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.

 

FACT CHECK: Trump’s fiction about whistleblower complaint

page: 2
19
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Agit8dChop

And the whistleblower had first-hand information. So what's the issue?


what? first hand information would be in the room, at the time. Unless you have some new info, what we heard is that the whistle blower heard from several sources. So no, it's second and third hand info.

This falls under the epic fail category.




posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 09:16 AM
link   
For some reason my dni.gov link won't work directly. So, I went directly to both dni and odni and am unable to find this document, but using the OP's link, you can get there.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

This thread was debunked on the first page using the OP's source. Epic facepalm.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
a reply to: Annee

This thread was debunked on the first page using the OP's source. Epic facepalm.


NOT



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Agit8dChop

And the whistleblower had first-hand information. So what's the issue?


what? first hand information would be in the room, at the time. Unless you have some new info, what we heard is that the whistle blower heard from several sources. So no, it's second and third hand info.

This falls under the epic fail category.


The "whistleblower" also references mainstream news articles for evidence.

HERE is my FIRST HAND evidence:



SCOOP: The whistleblower complaint did not include the full transcript, and referenced several mainstream media articles as ‘evidence’


TWITTER
Jack Posobiec
@JackPosobiec
---------------------------------------------



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
a reply to: Annee

This thread was debunked on the first page using the OP's source. Epic facepalm.


NOT


Only if you have severe reading comprehension issues....... Are just trolling..... Or have been brainwashed by the media......

Other than that, yeah it has..... W out question
edit on 10/1/2019 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)


(post by hyperlexic removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Agit8dChop

Dang, you just murdered this thread in cold blood.

OP should delete his account and move on.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Thanks for the laugh everyone, it been great.

Is Nancy Pelosi a part of this intelligence community? John McCain got wrapped up in that stuff too right?



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude


The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed
both first-hand and other information. The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as
other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared
credible.


It should be noted that I'm not even a vocal supporter of impeachment. I may not like Trump but I've never backed impeachment. I'm simply pointing out the fact that the most spouted attempts to smear this whistleblower are false.

Apparently the whistleblower did provide first-hand information that was deemed credible and urgent. Apparently this whistleblower wasn't held to a different standard than those that came before.

So if the whistleblower did everything according to law, why do you want their identity revealed?



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

In a vacuum, the claim would stand more credibility.


However with the recent document change, the flimsy and biased allegations combined with timing dont quite pass the smell test.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: network dude


The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed
both first-hand and other information. The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as
other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared
credible.


It should be noted that I'm not even a vocal supporter of impeachment. I may not like Trump but I've never backed impeachment. I'm simply pointing out the fact that the most spouted attempts to smear this whistleblower are false.

Apparently the whistleblower did provide first-hand information that was deemed credible and urgent. Apparently this whistleblower wasn't held to a different standard than those that came before.

So if the whistleblower did everything according to law, why do you want their identity revealed?


Why do you not wanna know? After all this the last 3 years . Russian collusion, stormy daniels, invoke the 25th .

How does it not look like an obvious set up to you?



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 10:37 AM
link   


So if the whistleblower did everything according to law, why do you want their identity revealed?


Spoiler Alert, C_A.

I want to know why allegations of much more serious crimes are getting white washed by these weak attacks on the Presidency? It is like how an illusionist will use distraction while they steal your watch.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: seeker1963

Even if the form changed right before the complaint was made, it's still a complete red herring. The ICIG made it clear that the whistleblower had both first-hand and second-hand information.


The whistleblower had no first hand knowledge of the call that is in question. None. No other complaint has come up so.....



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Agit8dChop

You ask why the form was changed? Lol

When you can't win within the rules you change the rules.


Maybe Trump wanted to make it easier for his toadies to rat out Obama holdovers?



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Obviously, there is not an agreement within governmental departments on this issue.



The complaint does not arise in connection with the operation of any U.S. government intelligence activity, and the alleged misconduct does not involve any member of the intelligence community. Rather, the com-plaint arises out of a confidential diplomatic communication between the President and a foreign leader that the intelligence-community complain-ant received secondhand. The question is whether such a complaint falls within the statutory definition of “urgent concern” that the law requires the DNI to forward to the intelligence committees. We conclude that it does not. The alleged misconduct is not an “urgent concern” within the meaning of the statute because it does not concern “the funding, admin-istration, or operation of an intelligence activity” under the authority of the DNI. Id. § 3033(k)(5)(G)(i).


www.justice.gov...



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254


"So if the whistleblower did everything according to law, why do you want their identity revealed?"


Ever hear of "Due Process", you know where the accused get to confront their accuser?



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Agit8dChop

You ask why the form was changed? Lol

When you can't win within the rules you change the rules.


Maybe Trump wanted to make it easier for his toadies to rat out Obama holdovers?




More like the Obama holdovers know they can't beat trumps policies so they made it so they can bog down his administration with investigations of alleged wrongdoings.

This will die in a month or so and I would be willing to wager the next alleged wrongdoing with be trump tampering with the IRS and his taxes...
That will backfire too because every American hates the IRS.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: seeker1963

Even if the form changed right before the complaint was made, it's still a complete red herring. The ICIG made it clear that the whistleblower had both first-hand and second-hand information.


Checked both boxes.
Did the IG read the complaint with classified attachment, or just the complaint form?

ganjoa



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 12:22 PM
link   
The Whistleblower was parroting hearsay. I do not understand why it was taken seriously until the content was verified. People talk among themselves all the time, bitching complaining, giving opinions, and stating possible conspiracies. Here we discuss things, hacking out things trying to find what is real. But when a bunch of believers in the same thing talk, they tend to follow along lines based upon their common beliefs and ignore talking about what goes against their beliefs except to ridicule it.

Before any of the Whistleblower stuff hit congress or the press, the complaint should have been investigated and appraised by the high judicial system of the country in this case. Then it should have been considered for investigation at which point it could have been presented to congress and the press.

This was a political ploy by the Democrats to try to persuade more voters to vote Democrat in the next presidential election, it has little pertinence to it, most presidents do this kind of stuff in their business. It is just a political ploy and a twisting of facts.

The Whistle blower did have a right to file a complaint and it was properly done. The way the complaint was handled is what I find incorrect.
edit on 1-10-2019 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join