TYB
Could it be classified as hearsay as no actual source has been named?
Yes, much of the information regarding Dan Bongino, Kash Patel, and Pam Bondi's potential resignations or conflicts could be classified as hearsay, as many reports rely on unnamed sources or lack official confirmation. Here's a breakdown:
• Unnamed Sources: Several reports, particularly from outlets like RadarOnline and posts found on X, cite "sources close to" Bongino or Patel, or "insiders" within the administration, without naming specific individuals. For example, claims about Bongino's confrontation with Bondi and his absence from work on July 11, 2025, are attributed to anonymous "senior officials" or "close associates." Similarly, Patel's potential resignation is based on what he reportedly told unnamed confidants.
• Lack of Official Confirmation: As of July 12, 2025, there are no public statements from Bongino, Patel, or Bondi confirming resignations or firings. The absence of named, verifiable sources or official documentation means these reports remain speculative and fall under hearsay, as they are based on secondhand accounts without direct attribution.
• Context and Reliability: Some reports, like those from Fox News mentioning Patel's intent to stay, provide slightly more context but still lack primary source attribution. The reliance on anonymous sources and the polarized nature of the discourse (e.g., MAGA supporters amplifying the story) further weaken the reliability, as the information could be driven by rumor or agenda-driven narratives.
However, the consistency across multiple outlets and X posts about the Epstein files dispute and internal tensions suggests there may be some basis to the claims, even if unverified. In legal terms, hearsay is secondhand information offered to prove the truth of a matter, and these reports fit that definition due to their reliance on unnamed sources. To confirm the accuracy, direct statements from the individuals involved or official announcements would be needed. Until then, the information should be treated as unverified and potentially speculative.
Not sure about that one anon. I think it depends on how she acquired citizenship.
If she was born in the USA to USA parents, I don't think he can do that unless she renounces her citizenship or has dual citizenship in another country.
If she was "naturalized" he might be able to if she lied on her application.
Guessing, could be wrong.
Prolly should query AI
NowTHATwould beEPIC
forgot, SRV Saturday.
Good Day anons, let it be a Glorious day of habbenings.