A response to this blog

Viva Frei is attempting to explain the whistle blower scandel of Sept. Oct 2019 in the Ttumpe adsministration.

Bias much. Yes, you keep saying how this a simple read of the documents…except you are a lawyer. Yet show no lawyer ability. Your insight show more signs of bias then one would expect short of Rudy Giuliani!

1) Hearsay: Frei told me he killed someone. He told me where he hide the body. He even told where the murder weapon is. What? That is all hearsay and the police won’t investigate?
Yes, we use hearsay all the time to start an investigation. It is reasonable suspicion that leads to probable cause and the balance of probability to allow police to look into crimes.

2) Opinion: Everyone has one just like they all have @$$holes. So I guess everyone opinion is equal… Oh wait… There is this thing called an expert. They are allowed to give opinions. Any lawyer would know this to be true. Well except you. Anyone in the position to be speaking out about this call would easily qualify as an expert in any court American or Canadian.

An expert is allowed to offer their expert opinion. Should someone investigate such as an pen hearing before the public in the Congress, such experts would be called to testify and thus put an end to the hearsay and present expert witness testimony.

3) Whistle-blowers: They blow the whistle on powers that be for other powers to investigate. If there is nothing to the claims they are dismissed. None of these claims have been dismissed. In fact they have been deemed credible by the people in power to offer such opinions. What, instead, they have done is obstructed the investigation. “Shall pass on” is in the law they have obstructed. You should know this and know what Obstructing is.

Yep this can be found in the Canadian legal code:
Obstructing justice
139 (1) Every one who willfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding,

For a lawyer are you sure… Oh wait. You have previous proclaimed to have no knowledge of criminal law. Never mind. It shows.

4) Hunter Biden. We must mention him or this shows bias. Err why? Cause you say so. A) you harp on how much he is paid. Please post how much the other members of said board are paid. B) Please advise what the average payment for other companies are to their members of the board. C) aside from the shocking amount of money paid is there any evidence… right, evidence is that thing used in court. Never mind. You missed class the day they taught that part of law.Is there any evidence to be found that he acted improperly? This matter was also investigated years ago, and nothing was found. But we must keep mentioning it because?
Are ya sure? This seems like you are slandering Hunter Biden by the inference you keep trying to make. Now for someone who felt that the NY Times was also libeling Brett Kavanaugh because they published an essay based on eyewitness testimony but not of the victim they were out of line. Basically that would end any murder trial cause the main witness being dead never gets to testify. No wait, more criminal law. And as you have said, you know nothing about it. Never mind. At least we can agree on that.

4.1) If you have any, sorry, ANY, evidence that there was a crime committed by Hunter Biden. Why have you not reported it to the police? Instead of hand gestures in his direction. All you have said is hearsay. OMG that evil word again. Only your hearsay is from a bias source ie Ttump, himself. Why the double standard. The whistle-blower is not allowed to have any but you can freely spot it. But you have no bias? That whole proposition shows your bias. Now, in no court would he, Ttump be allowed to offer opinions as he is not an expert in anything. So your double standard is telling again.

Get off your soapbox. This is a political hit piece of questionable information and questionable knowledge, or lack of said knowledge. You missed basic facts that I would expect a first year law student to know the meaning of, never mind an actual lawyer. Terms like: “Whistle-blower”, “Expert”, “Opinion”, “Hearsay”, “Obstruction of justice” etc. All of which leads to some strong reasons to doubt your claims, you proffer of non bias information and your whole attack on others. Your case seems to be innuendo, smoke and mirrors. Perhaps you are looking for a career change. I hear Ttump is looking for so many positions. Send in your CV with a copy of this video. I am sure it will get you immediate access to cabinet.