It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Whistleblower Fears for Safety --- Schiff says Whistleblower Might Testify at Hearing

page: 10
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

With all the secret Kavanaugh investigations by Democrats for a year, you would think The House would have impeached Kavanaugh by now 😎




posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

What those idiots in the House do best is take our money and take vacations. $182,000 for working 138 days @ year!



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

And, half that "work" is jet setting around the world for meets and greets in exotic places.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: carewemust

And, half that "work" is jet setting around the world for meets and greets in exotic places.



I demand transcripts of all phone calls and receipts of all money spent !! 😃



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Liquesence

With all the secret Kavanaugh investigations by Democrats for a year, you would think The House would have impeached Kavanaugh by now 😎



Secret investigations?

Tell me more.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical

originally posted by: dogstar23
a reply to: xuenchen

I could see the whistleblower being suicided to make it look as though the Trump admin were silencing him.

What the US needs is for the whistleblower to testify and be proven to be lying, then, if it was done at the behest of others (surely it was), to expose them.



Pretty obvious that the whistle blower is backed by hard evidence or this wouldn't be happening. Stay delusional my friend.


As hard as Blasey Ford?


Or rather a drunk Kavanaugh at a party.


I will again refer to how audio works.

Go into a room and turn up the stereo as loud as you can.

Get a few people to stand in the living room a few steps down.

Now scream.

I'd bet you my entire career that the people in the living room can hear you.

It is simple audio knowledge. Those in the room may not be able to hear you, but those outside the room can hear everything because of the way sound travels.

I'd be happy to come show anyone as long as they pay my passage there and my room and food/incidentals.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 07:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: xuenchen

If the President of The United States wished out loud that I would be dealt with like they used to deal with "traitors" I would be afraid for my safety as well.

Yeah... except that the President of the united States of America didn't do that.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
"Well this whistle-blower won't end up stranded in Moscow with a passport revoked Snowden style will he/she?"

Since they followed the letter of the law (as opposed to Snowden), one would hope not.

The letter of the law, where the ink was still wet from changing it just so this non-whistleblower could spread their rumors through official channels masquerading as 'whistleblowing'.


But with this administration and its judges, who knows?

As opposed to the prior administration and its judges illegally issuing blanket nationwide injunctions based on purely political stance, and in blatant opposition to the law?



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
If that's the case it would be a violation of the law. Those such as the whistleblower are supposed to be protected.

So, I googled a bit and couldn't find any reference to a whistleblower being granted 'anonymity', so, would you mind pointing to that statute please? Asking honestly, I',m not saying it isn't there, but I wasn't able to find it.

If it does exist, it should be declared unConstitutional, as it violates the accused's Right to face their persecutor.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
In this case, the IG (to whom the claim was submitted) found the complaint credible. So lets ignore it.

So, by all means, explain with logic and reason, how a report full of reprints from the MSM, and 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay, can ever be considered 'credible' by any sane, rational person?

Also - why was the process changed at the last minute just so this one not-whistleblower could do their thing?



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
I said that the IG found the complaint credible. No more, no less.

And you are wrong, he did not say that...

He said it appeared credible.

In lawyer/politic-speak, that means it is likely #FullOfLies.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burntheships

For the record, I still think impeachment is not a good idea.
Though it does give Congress more power to investigate.

Wow, I actually agree with you.

The difference is, I actually realize that this will end very, very badly for the demorats and the RINOs.

An investigation cuts both ways, and the dems will not be able to prevent all of the dirt on the Bidens/Clintons/Ukraine/Russia/China from coming out, and when it does...

Lets just say, next November will be a great time to be alive, watching the Rs replace a lot of RINOs, re-take the House in a big way, and gain a super-majority in the Senate.

That is what is likely to happen if they move forward with full impeachment proceedings.
edit on 1-10-2019 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-10-2019 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 08:18 AM
link   
yea, that is not going to happen, the Democrats are already blocking the Rebublicans ability to subpena.

As long as no "Official" impeachment vote is taken, the Conservatives have no power.

the fake impeachment can go on for months, and they can still block the Republicans ability to subpena.


this is a game and nothing more. keep on eye on what is real and what is fake.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
I mean he won’t be impeached (my opinion)
He’ll win the election (not my opinion, fact)

Heh... I wonder...



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl



Didn't he though?



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Nope they did not use a new form.

apparently there was a form but it was the same one they had been using for years.

I cant remember the year they said the form was in use from but it was old.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: tanstaafl

Nope they did not use a new form.

apparently there was a form but it was the same one they had been using for years.

I cant remember the year they said the form was in use from but it was old.



Multiple threads out there showing the form was from August 2019.

Also how does an anonymous whistle-blower get death threats?



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati



As long as no "Official" impeachment vote is taken, the Conservatives have no power.

Is that why they won't take an actual floor vote?
It appears the speaker of the house has new powers?
Calling for impeachment inquiries at will?
That will never boomerang on them after the 2020 elections, will it?



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

The congressional hearings is not a court of law.

The same rules do not apply.

trump has no right to know who the whistleblower is.

What he needs is a defense. Not try to tear down the case which is simple black and white and which he will fail at if he tries.
He is trying to get off on a technicality. That is not a defense nor does it clear his name.

Nearly half the country on both sides want him impeached and removed from office. 47% of americans both conservative and liberal.

www.theguardian.com...
edit on 1012019 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Because you have it all wrong about what the report contains thats why it sounds so incredulous to you.
It also contains first hand knowledge but lets ignore that.
A few conservatives who have been interviewed have been shown to have bad information or in some cases no information other than a few talking points and they got slaughtered when the deep questions came at them.
Oh wait the report didnt say that! Oh yes it did right here...
So maybe you want to read the complaint before you go writing about what it contains huh?




top topics



 
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join