Whistleblower Requirements Recently Amended to Allow Hearsay

[eagle1462010]

Why is Hunter smiling....................hmmmm...........

Might be the 50k a month he's gonna get from the Gas Company Biden arranged for him...........MAYBE..............lol

 

[Lesh]

Timely.

“I will never be so comfortable with a president that I don’t think he or she should be held accountable for wrongdoing. Political lynching via hearsay is a bit Soviet for my tastes, however.”

Whistleblower Requirements Recently Amended to Allow Hearsay

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

Trumps actions are indefensible which is why they're not every defending him, they're just attacking the whistleblower. It's all about public opinion.

S the hearsay thing is just pure bullshit?

Oh

 

[dudmuck]

Timely.

“I will never be so comfortable with a president that I don’t think he or she should be held accountable for wrongdoing. Political lynching via hearsay is a bit Soviet for my tastes, however.”

Whistleblower Requirements Recently Amended to Allow Hearsay

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

Trumps actions are indefensible which is why they're not every defending him, they're just attacking the whistleblower. It's all about public opinion.

Your post is rambling-who is not defending whom? And where does public opinion lie? Does it depend on which poll?

Trump supporters arent defending Trump from accusations of asking another country to investigate a political opponent, aka influence an election.

As far as the hearsay argument, the transcript of Trump’s call with the Ukrainian President wasnt hearsay.

Senate rules call for the use of hearsay in impeachment, in that committees hear the testimony and report back to the full Senate.

First, no defending is needed-there is NO crime.-as you say accusations-like Smollett saying he got beat up by Maga hats. Second, hearsay was NEVER used in trials-ask Judge Judy. The law was JUST changed to allow it. But, it is STILL hearsay. Third, you are right, the transcript was not hearsay. I read the whole transcript and there is nothing wrong or unusual in it.

4 potential crimes.

1) violation of campaign finance laws:
the law includes "ting of value" from foreigner, and research on Biden can count as something of value.

2) bribery
If prosecutors can show that Trump agreed to provide aid to Ukraine in return for opposition research on Biden, then its bribery. Case history that applies here is McDonnell vs. United States.

3) extortion
if Trump blocked military assistance to Ukraine in order to extract a payment from that country, that could form the basis for a Hobbs Act prosecution. This would depend on opposition research on Biden to be considered "property".

4) obstructing justice
This applies because concealing and covering-up records or documents.
Transcript of the call was moved to a separate electronic system used for classified info.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Timely.

“I will never be so comfortable with a president that I don’t think he or she should be held accountable for wrongdoing. Political lynching via hearsay is a bit Soviet for my tastes, however.”

Whistleblower Requirements Recently Amended to Allow Hearsay

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

Trumps actions are indefensible which is why they're not every defending him, they're just attacking the whistleblower. It's all about public opinion.

Your post is rambling-who is not defending whom? And where does public opinion lie? Does it depend on which poll?

Trump supporters arent defending Trump from accusations of asking another country to investigate a political opponent, aka influence an election.

As far as the hearsay argument, the transcript of Trump’s call with the Ukrainian President wasnt hearsay.

Senate rules call for the use of hearsay in impeachment, in that committees hear the testimony and report back to the full Senate.

First, no defending is needed-there is NO crime.-as you say accusations-like Smollett saying he got beat up by Maga hats. Second, hearsay was NEVER used in trials-ask Judge Judy. The law was JUST changed to allow it. But, it is STILL hearsay. Third, you are right, the transcript was not hearsay. I read the whole transcript and there is nothing wrong or unusual in it.

4 potential crimes.

1) violation of campaign finance laws:
the law includes "ting of value" from foreigner, and research on Biden can count as something of value.

2) bribery
If prosecutors can show that Trump agreed to provide aid to Ukraine in return for opposition research on Biden, then its bribery. Case history that applies here is McDonnell vs. United States.

3) extortion
if Trump blocked military assistance to Ukraine in order to extract a payment from that country, that could form the basis for a Hobbs Act prosecution. This would depend on opposition research on Biden to be considered "property".

4) obstructing justice
This applies because concealing and covering-up records or documents.
Transcript of the call was moved to a separate electronic system used for classified info.

And don’t forget Trump may be shown to be the second shooter of JFK too.

Zero evidence of any of your accusations is irrelevant to you.

 

[Lesh]

Timely.

“I will never be so comfortable with a president that I don’t think he or she should be held accountable for wrongdoing. Political lynching via hearsay is a bit Soviet for my tastes, however.”

Whistleblower Requirements Recently Amended to Allow Hearsay

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

Trumps actions are indefensible which is why they're not every defending him, they're just attacking the whistleblower. It's all about public opinion.

Your post is rambling-who is not defending whom? And where does public opinion lie? Does it depend on which poll?

Trump supporters arent defending Trump from accusations of asking another country to investigate a political opponent, aka influence an election.

As far as the hearsay argument, the transcript of Trump’s call with the Ukrainian President wasnt hearsay.

Senate rules call for the use of hearsay in impeachment, in that committees hear the testimony and report back to the full Senate.

First, no defending is needed-there is NO crime.-as you say accusations-like Smollett saying he got beat up by Maga hats. Second, hearsay was NEVER used in trials-ask Judge Judy. The law was JUST changed to allow it. But, it is STILL hearsay. Third, you are right, the transcript was not hearsay. I read the whole transcript and there is nothing wrong or unusual in it.

4 potential crimes.

1) violation of campaign finance laws:
the law includes "ting of value" from foreigner, and research on Biden can count as something of value.

2) bribery
If prosecutors can show that Trump agreed to provide aid to Ukraine in return for opposition research on Biden, then its bribery. Case history that applies here is McDonnell vs. United States.

3) extortion
if Trump blocked military assistance to Ukraine in order to extract a payment from that country, that could form the basis for a Hobbs Act prosecution. This would depend on opposition research on Biden to be considered "property".

4) obstructing justice
This applies because concealing and covering-up records or documents.
Transcript of the call was moved to a separate electronic system used for classified info.

The handling of the WB complaint is also subject to Obstruction of Justice penalties

 

[eagle1462010]

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

Trumps actions are indefensible which is why they're not every defending him, they're just attacking the whistleblower. It's all about public opinion.

Your post is rambling-who is not defending whom? And where does public opinion lie? Does it depend on which poll?

Trump supporters arent defending Trump from accusations of asking another country to investigate a political opponent, aka influence an election.

As far as the hearsay argument, the transcript of Trump’s call with the Ukrainian President wasnt hearsay.

Senate rules call for the use of hearsay in impeachment, in that committees hear the testimony and report back to the full Senate.

First, no defending is needed-there is NO crime.-as you say accusations-like Smollett saying he got beat up by Maga hats. Second, hearsay was NEVER used in trials-ask Judge Judy. The law was JUST changed to allow it. But, it is STILL hearsay. Third, you are right, the transcript was not hearsay. I read the whole transcript and there is nothing wrong or unusual in it.

4 potential crimes.

1) violation of campaign finance laws:
the law includes "ting of value" from foreigner, and research on Biden can count as something of value.

2) bribery
If prosecutors can show that Trump agreed to provide aid to Ukraine in return for opposition research on Biden, then its bribery. Case history that applies here is McDonnell vs. United States.

3) extortion
if Trump blocked military assistance to Ukraine in order to extract a payment from that country, that could form the basis for a Hobbs Act prosecution. This would depend on opposition research on Biden to be considered "property".

4) obstructing justice
This applies because concealing and covering-up records or documents.
Transcript of the call was moved to a separate electronic system used for classified info.

The handling of the WB complaint is also subject to Obstruction of Justice penalties

Just make shit up as you go along..........it's all your party has anymore.............

Change the rules.............overlook your own crimes..............you know...........just be yourselves.........

Your side is going to get TRASHED 2020................This is all you got................and all your candidates suck.

 

[RealDave]

Timely.

“I will never be so comfortable with a president that I don’t think he or she should be held accountable for wrongdoing. Political lynching via hearsay is a bit Soviet for my tastes, however.”

Whistleblower Requirements Recently Amended to Allow Hearsay

I love it. Your fat assed orange buddy got caught using us funding to extort political help and all you assfucks do is bitch about how he got caught.

 

[eagle1462010]

Timely.

“I will never be so comfortable with a president that I don’t think he or she should be held accountable for wrongdoing. Political lynching via hearsay is a bit Soviet for my tastes, however.”

Whistleblower Requirements Recently Amended to Allow Hearsay

I love it. Your fat assed orange buddy got caught using us funding to extort political help and all you assfucks do is bitch about how he got caught.

Which funds...................lol

specifics....................Oh.............you don't have any..................Guess what we got plenty of it on Biden..........Choose him..................

Comedy Central candidates of the Dem party running....................lol

 

[dudmuck]

Your post is rambling-who is not defending whom? And where does public opinion lie? Does it depend on which poll?

Trump supporters arent defending Trump from accusations of asking another country to investigate a political opponent, aka influence an election.

As far as the hearsay argument, the transcript of Trump’s call with the Ukrainian President wasnt hearsay.

Senate rules call for the use of hearsay in impeachment, in that committees hear the testimony and report back to the full Senate.

First, no defending is needed-there is NO crime.-as you say accusations-like Smollett saying he got beat up by Maga hats. Second, hearsay was NEVER used in trials-ask Judge Judy. The law was JUST changed to allow it. But, it is STILL hearsay. Third, you are right, the transcript was not hearsay. I read the whole transcript and there is nothing wrong or unusual in it.

4 potential crimes.

1) violation of campaign finance laws:
the law includes "ting of value" from foreigner, and research on Biden can count as something of value.

2) bribery
If prosecutors can show that Trump agreed to provide aid to Ukraine in return for opposition research on Biden, then its bribery. Case history that applies here is McDonnell vs. United States.

3) extortion
if Trump blocked military assistance to Ukraine in order to extract a payment from that country, that could form the basis for a Hobbs Act prosecution. This would depend on opposition research on Biden to be considered "property".

4) obstructing justice
This applies because concealing and covering-up records or documents.
Transcript of the call was moved to a separate electronic system used for classified info.

The handling of the WB complaint is also subject to Obstruction of Justice penalties

Just make shit up as you go along..........it's all your party has anymore.............

Change the rules.............overlook your own crimes..............you know...........just be yourselves.........

Your side is going to get TRASHED 2020................This is all you got................and all your candidates suck.

If this was all made up, would we have:
About 300 former national security officials and ex-White House staff sign open letter accusing Trump of possible 'unconscionable abuse of power' over Ukraine call.

The roughly 300 signatures, which take up 13 pages of the document, include those of former officials from:
Department of Defense
CIA
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
White House
Department of Homeland Security
National Security Council
Department of Justice
State Department
House Armed Services Committee
Navy
Army
USAID
FEMA
Marine Corps
International Rescue Committee
Treasury Department
Department of the Air Force
Office of Naval Intelligence
Defense Intelligence Agency
National Counterterrorism Center

 

[Third Party]

Timely.

“I will never be so comfortable with a president that I don’t think he or she should be held accountable for wrongdoing. Political lynching via hearsay is a bit Soviet for my tastes, however.”

Whistleblower Requirements Recently Amended to Allow Hearsay

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

Trumps actions are indefensible which is why they're not every defending him, they're just attacking the whistleblower. It's all about public opinion.

Your post is rambling-who is not defending whom? And where does public opinion lie? Does it depend on which poll?

Trump supporters arent defending Trump from accusations of asking another country to investigate a political opponent, aka influence an election.

As far as the hearsay argument, the transcript of Trump’s call with the Ukrainian President wasnt hearsay.

Senate rules call for the use of hearsay in impeachment, in that committees hear the testimony and report back to the full Senate.

First, no defending is needed-there is NO crime.-as you say accusations-like Smollett saying he got beat up by Maga hats. Second, hearsay was NEVER used in trials-ask Judge Judy. The law was JUST changed to allow it. But, it is STILL hearsay. Third, you are right, the transcript was not hearsay. I read the whole transcript and there is nothing wrong or unusual in it.

4 potential crimes.

1) violation of campaign finance laws:
the law includes "ting of value" from foreigner, and research on Biden can count as something of value.

2) bribery
If prosecutors can show that Trump agreed to provide aid to Ukraine in return for opposition research on Biden, then its bribery. Case history that applies here is McDonnell vs. United States.

3) extortion
if Trump blocked military assistance to Ukraine in order to extract a payment from that country, that could form the basis for a Hobbs Act prosecution. This would depend on opposition research on Biden to be considered "property".

4) obstructing justice
This applies because concealing and covering-up records or documents.
Transcript of the call was moved to a separate electronic system used for classified info.

Violation of campaign laws? Transcript said pursuit of corruption-not Biden research- one of the presidents duties as head of the justice department-no there, there.
If? Agreed to provide aid? No such mention in transcript-no there, there.
Extortion? IF again?, There was no mention of "blocking assistance"-no there, there.
Obstructing Justice? He classified info per their normal procedure-it would be a problem IF he did not classify it.-no there, there.
What else you got-this is fun.

 

[Third Party]

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

Trumps actions are indefensible which is why they're not every defending him, they're just attacking the whistleblower. It's all about public opinion.

Your post is rambling-who is not defending whom? And where does public opinion lie? Does it depend on which poll?

Trump supporters arent defending Trump from accusations of asking another country to investigate a political opponent, aka influence an election.

As far as the hearsay argument, the transcript of Trump’s call with the Ukrainian President wasnt hearsay.

Senate rules call for the use of hearsay in impeachment, in that committees hear the testimony and report back to the full Senate.

First, no defending is needed-there is NO crime.-as you say accusations-like Smollett saying he got beat up by Maga hats. Second, hearsay was NEVER used in trials-ask Judge Judy. The law was JUST changed to allow it. But, it is STILL hearsay. Third, you are right, the transcript was not hearsay. I read the whole transcript and there is nothing wrong or unusual in it.

4 potential crimes.

1) violation of campaign finance laws:
the law includes "ting of value" from foreigner, and research on Biden can count as something of value.

2) bribery
If prosecutors can show that Trump agreed to provide aid to Ukraine in return for opposition research on Biden, then its bribery. Case history that applies here is McDonnell vs. United States.

3) extortion
if Trump blocked military assistance to Ukraine in order to extract a payment from that country, that could form the basis for a Hobbs Act prosecution. This would depend on opposition research on Biden to be considered "property".

4) obstructing justice
This applies because concealing and covering-up records or documents.
Transcript of the call was moved to a separate electronic system used for classified info.

The handling of the WB complaint is also subject to Obstruction of Justice penalties

Well, we will see what kind of country we have-run by due process or by media yellow journalism.

 

[Third Party]

Trump supporters arent defending Trump from accusations of asking another country to investigate a political opponent, aka influence an election.

As far as the hearsay argument, the transcript of Trump’s call with the Ukrainian President wasnt hearsay.

Senate rules call for the use of hearsay in impeachment, in that committees hear the testimony and report back to the full Senate.

First, no defending is needed-there is NO crime.-as you say accusations-like Smollett saying he got beat up by Maga hats. Second, hearsay was NEVER used in trials-ask Judge Judy. The law was JUST changed to allow it. But, it is STILL hearsay. Third, you are right, the transcript was not hearsay. I read the whole transcript and there is nothing wrong or unusual in it.

4 potential crimes.

1) violation of campaign finance laws:
the law includes "ting of value" from foreigner, and research on Biden can count as something of value.

2) bribery
If prosecutors can show that Trump agreed to provide aid to Ukraine in return for opposition research on Biden, then its bribery. Case history that applies here is McDonnell vs. United States.

3) extortion
if Trump blocked military assistance to Ukraine in order to extract a payment from that country, that could form the basis for a Hobbs Act prosecution. This would depend on opposition research on Biden to be considered "property".

4) obstructing justice
This applies because concealing and covering-up records or documents.
Transcript of the call was moved to a separate electronic system used for classified info.

The handling of the WB complaint is also subject to Obstruction of Justice penalties

Just make shit up as you go along..........it's all your party has anymore.............

Change the rules.............overlook your own crimes..............you know...........just be yourselves.........

Your side is going to get TRASHED 2020................This is all you got................and all your candidates suck.

If this was all made up, would we have:
About 300 former national security officials and ex-White House staff sign open letter accusing Trump of possible 'unconscionable abuse of power' over Ukraine call.

The roughly 300 signatures, which take up 13 pages of the document, include those of former officials from:
Department of Defense
CIA
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
White House
Department of Homeland Security
National Security Council
Department of Justice
State Department
House Armed Services Committee
Navy
Army
USAID
FEMA
Marine Corps
International Rescue Committee
Treasury Department
Department of the Air Force
Office of Naval Intelligence
Defense Intelligence Agency
National Counterterrorism Center

Yes, they all want to see Trump removed. Look, it is up to us, not the Ukraine, not the bitter 300, not Pelosi or Schiff, not the media. Once this charade is over there will be an election to settle the issue.

 

[Lesh]

Timely.

“I will never be so comfortable with a president that I don’t think he or she should be held accountable for wrongdoing. Political lynching via hearsay is a bit Soviet for my tastes, however.”

Whistleblower Requirements Recently Amended to Allow Hearsay

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

Trumps actions are indefensible which is why they're not every defending him, they're just attacking the whistleblower. It's all about public opinion.

Your post is rambling-who is not defending whom? And where does public opinion lie? Does it depend on which poll?

Trump supporters arent defending Trump from accusations of asking another country to investigate a political opponent, aka influence an election.

As far as the hearsay argument, the transcript of Trump’s call with the Ukrainian President wasnt hearsay.

Senate rules call for the use of hearsay in impeachment, in that committees hear the testimony and report back to the full Senate.

First, no defending is needed-there is NO crime.-as you say accusations-like Smollett saying he got beat up by Maga hats. Second, hearsay was NEVER used in trials-ask Judge Judy. The law was JUST changed to allow it. But, it is STILL hearsay. Third, you are right, the transcript was not hearsay. I read the whole transcript and there is nothing wrong or unusual in it.

4 potential crimes.

1) violation of campaign finance laws:
the law includes "ting of value" from foreigner, and research on Biden can count as something of value.

2) bribery
If prosecutors can show that Trump agreed to provide aid to Ukraine in return for opposition research on Biden, then its bribery. Case history that applies here is McDonnell vs. United States.

3) extortion
if Trump blocked military assistance to Ukraine in order to extract a payment from that country, that could form the basis for a Hobbs Act prosecution. This would depend on opposition research on Biden to be considered "property".

4) obstructing justice
This applies because concealing and covering-up records or documents.
Transcript of the call was moved to a separate electronic system used for classified info.

Just to refocus

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Timely.

“I will never be so comfortable with a president that I don’t think he or she should be held accountable for wrongdoing. Political lynching via hearsay is a bit Soviet for my tastes, however.”

Whistleblower Requirements Recently Amended to Allow Hearsay

It is wrong to change the requirements...

The House need the Whistleblower to name names and if they do not then the evidence is weak and not worthy of impeachment.

If names are named and they support the whistleblower account even then I am not saying Trump should be impeached.

If the people discredit the whistleblower with evidence to prove the whistleblower was lying or wrong then Pelosi is in deep trouble in 2020...

 

[Third Party]

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

Trumps actions are indefensible which is why they're not every defending him, they're just attacking the whistleblower. It's all about public opinion.

Your post is rambling-who is not defending whom? And where does public opinion lie? Does it depend on which poll?

Trump supporters arent defending Trump from accusations of asking another country to investigate a political opponent, aka influence an election.

As far as the hearsay argument, the transcript of Trump’s call with the Ukrainian President wasnt hearsay.

Senate rules call for the use of hearsay in impeachment, in that committees hear the testimony and report back to the full Senate.

First, no defending is needed-there is NO crime.-as you say accusations-like Smollett saying he got beat up by Maga hats. Second, hearsay was NEVER used in trials-ask Judge Judy. The law was JUST changed to allow it. But, it is STILL hearsay. Third, you are right, the transcript was not hearsay. I read the whole transcript and there is nothing wrong or unusual in it.

4 potential crimes.

1) violation of campaign finance laws:
the law includes "ting of value" from foreigner, and research on Biden can count as something of value.

2) bribery
If prosecutors can show that Trump agreed to provide aid to Ukraine in return for opposition research on Biden, then its bribery. Case history that applies here is McDonnell vs. United States.

3) extortion
if Trump blocked military assistance to Ukraine in order to extract a payment from that country, that could form the basis for a Hobbs Act prosecution. This would depend on opposition research on Biden to be considered "property".

4) obstructing justice
This applies because concealing and covering-up records or documents.
Transcript of the call was moved to a separate electronic system used for classified info.

Just to refocus

Four non-starters

 

[pyetro]

Timely.

“I will never be so comfortable with a president that I don’t think he or she should be held accountable for wrongdoing. Political lynching via hearsay is a bit Soviet for my tastes, however.”

Whistleblower Requirements Recently Amended to Allow Hearsay

Politifact says your thread is fake news:
Trump said whistleblower rules changed. They didn't