Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Trump's conversations with the Australian and Mexican leaders were leaked, so going the extra mile to conceal and secure such conversations is not odd anymore.
Funny you should ask this question. That is the exact way I learned about hearsay being not admissible in court. I went to the police with some information about a crime that I had heard from someone else. I was told that they wouldn't and couldn't do anything about it because I did not witness anything myself.
The IG corroborated his complaint with other witnesses. Hopefully the House Intel will get a chance to talk to them. That is if they aren't scared off by Trump's mafia tactics.
So because the transcript was moved, it means the whistleblower is right about everything?
No person with a brain would agree with that 'logic'.
In fact haven't they already been proven wrong regarding who was listening to the call?
So because the transcript was moved, it means the whistleblower is right about everything?
No person with a brain would agree with that 'logic'.
In fact haven't they already been proven wrong regarding who was listening to the call?
It means the whistleblower has credibility and, surprise, surprise, Trump is a liar!
It means the whistleblower has credibility and, surprise, surprise, Trump is a liar!
It means the whistleblower got something right, and that applies to many of the leaks that end up in the media, often they get something right and something wrong.
That's the way 2nd or 3rd-hand information works, the truth is diluted.
The bottom line remains, you need first-hand evidence of a quid pro quo.
Anything short of that, and you lose.
It means the whistleblower got something right, and that applies to many of the leaks that end up in the media, often they get something right and something wrong.
That's the way 2nd or 3rd-hand information works, the truth is diluted.
The bottom line remains, you need first-hand evidence of a quid pro quo.
What for? Quid pro quos are commonplace in foreign policy. There's nothing wrong with them.
I've seen claims that Biden's company had been under investigation but no longer was at the time of the strong-arm tactics. So, I don't know for sure, and I guess Trump doesn't, either, which is the point of investigating rather than just declaring Biden a crook as all the Dems do to Trump constantly. It's all much moire measured and reasonable than this insane conspiracy to impeach Trump over something that is . . . measured and reasonable and calculated to serve the interests of the American people.
Blue Star Strategies was the firm hired by Hunter Biden's company, Burisma. The day after Biden had the original prosecutor fired, the lawyers from Blue Star Strategies met with the new prosecutor, because the case was still ongoing.
It's not just Biden's shady dealing with the Ukraine that made his son filthy rich, it was also the sweet million dollar deals Biden got his son with the Chinese government.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
