11-04-2019, 03:30 PM
(11-04-2019, 03:18 PM)6andcounting Wrote: The whistle blowers report was the definition of hearsay. He had no evidence, but heard through the grapevine something happened. Should that give you official whistleblower status is another debate I guess, but in this case he is being treated as a whistle blower. Whether he gets the official status or not - I'm okay with someone speaking up if they think something is wrong even if they don't have the evidence. You shouldn't have to go full blown Snowden to be able to say something. It's just a matter of what constitutes an official whistleblower is what I'm getting at here.
This is an argument I have disagreed with from the onset. According to the whitleblower's statement, he had received a readout of the phone call that initiated his complaint. That is evidence and takes it beyond hearsay. The whole "hearsay" talking point is nothing more than an attempt to dismiss the whole situation.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
