Random Politics & Religion #38: The 38th One

Sure you have, lol.

New Quinnipiac poll:

Do you think members of Congress who support impeaching Pres Trump are doing so more on the basis of the facts of the case, or more on the basis of partisan politics?
Facts: 36%
Partisan politics: 56%

Americans see through the partisan game Nancy is playing

Breaking news when Trump gets a shower he does not rinse and repeat...we'll follow this story all day if we have to folks !

This used to be a parody but now it is reality:

I don't do the House races, but I do follow the Senate in off-years. Here's my record against Silver:

Closer by one in 2018 in the last Senate race. Way closer in 2016 on final electoral count when he completely bombed. Closer by one in the 2014 Senate race thanks to Silver way overestimating the Independent in Kansas. I'll probably do Presidential and Senate next year, but your golden boy's record hasn't been that great since 2012 so I'm not too worried.

I think we all need a little Bob Marley to sooth us all out !

I don't know a single dem who likes Biden. I know a few who would refuse to vote for him.

Turn on him? Let's try forgetting him.

lol, second time in 2 days someone has tried to cherry pic the Q poll, why not post the entire thing in context? Because it doesn't say what you want it to perhaps?

There must be a bad economic report out, Trump is trying to scapegoat the Fed again.

You are Canadian every day is a bad day.

If you had any common sense you would ride the next iceberg out of town to the USA !

Were you ever right about yesterday.

fone, I havent seen you on Shiva in 4 days, 6 hours, 23 minutes, and 2 seconds. Now 10 seconds!

Nope read the exact words used instead of the interpretation if TV talking heads.

The person wasn't a witness to the phone call and had direct knowledge that the events happened.

I see why they moved on Pompeo so quickly, he was on the call as a babysitter, why didn't he do his job and shut down that conversation? They knew it was a problem immediately after, so why not interject to save Trump from his own misbehavior?

"First-hand" is not a 100% guarantee that the whistleblower actually heard the call. He or she could have had first-hand knowledge of other information not relating specifically to the call. You would think that after the Russia fiasco you would want to wait for further information before you gloat, but who am I kidding. You guys never learn.

This is simply not true. Read the report.

Trump was never suppose to declassify the transcript. He was supposed to keep it and schiff and co were supposed to share their interpretations of it without the other side of the story.

But Trump did release it and they just didn't adapt to it, so they just went forward making everything up.

The IG released a detailed report last night, explaining the whistleblower had first hand knowledge of actions in the complaint, while not being on the call. Notice how Shiroi never said the whistleblower was on the call? This isn't hard, but who am I kidding, you guys never learn.

Nope.


Your misconstruing "first hand" with "direct" knowledge, which aren't he same thing but are in the same category on the submission form.

First box

"I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved"

Second box involved

“Other employees have told me about events or records involved"

And then the report the person submitted to Congress, under penalty of perjury.

“I was not a direct witness to most of the events described. However, I found my colleagues’ accounts of these events to be credible because, in almost all cases, multiple officials recounted fact patterns that were consistent with one another.”

It's pretty clear, they weren't in on the call but later read the transcripts or was informed of the contents by people who were in on the call. That would constitute direct knowledge without being first hand knowledge.


To the audience who might actually be paying attention, since we know the Canadian isn't. It may seem like semantics but there is a legal difference between first hand and direct knowledge of something and that revolves around the ability to testify on that event. First hand means a witness can be called in front of a court (or Congress) and be placed under oath to provide what they witnesses. Direct knowledge means they can't provide that testimony but their statements are credible enough to warrant an investigation. Since this was to the Inspector General's Office, who do these investigations, first hand knowledge and direct knowledge are handled the same since both are sufficient for a formal investigation.

Think of it like this, Shiroi, Chanti and Vic are having a conversation on how to start a Socialist Revolution and overthrow the US Government. Later in a conversation with Chanti she tells me about her conversation with the other two and what they said, or there is a transcript of that conversation that I read.

Now I have not observed this conversation first hand but I do have direct knowledge of this conversation and my information is sufficient enough to warrant an investigation but would not be allowed in a trial because it's hearsay. This distinction is important because while it's technically hearsay, it's not rumor and sufficient enough to get authorities involved in an investigation and get a Judge to write warrants against.

That he possessed some first hand knowledge of something could mean that he knows himself or where he was on any particular day.

That the report says “first hand and other information” means his complaint is not entirely first hand.

None of that ***matters WE HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT, and the transcript is clear.

The only corner left is to say well the whistleblower could have first hand info and Trump could have released a fake transcript.

Thats where your world makes sense.

They didn't have first hand but did have direct knowledge. Not a meaningful difference for most of us but a big difference in a trial court.

Reality Distortion Field over in Democrat land has them reading only half of things and then filling in the rest of the details.

The Dems have not made up a single thing. That is all Trump and the alt-right.

I get the feeling that everyone here is saying the same things differently. Either way, this isn't going anywhere, so get your jollies out while you can.

Uh, duh? We have been saying that all along. We have the transcript of Trump pressuring the Ukraine to investigate his political opponent and offering US resources to do so. Thats all we have ever needed. LOL

His account of the transcript WRONG.

These Democrats don't realize that if they impeach Trump and the Senate doesn't confirm it then it nullifies Trump's first term and he gets to run two more times.

Uh, no. I mean, what?