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: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

The whole "spy" narrative isn't going to hold up. It's something Donald Trump said and then everyone rushed around trying to validate it any way they can. The whistleblower went through the proper channels and followed the law the correct way.


Spy or no spy, this person conspired with others to
spy on a U.S. President. If this had happened under
Obama the person would be in jail already.




posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen




Then the "Articles of Impeachment" will be voted on

So you know how the system works.
I'm surprised.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships




If this had happened under Obama the person would be in jail already.

Convicted under what law?



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: underwerks

Spying on a United States President is most likely a crime,
Keep in mind this person works for, or worked for the CIA.

Not a newbie, they know the statutes.

Eventually they will have to go public if they want to
accuse President Trump of a crime.







The whole "spy" narrative isn't going to hold up. It's something Donald Trump said and then everyone rushed around trying to validate it any way they can. The whistleblower went through the proper channels and followed the law the correct way.


They are not a whistleblower without direct evidence. You do understand what this person did, anyone could do with these requirements. I could say I heard someone say you stole from work then you, you would be under and investigation without any evidence. I seriously doubt you would approve if it was against you which is what is missed in all of it. Against someone you dislike it's ok. Against you, personally, not ok. This person, none of what they are saying is true. He didn't say he was withholding anything and that is fact. Doesn't even matter because the President has the power to investigate whatever he or she wants. He can look into Biden, Obama, Hillary. ANYBODY.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Will we find out what he/she said behind closed doors at least?

We need to know who these supposed "multiple government officials" are that he/she supposedly heard this information from, because the call transcript sure doesn't show what he/she says it shows.

I re-read the "whistleblowers" complaint again tonight. It is full of main stream media "reports" about this and that with no corroboration. We all know where the enemedia stands these days.

There is a lot of hearsay and innuendo and bias in the complaint. It sticks out like a sore thumb.

I don't think it is going to work this time though....all the Dem shenanigans. Joe Biden and Hunter Biden will be investigated although the enemedia is doing everything they can, along with the crazies in the congress, to make this about Trump.

Enough is enough.
edit on 29-9-2019 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyinHeadlock




They are not a whistleblower without direct evidence.

Incorrect.


I could say I heard someone say you stole from work then you, you would be under and investigation without any evidence.
If you were a government employee and you made such a claim that claim would be looked at by the person to whom you submitted it. Yes.

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



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
Credible meaning filed properly, not meaning true.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Credible doesn't mean "filed properly."



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Convicted under what law?


I didn't say convicted, I said they would be in jail.

Probably charged with a dozen felonies and allowed to
plea to one or two. Get real.

Obama prosecuted more whistleblowers than any other
president ever. He used the CIA to spy on his challengers,
he spied on journalists.

Besides, this impeachment sham is not going anywhere.

There still is no house vote, and it will never pass the senate.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:38 PM
link   
The President will not be impeached

And nobody will be surprised



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships




Probably charged with a dozen felonies and allowed to plea to one or two.

Cite one. Just one.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

this is the "fleaflicker" again.

"we MUST think of the safety of the whisleblower/leaker/liar(?)"

No one should ever know who the whistleblower is that was used to Impeach the POTUS

repeat the last line several times

did it make sense any of the times you said it?

yeah me either.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
It doesnt mean what the whistleblower filed is true.
It means the whistleblower completed the paperwork properly and filed it properly.
The ig DIDNT EVEN HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL, the ig did no investigation, so credible in this instance does not mean true.

Nice spin tho bruddah.
It only works on the uneducated.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati




No one should ever know who the whistleblower is that was used to Impeach the POTUS

That's not the way it works. The IG knows the identity of the complainant. If members of Congress interview him/her, so do they. All of them, Democrat and Republican.

edit on 9/29/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody




It means the whistleblower completed the paperwork properly and filed it properly.

It means that the IG found the complaint credible. Do you know what that word means? It has a definition and it isn't "properly filed."


edit on 9/29/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

Cite one. Just one.


Not going to bother because we do not yet know the details.
What you've never heard of The Espionage Act? Get Real!

But we do know that several people were spying on
The President of The United States!

Which is a crime!!

And by the way the DOJ already dismissed this.

President Trump did not commit a crime.
edit on 29-9-2019 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-9-2019 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: thedigirati


You will never know your accuser
In court, you will. As yet, this is an investigation. Perhaps it will lead to where you think the Muellar investigation did. Perhaps not.


What court?



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships




Not going to bother because we do not know the details.

So you can't support your claim.
I thought not.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
Yep
You dont
At least with respect to this event
The DIA testified to such under oath in front of Congress brudda.
Your disingenuous use of it to represent the information as true is vile brudda.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: drewlander




What court?

So, you got my point. Good on you.




top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join