kalm wrote:∞∞∞ wrote:Second whistle blower officially comes forward.
If the NYT's story earlier this week was correct, this person is higher up and has direct knowledge/access to the issues at hand.
The original WB said there were 6 people with direct knowledge of the calls that would corroborate his story which is why the whining about hearsay from all the junior prosecutors out there so funny.
"its not admissible in court"..."they just changed the rules."
Yeah well we're not in court. Its an investigation.
I was waiting to see if this would happen -
Common sense dictates that if the allegations were inaccurate, then the people who were alleged to have first hand knowledge would not come forward (because they wouldn’t exist)
But if the allegations were true, then SOMEBODY with first hand knowledge is going to have to come forward.... because they will need to get in front of having guilty knowledge that will come out when the original whistleblower names them
That’s why I said in an earlier post that we need to hear from the people referenced in the original complaint.
Put me back in the leaning probable column
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk