Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump

[6andcounting]

(11-11-2019, 05:30 PM)Dill Wrote: 1. The neighbor wasn't in the room and so never "saw" the beating, if one actually occurred.

2. Perhaps an "officer on the scene" could then be like someone who found out the official call transcript was hidden on the classified server, talked to officials who explained what had happened, read meeting protocols and the like--but was not there for the actual beating--I mean, call to Ukraine?

3. Husband is protected from the wife's word by "immunity"? 4. If the analogy holds so far, then Trump defenders would say they don't see any bruises. Or bruises happen in marriage, "get over it." 5. They would want the police to investigate the background of the neighbor, the doctor, and the wife, not to mention the policemen who took the statement, to look for "bias."


6. Could that work in a real life case of wife beating? Could the defense sideline the prosecution and fool the jury by going after the credibility of the witnesses--including doctors and police officers?  

1. If the neighbor heard it in real time they would be a witness.

2. I've said before I'm okay with someone being a whistleblower who only has indirect knowledge. 

3. There's no immunity. He said/she said just isn't going to go anywhere.

4. Huh? The evidence is there or it's not

5. I hope they would all be available to be cross-examined if their testimony is being used against someone charged with a crime.


 6. The credibility of witnesses and the evidence does have to stand up to cross-examination and scrutiny, and the jury gets to decide that in every case.

[6andcounting]

(11-11-2019, 05:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If Bob had first hand knowledge then the story is a first hand account of what happened.  

The whole issue of "second hand" is just a red herring.  If a police officer files a warrant based on a direct eyewitness statement no one would be attacking that as "second hand".  Instead it is considered direct eye witness evidence.  It would be false to claim that the police did not have anything but "second hand" evidence or "hearsay".

As told by Bob it's a first hand account. As re-told by the guy born 50 years after the end of WWII - it's definitely not my first hand account. lol


I'm totally cool with a whistleblower speaking out even if they only have hearsay. I said you shouldn't have to go full blown Snowden and have everything in hand if you think something shady is happening.  

Of course police can get warrants on credible firsthand witness testimony. That's not secondhand info - that's firsthand info straight from a witness. A witness who tells me something that I then tell to a cop isn't going to get signed off by a judge based solely on what I told the cop. They would speak to the direct witness first or dig for other evidence to take to the judge.

[fredtoast]

(11-11-2019, 06:28 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Of course police can get warrants on credible firsthand witness testimony. That's not secondhand info - that's firsthand info straight from a witness. 

So of course whistleblowers can write reports on credible firsthand witness testimony.  That's not second hand info - that's firsthand info straight from a witness.

Now do you see why the identity of the whistleblower it is all just a red herring.  The identity is meaningless.  What matters is the evidence.  The FoxNews/Right wing media squealing about the political interest of the whistleblower is just to deflect the attention of the rubes away from the actual evidence.

How silly would it be for a criminal to try and use the defense of "That policeman wrote that warrant based direct eye-witness testimony just because he doesn't like me."   

[6andcounting]

(11-11-2019, 07:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 1. So of course whistleblowers can write reports on credible firsthand witness testimony.  That's not second hand info - that's firsthand info straight from a witness.

2.  The identity is meaningless.  What matters is the evidence.  The FoxNews/Right wing media squealing about the political interest of the whistleblower is just to deflect the attention of the rubes away from the actual evidence.   

1. It's firsthand info for the witness. It's not firsthand info for the person recounting what someone else said they say.


 2. I've agreed with this every time it has been brought up.

[Belsnickel]

(11-11-2019, 02:52 PM)6andcounting Wrote: The readout wasn't cited as evidence for a single one of his claim. What he cited he admits was 2nd hand info.


You quoted an out-of-context snippet that suggestion he used the readout as part of his whistleblower report. I provided context from all sides to show that's not the case. I flat out said the readout wasn't evidence - no dancing. I don't check my P&R notifications on the weekends since I can't respond anyways. When I opened it up and saw this was your comment I was disappointed. Right or wrong, your always informed about your position and argue from evidence. That response just aint it. 

None of that matters. He had the readout. He had direct knowledge of the call. Any discussions with other persons included in there is just bolstering his position based on the readout by saying "these people also have these concerns." Having the readout is direct knowledge, which means it wasn't entirely hearsay.

[BakertheBeast]

Right wing spin.

I'm in a bar and happen to over hear two men talking about robbing the bank across the street in an hour.  I call 911 from the bars phone and report what I heard. An hour later the police arrest the two men who attempted to rob the bank.
1) Attempted bank robbery is crime the same as bank robbery.
2) The police aren't going to conduct a investigation into who the person was that made the call to 911 because it means nothing and is irrelevant to the FACT that a crime was committed.
Someone should explain this to those republican congresswomen who lost their testicles to the Donald.

[GMDino]

But the GOP will have Jim Jordan.  

I almost feel like we need a separate thread for the public hearings....

Apparently @danielsgoldman will be doing the questioning for House Intel Dems this week.

Dan and I tried a Genovese Family Boss and two hitmen on a case involving RICO, two murders, one attempted murder, and two murder conspiracies. (All guilty, now doing life).

He'll do fine.

— Elie Honig (@eliehonig) November 11, 2019

 

[Belsnickel]

(11-12-2019, 11:16 AM)GMDino Wrote: But the GOP will have Jim Jordan.  

I almost feel like we need a separate thread for the public hearings....

Apparently @danielsgoldman will be doing the questioning for House Intel Dems this week.

Dan and I tried a Genovese Family Boss and two hitmen on a case involving RICO, two murders, one attempted murder, and two murder conspiracies. (All guilty, now doing life).

He'll do fine.

— Elie Honig (@eliehonig) November 11, 2019

 

What needs to happen is that the Democrats just need to stick to questioning. Don't fall into the circus trap. Don't play down to any of the antics that will likely be involved. If the Democrats don't grandstand, they can make the Republicans just look foolish up on that dais. They present the image that the Republicans aren't taking the process seriously while they are.

But that requires elected lawmakers to practice self-restraint and not be the center of attention. So I don't have high hopes for it

[GMDino]

(11-12-2019, 11:22 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: What needs to happen is that the Democrats just need to stick to questioning. Don't fall into the circus trap. Don't play down to any of the antics that will likely be involved. If the Democrats don't grandstand, they can make the Republicans just look foolish up on that dais. They present the image that the Republicans aren't taking the process seriously while they are.

But that requires elected lawmakers to practice self-restraint and not be the center of attention. So I don't have high hopes for it

Honestly Matt I have higher hopes for this than public hearings in the past.  

This will be more of a replay of what happened already in private.  All the Democrats have to do is allow the GOP to make fools of themselves.  The GOP base will eat it up but hopefully Americans will see it for what it is.

[GMDino]

So the defense for him staying in the most powerful job in the world is that...he can’t tell right from wrong?

— L. Harvey (@LesLHci) November 12, 2019

 

[*Nately120*]

(11-12-2019, 07:02 AM)BakertheBeast Wrote: Right wing spin.

I'm in a bar and happen to over hear two men talking about robbing the bank across the street in an hour.  I call 911 from the bars phone and report what I heard. An hour later the police arrest the two men who attempted to rob the bank.
1) Attempted bank robbery is crime the same as bank robbery.
2) The police aren't going to conduct a investigation into who the person was that made the call to 911 because it means nothing and is irrelevant to the FACT that a crime was committed.
Someone should explain this to those republican congresswomen who lost their testicles to the Donald.

You continually likening what you deem to be cowardly men to women is off-puttingly dissident to your ultra-liberal posts.  Just my 2 cents. 

[6andcounting]

(11-11-2019, 11:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: None of that matters. He had the readout. He had direct knowledge of the call. Any discussions with other persons included in there is just bolstering his position based on the readout by saying "these people also have these concerns." Having the readout is direct knowledge, which means it wasn't entirely hearsay.

Why do you believe he chose not to cite this "direct knowledge" anywhere in is report?


But he did start his report with this:

In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. (Odd he doesn't mention anything about info from the readout)1This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals. The President’s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well.

• Over the past four months, more than half a dozen U.S. officials have informed me of various facts related to this effort. The information provided herein was relayed to me in the course of official interagency business. It is routine for U.S. officials with responsibility for a particular regional or functional portfolio to share such information with one another in order to inform policymaking and analysis.
• I was not a direct witness to most of the events described. (Clearly this means he had direct knowledge of the events he described) However, I found my colleagues’ accounts of these events to be credible because, (Clearly his accounts came from the readout and not his colleagues) in almost all cases, multiple officials recounted fact patterns that were consistent with one another. In addition, a variety of information consistent with these private accounts has been reported publicly.
  

[6andcounting]

(11-12-2019, 07:02 AM)BakertheBeast Wrote: Right wing spin.

I'm in a bar and happen to over hear two men talking about robbing the bank across the street in an hour.  I call 911 from the bars phone and report what I heard. An hour later the police arrest the two men who attempted to rob the bank.
1) Attempted bank robbery is crime the same as bank robbery.
2) The police aren't going to conduct a investigation into who the person was that made the call to 911 because it means nothing and is irrelevant to the FACT that a crime was committed.
Someone should explain this to those republican congresswomen who lost their testicles to the Donald.

In the example, you hear two criminals plotting a crime. Did the whistleblower hear Trump plotting (or committing) wrongdoing? 

[fredtoast]

(11-12-2019, 07:46 PM)6andcounting Wrote: In the example, you hear two criminals plotting a crime. Did the whistleblower hear Trump plotting (or committing) wrongdoing? 

Now you are just playing games.

Police can issue warrants based on statements from eyewitnesses.

Whistleblowers can write reports based on statements from eyewitnesses.

The only reason to try and attack the police officer or the whistleblower is to divert attention from the evidence presented by the eyewitness. 

[Belsnickel]

(11-12-2019, 07:37 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Why do you believe he chose not to cite this "direct knowledge" anywhere in is report?


But he did start his report with this:

In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. (Odd he doesn't mention anything about info from the readout)1This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals. The President’s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well.

• Over the past four months, more than half a dozen U.S. officials have informed me of various facts related to this effort. The information provided herein was relayed to me in the course of official interagency business. It is routine for U.S. officials with responsibility for a particular regional or functional portfolio to share such information with one another in order to inform policymaking and analysis.
• I was not a direct witness to most of the events described. (Clearly this means he had direct knowledge of the events he described) However, I found my colleagues’ accounts of these events to be credible because, (Clearly his accounts came from the readout and not his colleagues) in almost all cases, multiple officials recounted fact patterns that were consistent with one another. In addition, a variety of information consistent with these private accounts has been reported publicly.
  

Yet he still had the readout, meaning he had more than just hearsay.

[GMDino]

When I told the judge that my note to the teller only mentioned money once he laughed at me.

— lesang (@landruzza) November 13, 2019

 

[6andcounting]

(11-12-2019, 08:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Now you are just playing games.

Police can issue warrants based on statements from eyewitnesses.

Whistleblowers can write reports based on statements from eyewitnesses.

The only reason to try and attack the police officer or the whistleblower is to divert attention from the evidence presented by the eyewitness. 

Can police issue warrants based on someone saying they heard such and such from the eyewitness?

All the attention should be on the actual evidence - not the hearsay. 

[6andcounting]

(11-12-2019, 10:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:  he had more than just hearsay.

If this is true, why can't you just point to which part of the whistleblower report came from the readout?

[BmorePat87]

(11-13-2019, 08:37 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Can police issue warrants based on someone saying they heard such and such from the eyewitness?

All the attention should be on the actual evidence - not the hearsay. 

They would first open an investigation and talk to the eyewitness(es). From there they could obtain a warrant.


But this isn't even a criminal investigation, so that's meaningless. 

[Belsnickel]

(11-13-2019, 08:42 PM)6andcounting Wrote: If this is true, why can't you just point to which part of the whistleblower report came from the readout?

Any mention of what was discussed in the phone call, even if it discussing what someone discussed with him, is backed up by the fact he had the readout. He doesn't need to directly reference it. He had the readout, which is evidence beyond hearsay.