11-11-2019, 11:15 PM
(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.
"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
