NYT... has an independent source who confirms the two IRS whistleblowers' claim that David Weiss said he was blocked

[excalibur]

Of course, they buried it in paragraph 21. Where many people don't read that far. But there it is.

 

[BULLDOG]

Of course, they buried it in paragraph 21. Where many people don't read that far. But there it is.

Got it. Two anonymous crazies made some crazy claims and it's now verified that they actually made the crazy claims That's about the closest thing to proof as you MAGAs have ever produced. Its still not proof though.

 

[progressive hunter]

Got it. Two anonymous crazies made some crazy claims and it's now verified that they actually made the crazy claims That's about the closest thing to proof as you MAGAs have ever produced. Its still not proof though.

they are not anonymous nor are they crazies,,,
they are people in the middle of the whole of the investigation with direct connection to the actions,,

so why are you so scared that you would lie about this??

 

[BULLDOG]

they are not anonymous nor are they crazies,,,
they are people in the middle of the whole of the investigation with direct connection to the actions,,

so why are you so scared that you would lie about this??

They verified that they know someone made claim. Is there something I missed?

 

[progressive hunter]

They verified that they know someone made claim. Is there something I missed?

oh you poor child youve missed so much,,,

 

[BULLDOG]

oh you poor child youve missed so much,,,

So inform me. I'm willing to consider rational proof.

 

[progressive hunter]

So inform me. I'm willing to consider rational proof.

if youve missed all the posts on the subject on this forum up to now theres nothing I can teach you that you will accept or learn,,

 

[BULLDOG]

oh you poor child youve missed so much,,,

I will concede that David Weiss likely claimed he was prevented from bringing charges against Hunter Biden in California. Did the whistle blowers present verifiable proof that David Weiss was telling the truth, or why he was prevented, or did they just verify Weiss made that claim?

 

[progressive hunter]

I will concede that David Weiss likely claimed he was prevented from bringing charges against Hunter Biden in California. Did the whistle blowers present verifiable proof that David Weiss was telling the truth, or why he was prevented, or did they just verify Weiss made that claim?

so why did you lie before??

 

[BULLDOG]

so why did you lie before??

I don't lie. I will admit that I am sometimes mistaken, and I always appologize and admit my mistake in those cases. Point to the lie you think I told, and we can clear it up.

 

[progressive hunter]

I don't lie. I will admit that I am sometimes mistaken, and I always appologize and admit my mistake in those cases. Point to the lie you think I told, and we can clear it up.

well first you said they are anonymous when they are not,, then you called them crazies when they are not,,,

so 2 out of 2 claims are bold faced lies,,,

 

[BULLDOG]

well first you said they are anonymous when they are not,, then you called them crazies when they are not,,,

so 2 out of 2 claims are bold faced lies,,,

They were not named in the OP. It was wrong and unfair for me not to read the link more carefully where more information is given. Only one of the two witnesses was unidentified and therefore anonymous, instead of both, as I mistakenly claimed.

(quote from OP link)
A second former I.R.S. official, who has not been identified, told House Republicans the same story.

I apologize for my mistake and thank you for the correction.

As for the depiction of being crazy, it does seem a bit crazy to make those claims in light of the letter Weiss sent to congress concerning the matter.
(quote from the OP link.)
Mr. Weiss said in a letter to Congress this month that he had not been constrained in pursuing the investigation. Mr. Weiss said in the letter, dated June 7, that he had been “granted ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when and whether to file charges.”

Which quote from the OP link do you have a problem with?

 

[progressive hunter]

They were not named in the OP. It was wrong and unfair for me not to read the link more carefully where more information is given. Only one of the two witnesses was unidentified and therefore anonymous, instead of both, as I mistakenly claimed.

(quote from OP link)
A second former I.R.S. official, who has not been identified, told House Republicans the same story.

I apologize for my mistake and thank you for the correction.

As for the depiction of being crazy, it does seem a bit crazy to make those claims in light of the letter Weiss sent to congress concerning the matter.
(quote from the OP link.)
Mr. Weiss said in a letter to Congress this month that he had not been constrained in pursuing the investigation. Mr. Weiss said in the letter, dated June 7, that he had been “granted ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when and whether to file charges.”

Which quote from the OP link do you have a problem with?

of course you meant nothing by saying theyre anonymous crazies, when in reality they are known government employees working directly in the investigation,,

I have no doubt you would have corrected yourself without my intervention,,, NOT!!!

 

[BULLDOG]

of course you meant nothing by saying theyre anonymous crazies, when in reality they are known government employees working directly in the investigation,,

I have no doubt you would have corrected yourself without my intervention,,, NOT!!!

No. Only one is known. The other was an unnamed crazy, as was shown in the quote I provided above. I stand by the crazy depiction. You have to be at least a little crazy to make those claims about Weiss, when Weiss himself wrote a letter to congress that denied all their claims.

You are absolutely right. I would not have made the correction in my remarks without you pointing out my mistake. I think it is unethical to argue something I don't believe to be true, That's why I thanked you for catching my error. Please point out any other verifiably factual mistakes you might find in my posts. Good catch.

 

[progressive hunter]

No. Only one is known. The other was an unnamed crazy, as was shown in the quote I provided above. I stand by the crazy depiction. You have to be at least a little crazy to make those claims about Weiss, when Weiss himself wrote a letter to congress that denied all their claims.

You are absolutely right. I would not have made the correction in my remarks without you pointing out my mistake. I think it is unethical to argue something I don't believe to be true, That's why I thanked you for catching my error. Please point out any other verifiably factual mistakes you might find in my posts. Good catch.

remaining anonymous to the public doesnt mean his identity is unknown,,,

congress critters investigating know who he is,,,

 

[BULLDOG]

remaining anonymous to the public doesnt mean his identity is unknown,,,

congress critters investigating know who he is,,,

Don't be so childish. He was anonymous in the OP and the link. Quit grabbing at straws, you big baby.

 

[excalibur]

Got it. Two anonymous crazies made some crazy claims and it's now verified that they actually made the crazy claims That's about the closest thing to proof as you MAGAs have ever produced. Its still not proof though.

As I asked recently, how did you manage to get to be so stupid? Through years of work, or does it come naturally? I ask again.

The whistleblowers are very much public and definitely NOT anonymous.

 

[excalibur]

 

[BULLDOG]

As I asked recently, how did you manage to get to be so stupid? Through years of work, or does it come naturally? I ask again.

The whistleblowers are very much public and definitely NOT anonymous.

So where was the 2nd witnesses name mentioned in the OP? The link specifically said he was unidentified. .

 

[BULLDOG]

It's also a direct contradiction with Weiss's previous letter to Congress.