblowing process), it should take them about three minutes to determine who fits those parameters. There couldn't be more than a couple of choices.

That is if this isn't a purposely clouded up background on a single person or a composite of several people (which seems the most likely).

 

[doowdniw]

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.

The only one contorting themselves to make an argument is you.

If you hear someone tell you something, you can say that they told you something. That is what I have been saying all along. Your inability to comprehend the written word is truly astounding.

You left out SMELL and TASTE.

I've never once argued that lying is acceptable, and for you to say that I am trying to argue that lying is acceptable is itself a lie.

Do you have any evidence that what the whistleblower stated in their complaint was made up?

If you come in and your jacket and umbrella are soaking wet and I say, "I deduce from your appearance that it is probably raining outside", by your (illogical) logic, I have just stated a lie. Or if the bank manger tells me they've just been robbed, and I tell a passing policeman that the bank manager told me the bank has been robbed, I've told a lie. Under your logic, false statements and hearsay would be concentric circles. They are not, and never have been.

Even your own somewhat limited definition of hearsay mentions nothing about it being false, a lie, or fabricated. Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Nowhere in the definition does it contain a presumption that hearsay is false, a lie, or fabricated either in the Federal Rules of Evidence or in the California Evidence Code.

Lie and fabrication are indeed often used as synonyms, but what they are not used in is the definition of hearsay. You've confabulated that your self. You are still wrong and have been wrong thorough out this entire discussion.

 

[Conager]

That is not what the so-called whistleblower is attesting to. He has constructed an allegation that he is attesting is truthful while alleging that sources that he does not name are both reliable, truthful, adequately informed and fully informing him. It is second-hand gossip or worse.

There is a reason that hearsay evidence is only permitted in court under very limited specific circumstances and it is clearly identified as such and given only the weight that individual bit of hearsay evidence deserves, based on the individual context of that limited piece of information. In nearly all case objection is quite reasonably raised and usually sustained where a witness veers into hearsay testimony. The witness is admonished to stick to only those things he can personally attest to as a first-hand witness. Unless the person that had first-hand knowledge is dead or recalcitrant they should be the ones giving testimony about what they witnessed. None of that is being asserted for the basis of this weak-assed smear-job. This is no better than the NYT publishing tips not investigated from anonymous sources.

Mostly, hearsay is for providing insight into such things as a person's state of mind, which is something that would be unknowable without quoting what that person's statements were they gave you some idea as to what their state of mind was. Even in those sort of cases a signed statement by that person in their own words is clearly preferable to someone recalling what they think they remember that person said.

Secondhand accounts from people who gathered firsthand as evidence of people who are now dead would qualify.

Secondhand accounts of people who are obviously alive and available to testify if they have information that is relevant valid and important should be coming forward. The absence of such should tell anyone with half a brain that this entire thing is nonsense.

When the entire foundation of an accusation is hearsay "evidence" conveyed on a form that has specifically and outrageously modified to give hearsay evidence an imprimatur of gravitas that it in no wise deserves. . it is laughable.

The gambit here was a "people are saying" whispering campaign devised by piecing together a what-if scenario constructed around a frame of things that were public knowledge. We knew Biden has a big appearance of impropriety problem that needed either inoculated or brought forward depending on whether he is to be the candidate or shunted aside. We knew the Trump administration, the IG, and the AG are looking into the bogus impetus for the FISA warrants, the Russia meddling narrative, Manafort being charged and the DNC hack with roots in Ukraine. We know there was some hesitation on the part of the Trump campaign about military aid to the Ukrain. (Obama could dither over something like that for months and be "thoughtful and deliberative.") The hope was that Trump would assert executive privilege, which ordinarily he absolutely should have regarding his Communications with world leaders. This isn't something that they get to listen in on an air. He's the chief executive he gets to make these decision he gets them have these conversations. It didn't work. Their fallback position now is going to be every single conversation he has with anyone about anything that he doesn't wish to disclose they're going to ask "What is he hiding?!??"

This wasn't about the substance of the so-called whistleblower complaint. This was going to be about, "Gosh, this whistleblower complaint (which wasn't valid whistleblower complaint) was "hidden." What are they hiding?" That was the whole gambit.

This was barely the basis to interview some "senior officials" if they had actually been named. This was no more "urgent" than some random, poorly-sourced NYT article.

 

[Conager]

Geez. This https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/09/trump-mafia-behavior-analogy-ukraine-transcript.html is Aglo-level desperately delusional.

The "reporter's" name is Onion?!?

She is backstopping Adam Schiff's ridiculous portrayal?

How soon before they pretend they didn't push this nonsense and move on to the next iteration?

 

[jaF0]

That is if this isn't a purposely clouded up background on a single person or a composite of several people (which seems the most likely).

Whistleblower's lawyer says Trump is endangering his client
NBC News|4 hours ago
The attorney for the intelligence community whistleblower whose complaint fueled a House inquiry into impeaching President Donald Trump says he has "serious concerns" that Trump's comments had put his client in danger.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Oh, we got him now!

Another cache of third-hand ancillary information...



~~~ tee hee ~~~

 

[SpeareChucker]

You news outlets sure know how to keep you breathlessly glued to their commercial product.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Joe Biden: Poor Parenting

...

Whatever you think about the Clintons and Donald Trump — about their views, values, and often questionable behavior — they evidently, despite all, raised their children decently. They paid attention. The proof is in the results. Chelsea Clinton and all the many Trump progeny are successful functioning adults, in several cases high-functioning (again, irrespective of their views — that's irrelevant here.).

Hunter Biden is not. His life is and has been a disaster. What is the reason for that? DNA undoubtedly has influence, but so does parenting. And that's what we control.

When your son is bounced out of the Navy for cocaine, when he has long had a drug and prostitution problem (the man also dumped his wife for his dead brother's widow), do you allow him to use your influence to get a $50K-a-month job with a Ukrainian natural gas company? Do you reward repeated mistakes with riches in an Eastern European country? Don't you try instead to help your son make his life better, help him deal with his obvious emotional problems first? Joe Biden himself has had considerable pain in his personal life, the deaths of a spouse and a child, but one would hope that would make him yet more attentive to those remaining children, less centered in the self. It appears not to have been so.

Let's leave aside the quid pro quo controversy (for the moment) or whether Joe got Hunter the job in the first place or let his influence do it for him, because none of that is important in terms of parenting. He was a truly incompetent father and did exactly the wrong thing for his son, enabling him once again. His subtextual message to Hunter was "Go away. You're bothering me. I'm doing something important." (Really?) Or perhaps it was "I'm feeling guilty for not paying attention to you, so here's a rich buyout. Stay off the coke this time, please." Or maybe it was a little of both — it all comes to the same thing, an unhappy mix.

...

Roger L. Simon, PJMedia

https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/joe-bidens-parenting-the-real-problem-not-impeachment/

 

[icanhelp1]

You news outlets sure know how to keep you breathlessly glued to their commercial product.

As the whole whistleblower kabal is unraveled some things are coming into focus. A change in the whistleblower protection act that went unnoticed behind the scenes, dates and times that seems to indicate that Adam Schiff was coaching the whistleblower well before the transcript was release and the possibility that this was a set up by him and the House Intelligence committee. Similar to the crap Carter Page was subjected to.. Seems like the CIA is actively trying to bring this president down. This smells of Brennan and Clapper. This is the real threat to national security.

 

[SpeareChucker]

I thought one of the hallmarks of our jurisprudence system is that during a trial,
the defendant has the right to face his, and possibly impeach, his accuser.

The longer and harder the Left fights to keep this in the realm of Kafka,
the less credibility and credence do I personally lend to this proceeding.

If we're to become a nation of in-the-shadows third-hand allegation,
then we are to become a Banana Republic under the rule of man, not law.

 

[bellisarius]

I thought one of the hallmarks of our jurisprudence system is that during a trial,
the defendant has the right to face his, and possibly impeach, his accuser.

The longer and harder the Left fights to keep this in the realm of Kafka,
the less credibility and credence do I personally lend to this proceeding.

If we're to become a nation of in-the-shadows third-hand allegation,
then we are to become a Banana Republic under the rule of man, not law.

Guess what you're going to hear once some democrat notables are indicted?

 

[SpeareChucker]

Guess what you're going to hear once some democrat notables are indicted?

Don't know if you've seen it,
but Clarence Page has already let that cat out of the bag.

What the Bidens did is meaningless...

 

[bellisarius]

Probably not. I've started tuning out the "news" and am paying more attention to what I'm hearing on the street. What I'm hearing isn't boding well for the dems once you get outside the partisan echo chambers.

 

[Kantarii]

You news outlets sure know how to keep you breathlessly glued to their commercial product.

It’s all about the ratings; Trump drives the ratings.

 

[jaF0]

I thought one of the hallmarks of our jurisprudence system is that during a trial, the defendant has the right to face his, and possibly impeach, his accuser.

During, not before. What he's after is basically witness tampering or intimidation.

 

[SpeareChucker]

No, Nancy is trying him right now;
same as Schiff...

This is, politically, during the trial.

 

[jaF0]

There is no trial underway. That happens in the Senate.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Yes there is and Schiff has even entered false testimony into the record.

Nancy is carefully treading this minefield now.
This is a trial by press, That's all impeachment ever is. Wake up and be woke.

I will repeat, as long as the Left keeps operating in the dark,
I give this process no due regard as to credibility.
I hold President Trump to the Biden/Clinton standard.
I hold him, then, to your standard, since you have never indicated that
anything they have ever done rises to the level of political malfeasance.