Wait... how could someone who left the White House in 2017 possibly have been talking in the course of their job to people who were on the phone call with Zelensky? I mean, if they had left the WH, wouldn't they have been working in a completely different building? I think DJT or some other lamebrain thinks they have figured it out, but is wrong. That manboy should be shunned and shamed either way.
...or maybe they don't. Some "perps" from the show allege the producers strong armed them into signing releases, by insinuating the cops would go harder on them if they didn't. Some people straight up deny they signed anything, or they were seriously under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or mentally ill. Cops sounds exploitative as fuck. https://www.topic.com/runni...
Yep, what we have here is witness intimidation. If Trump's Traitors can out the whistleblower, his life is going to become hell. Maybe there are others with incriminating testimony who are watching to see what will happen if they talk. If Trump can shit on the whistleblower, they might keep their mouths shut.
Also, they need to smear the individual's reputation and make out his testimony is a politically inspired fiction.
They just want a name. It doesn't have to be the right name. Because once you get a name and a face you can start attacking that name and face and discredit the investigation. Truth matters little to these assholes, just the appearance of truth.
The whistleblower might still have friends in the WH who conveyed their concerns to him, I guess? I’m guessing that how the GOP is justifying this. Otherwise the timeline doesn’t add up at all.
Not that this all isn’t complete immoral bullshit, of course.
This may have been mentioned downthread, but: "has executed a full face-turn". Going from being the good guy (the face) to the bad guy (the heel) is a heel-turn in wrasslin'.
It also didn't help that I went to law school in Canada.
Growing up in the US and doing undergrad there while being legally interested and nerdy gave me a lot, and Canadian law schools actually use a lot of international cases as examples of this principle or that (we used a US case in crim on the definition of a "vehicle" very early in my 1L year just to get folks up to speed on how you can't always trust that the plain meaning of a word is the legal meaning - in that case from the 20s or 30s, a boat was not a vehicle but the decision hadn't been made about airplanes yet & we were reading the arguments), but of course that's not the same as studying in a US law school.
So I'm not ignorant...completely. But not anything like a practicing US lawyer either.
ETA: I found the case we read. I was curious, so I looked it up: McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27 (1931), considering and reversing McBoyle v. United States, 43 F.2d 273, 274 (10th Cir. 1930). Turns out the term requiring further definition was "motor vehicle" not just "vehicle" but otherwise I remembered it pretty well.
Wait... how could someone who left the White House in 2017 possibly have been talking in the course of their job to people who were on the phone call with Zelensky? I mean, if they had left the WH, wouldn't they have been working in a completely different building? I think DJT or some other lamebrain thinks they have figured it out, but is wrong. That manboy should be shunned and shamed either way.
...or maybe they don't. Some "perps" from the show allege the producers strong armed them into signing releases, by insinuating the cops would go harder on them if they didn't. Some people straight up deny they signed anything, or they were seriously under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or mentally ill. Cops sounds exploitative as fuck. https://www.topic.com/runni...
I gather you've never been a PD on chomo patrol.
Yep, what we have here is witness intimidation. If Trump's Traitors can out the whistleblower, his life is going to become hell. Maybe there are others with incriminating testimony who are watching to see what will happen if they talk. If Trump can shit on the whistleblower, they might keep their mouths shut.
Also, they need to smear the individual's reputation and make out his testimony is a politically inspired fiction.
Where We Mow One, We Mow All.
They just want a name. It doesn't have to be the right name. Because once you get a name and a face you can start attacking that name and face and discredit the investigation. Truth matters little to these assholes, just the appearance of truth.
The whistleblower might still have friends in the WH who conveyed their concerns to him, I guess? I’m guessing that how the GOP is justifying this. Otherwise the timeline doesn’t add up at all.
Not that this all isn’t complete immoral bullshit, of course.
Dean Baquet v. Marty Baron is no contest at all. WaPo forever.
Can I withhold my taxes until we have a new president?
Why are they afraid to call a red herring to testify? Do they think the fish knows too much?
This may have been mentioned downthread, but: "has executed a full face-turn". Going from being the good guy (the face) to the bad guy (the heel) is a heel-turn in wrasslin'.
It also didn't help that I went to law school in Canada.
Growing up in the US and doing undergrad there while being legally interested and nerdy gave me a lot, and Canadian law schools actually use a lot of international cases as examples of this principle or that (we used a US case in crim on the definition of a "vehicle" very early in my 1L year just to get folks up to speed on how you can't always trust that the plain meaning of a word is the legal meaning - in that case from the 20s or 30s, a boat was not a vehicle but the decision hadn't been made about airplanes yet & we were reading the arguments), but of course that's not the same as studying in a US law school.
So I'm not ignorant...completely. But not anything like a practicing US lawyer either.
ETA: I found the case we read. I was curious, so I looked it up: McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27 (1931), considering and reversing McBoyle v. United States, 43 F.2d 273, 274 (10th Cir. 1930). Turns out the term requiring further definition was "motor vehicle" not just "vehicle" but otherwise I remembered it pretty well.
Buster Keaton clip all the yess!
you fucking suck
I hadn't thought of that. Great point
Syria is ruled by an opthamaligist, I hear.