Whistle Blowers in Todays America Must Provide PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to be Credible.

Wednesday, July 12, 2023

IMO - We have reached the point where a "Whistle Blower" who does NOT have physical proof (audio or video or written or emails) to verify his/her claims, is quickly dismissed by those who are on the side being "outed" as doing wrong.

For example, the WhistleBlower who squealed on President Trump telling Ukraine, "No $$$ until you investigate Biden", had a recording of President Trump saying these words to Ukraine's President. That Whistle Blower was Intel Analyst Eric Ciaramella. Intel Analyst Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman supported Ciaramella, during President Trump's "Quid Quo Pro" US House impeachment in 2019. Without the audio, there would have been no PHYSICAL evidence.

TODAY, there are TWO Whistleblowers who work at the IRS scheduled to testify next week regarding how the Department of Justice didn't want to know about potential illegal transactions involving the Biden family.

Source: nypost.com...

However, even before their testimony, Department of Justice officials are declaring there's no evidence they did anything wrong.

And the big boss, President JOE BIDEN says if there is no PHYSICAL EVIDENCE...everyone is wasting their time coming after his family and his administration...

Biden laughed off the bribery allegation last week.

“Where’s the money?” Biden told The Post at the time, adding: “I’m joking. It’s a bunch of malarkey.”

On Tuesday, Biden grinned and chuckled, when asked about the existence of tapes of him getting bribed.

Extracted from: nypost.com...

To Reiterate: PROOF must accompany any Whistle Blower claim in today's world. "A man's word", isn't what it used to be.

In fact, Congressional hearings don't even generate fear amongst alleged law-breakers like they used to. (i.e. The "God Father" movie.)

-CareWeMust

a reply to: carewemust

IMO - We have reached the point where a "Whistle Blower" who does NOT have physical proof (audio or video or written or emails) to verify his/her claims, is quickly dismissed by those who are on the side being "outed" as doing wrong.

All of the above are on the laptop, and it's still not enough. Holding some people accountable goes far beyond evidence.

a reply to: carewemust

So you would be okay with a whistleblower making a claim and not having proof?

I know the answer to it based on your threads but it is still interesting to see what you say.

And yet, the average schmuck can be convicted of murder based on circumstantial evidence, hearsay testimony, character assassination, and police and prosecutor lies.

originally posted by: opethPA
a reply to: carewemust

So you would be okay with a whistleblower making a claim and not having proof?

I know the answer to it based on your threads but it is still interesting to see what you say.

A witness to a crime does not have to present tangible "evidence" to the court. A witness, traditionally, is but a part of the evidence.

Their testimony.

Evidence instead is gathered through investigation... which a witness shouldn't just decide to do for themselves.

But I suppose in the trailer trash clown world we now live in, witnesses should just gather their own evidence and probably act as their own legal representation. Maybe they should play the part of the judge as well?

This is a mockery of our legal system.

a reply to: carewemust

Ummmm you do realize how ridiculous and hypocritical you are being atm correct? Are you absolutely positive that this is the route you want to take? Really think about that before you go on defending your very much authoritarian stance.

a reply to: Lumenari

How can a investigation be warranted with absolutely zero evidence of a crime? You sound like someone that doesn't understand the legal system.
Why don't you go and make some claim about someone with only your word to back that claim. If you have no evidence to back your claim how do you think a investigating authority will respond?

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: opethPA
a reply to: carewemust

So you would be okay with a whistleblower making a claim and not having proof?

I know the answer to it based on your threads but it is still interesting to see what you say.

A witness to a crime does not have to present tangible "evidence" to the court. A witness, traditionally, is but a part of the evidence.

Their testimony.

Evidence instead is gathered through investigation... which a witness shouldn't just decide to do for themselves.

But I suppose in the trailer trash clown world we now live in, witnesses should just gather their own evidence and probably act as their own legal representation. Maybe they should play the part of the judge as well?

This is a mockery of our legal system.

A fair point but a witness and whistle blower are not the same thing,

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: carewemust

IMO - We have reached the point where a "Whistle Blower" who does NOT have physical proof (audio or video or written or emails) to verify his/her claims, is quickly dismissed by those who are on the side being "outed" as doing wrong.

All of the above are on the laptop, and it's still not enough. Holding some people accountable goes far beyond evidence.

The laptop doesn't show what Hunter or Joe did to receive millions of dollars from several nations.

a reply to: opethPA

See the title of this thread www.abovetopsecret.com... for your answer.

originally posted by: Stopstealingmycountry
a reply to: Lumenari

How can a investigation be warranted with absolutely zero evidence of a crime? You sound like someone that doesn't understand the legal system.
Why don't you go and make some claim about someone with only your word to back that claim. If you have no evidence to back your claim how do you think a investigating authority will respond?

By investigating it.

And I don't understand how the American legal system works?

LOL

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
And yet, the average schmuck can be convicted of murder based on circumstantial evidence, hearsay testimony, character assassination, and police and prosecutor lies.

Good point. It's possible a Whistle Blower could get an "average schmuck" jailed by delivering convincing testimony to a jury.

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: opethPA
a reply to: carewemust

So you would be okay with a whistleblower making a claim and not having proof?

I know the answer to it based on your threads but it is still interesting to see what you say.

A witness to a crime does not have to present tangible "evidence" to the court. A witness, traditionally, is but a part of the evidence.

Their testimony.

Evidence instead is gathered through investigation... which a witness shouldn't just decide to do for themselves.

But I suppose in the trailer trash clown world we now live in, witnesses should just gather their own evidence and probably act as their own legal representation. Maybe they should play the part of the judge as well?

This is a mockery of our legal system.

A fair point but a witness and whistle blower are not the same thing,

A whistleblower is someone that has witnessed a crime and reports it.

What is whistleblowing and why is it important?

A whistleblower is an employee who discloses information that the individual reasonably believes is evidence of gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety; or a violation of law, rule, or regulation.

Oversite.Gov

That is our government's official definition of it...

Witness testimony (information) has traditionally been used as EVIDENCE to further an investigation.

The current administration is changing the wording of what "evidence" means.

I understand why you don't understand that.

a reply to: Lumenari


Totally fair as it escapes me when it comes to many things.

a reply to: Lumenari

That makes sense. If Congress obtains EVIDENCE Hunter and Joe Biden committed crimes, and a credible Whistle Blower comes along to verify this evidence, a Biden Impeachment Inquiry could be scheduled by the US House.

originally posted by: Stopstealingmycountry
a reply to: carewemust

Ummmm you do realize how ridiculous and hypocritical you are being atm correct? Are you absolutely positive that this is the route you want to take? Really think about that before you go on defending your very much authoritarian stance.

It's hard to believe the US has sunken to this level, isn't it!

a reply to: Lumenari

Excellent post! A Whistleblower is a witness. An informant is a witness too.

a reply to: opethPA

A whistleblower is someone with knowledge of government malfeasance and as such IS a witness.

So, this sets precedence so that if you were to see someone stealing something but did not have physical evidence to prove the person took it, your testimony cannot be used at evidence anymore. Hmmm.

Guess if you see someone killing someone, you can go to jail if you say anything without having physical proof now.

Just depends on what side you worship. Whistle blowers are only credible and have "evidence" when used by the Republicans. When used by the Democrats it's called "hearsay" and cannot be used.