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: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage
It is
You did

Brudda




posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 12:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

Prove your claim.


One last time, look up The Espionage Act.

Obama used it to jail leakers and journalists.

Flashback: Obama prosecuted staff leakers, gave lie-detector tests, he was ‘paranoid’


For much of the law’s existence, while it was used perniciously against anti-war demonstrators, it was not applied to journalists or their sources. It was not until 1971 that a person was indicted under the Espionage Act for providing classified information to a journalist. Between 1917 and 2009, only one person was convicted under the Espionage Act for leaking to a news organization.

But the Obama administration was determined to change that. Under pressure from Congress and intelligence agencies, Attorney General Eric Holder directed the Department of Justice to aggressively prosecute government employees who discussed classified information with reporters. In 2012, after news organizations reported on U.S. drone strikes and attempts to disable Iranian nuclear reactors, Holder assigned two U.S. attorneys to track down the journalists’ sources. President Barack Obama strongly supported Holder’s war against journalists’ sources, despite once promising to protect whistleblowers when in office and running for president on the national security scandals of the Bush administration — misdeeds that became public only because of leaks.


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



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

It will fall flat.

He won’t be impeached.

Nobody is dumb enough to believe he committed any ‘crime’ or ‘offense’ whatsoever.

And when it comes time to cast a vote, those with more than 2 IQ points to rub together will vote ‘no’.

Then the “reeeeeeeee” will become a bit louder for a while. But not on this site, this site will become a bit quieter for a couple of weeks.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 12:16 AM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 12:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: Breakthestreak

Nobody can. I wonder why that is?

Luckily a President can’t be impeached because “in my opinion his actions stink”


Yep. They want to impeach first, then find a crime.
They don't like what President Trump is doing policy wise,
they don't like the judges he is appointing!

They don't like it that the economy is booming, that people
have work options, that scares them.

They don't like Trump, he is mean!
So therefore he must be impeached!





posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 12:18 AM
link   
a reply to: drewlander
That is pretty sick.
Not surprising from this house of representatives.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 12:18 AM
link   
a reply to: burntheships
Right. But the whistleblower addressed his/her concerns to the intelligence committees of the Senate and House, via the IG. Right?

Not the media. Right?

The whistleblower followed the law to the letter. Right?



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Its from 2017, not to anyones surprise. Still two years later they are fishing for a crime.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Breakthestreak




He won’t be impeached.

If you mean he won't be removed from office (other than losing the election), that may well be true.
But it seems more and more likely that he will be impeached.

Clinton was impeached. Remember?
edit on 9/30/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 12:20 AM
link   
And the doj looked into the complaint and determined no crime had taken place.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody




And the doj looked into the complaint and determined no crime had taken place.

Not exactly.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 12:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: drewlander
a reply to: shooterbrody

Its from 2017, not to anyones surprise. Still two years later they are fishing for a crime.

That is worse.
Their disgusting ambition is still on display.
No crime.
But still ,overturn the election.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 12:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: shooterbrody




And the doj looked into the complaint and determined no crime had taken place.

Not exactly.

Oh
So exactly
Brudda



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

No

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

He most definitely won’t be removed from office.
edit on 30 9 2019 by Breakthestreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Pelosi wants the Articles passed so Trump can find out what's in it 😃

What's good for ObamaCare right.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Breakthestreak




I mean he won’t be impeached (my opinion)

I'm not sure. But as I said, I don't think it's a good idea.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 12:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: drewlander
a reply to: shooterbrody

Its from 2017, not to anyones surprise. Still two years later they are fishing for a crime.

That is worse.
Their disgusting ambition is still on display.
No crime.
But still ,overturn the election.


Im watching Levin right now and he just clowned the " intelligence committee ". He said "Right now we have more evidence than the whistleblower, and they still want to speak to the whistleblower."

Bwahaha. Why cant we fire these representatives? Oh yah, the state sovreignty they conveniently ignore when they speak about eliminating the electoral college.
edit on 30-9-2019 by drewlander because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 12:27 AM
link   
If Obama had a whistleblower (S)he would look like "_________" 😃



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Why would I want to leave that out? As far as I can tell, your blurb is fine to include if you so choose, but I was focused on quoting Atkinsons' words.

You've probably already read them, but here is Atkinsons' letter to Maguire if you want to read all his words:
intelligence.house.gov...



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: burntheships

Pelosi wants the Articles passed so Trump can find out what's in it 😃

What's good for ObamaCare right.



Her liver will not fail soon enough. Can we start shipping her free booze to speed up the process?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join