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: 3
19
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I will agree that it is being said they have first hand knowledge. Now if we read everything that was put out before all hype around the change it was just second hand knowledge. It even said that in the report handed to Congress only recently did they come out and say they also had first hand knowledge. Personally at this point lets have the vote and start the real investigation.. right now all they are doing are acting like they are impeaching until its voted on in the House its all a smoke and mirror's until they think they have the masses fooled into believing it all




posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 01:57 PM
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?


Unless there is something else, the accuser lied. There is no first hand knowledge. If there was, it would be in the WB report. So we have a credibility issue right off the bat. Then there is the anonymous complaint by a partisan who's complaint is to be used to remove the president from the office the country elected him to. I'd like you to read that last sentence again, then think if you really believe such an accusation should be protected. If it was against you, and you were about to loose everything, I bet you would want to know a bit more about who was trying to ruin you.

We have the transcript of the call. You have to twist in all sorts of weird positions to find something wrong with it, especially with the context of what's really going on. this is a political hit, just like the others, done by the IC. the fact that you pretend not to know that just shows how little you posts count.
edit on 1-10-2019 by network dude because: bad spler



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: seeker1963

To actually change the rules surrounding whistleblower complaints it would require an act of Congress. Remember that the Whistleblower Protection Act is an actual law in the USC. It isn't just some departmental policy.

They didn't change the law. The law allows for second hand knowledge )so obviously needs to be changed to require first hand knowledge).

They changed the form, which someone with more than half a brain must have created that did actually require first hand knowledge.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Agit8dChop

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

The fact that there is no first hand knowledge in the complaint, only second and third hand MSM reports) knowledge?



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 02:38 PM
link   
When fact checking goes wrong should be the title of this thread.

Look there is an industry tailor made for you to get half truths and lies spun in favor of Democrats.

There is no truth shortcut! You have to wade into the bull# like everyone else. Research both sides, review details, look for motives. Why do democrats use fact checking like it’s the ultimate authority in truth? It’s not! Being on a conspiracy website you should be avoiding what other people tell you is true and do the research yourself.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Veryolduser

So in other words you want people to listen to second/third-hand reporting that confirms your narrative instead of listening to the actual source that reviewed the form and determined that there was enough information to suggest an urgent and legitimate concern?



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Veryolduser

So in other words you want people to listen to second/third-hand reporting that confirms your narrative instead of listening to the actual source that reviewed the form and determined that there was enough information to suggest an urgent and legitimate concern?


Why don’t you look up who was the first person to bring up this subject on ATS.

Here’s a hint it was me. The form was changed from its original message that requires first hand account to be considered urgent concern. If you go back to that thread you will find phage addressed that it was a hand written letter sent in “nobody knew if the form was filled out”. Falling down addressed that to be covered as urgent concern the witness needed to be first hand account under the guidelines of the rules regarding whistle blowers.



Now I maybe wrong here but there seems to be a loop hole in this whole thing that’s interesting. If the form isn’t filled out the whistle blower isn’t untitled to the classified information as per the guidelines. This is probably why the dems are crying about it being put into secret classification.

Ps what’s your reporting? Isn’t this fact checker a third or second hand reporting?

First hand knowledge is knowing who enter the room with the president actually being in the room is different
edit on 1-10-2019 by Veryolduser because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Agit8dChop

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


The WB "claims" to have first hand knowledge. 😎



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Veryolduser

So in other words you want people to listen to second/third-hand reporting that confirms your narrative instead of listening to the actual source that reviewed the form and determined that there was enough information to suggest an urgent and legitimate concern?


Most of the conspiracy speculation here on ATS is second-hand or third-hand or even more distant. Most folks don't seem to have a problem with this kind of information as it relates to conspiracies.

If you denounce second-hand (etc) knowledge then you need to reject every bit of speculation here on ATS. And political commentary and blogs as well.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 04:45 PM
link   
this Stinks of Orchestrated Set-Up...

Schiff got a handwritten tip letter from a INTEL Agent working TDY (temporary duty) @ the WH Communication center


the Set-Up is the Leaker/Spy was given special approval to get Protection in Treatment as a 'Whistle Blower'....
I suppose that Investigations will discover the 'Whistle Blower' had previous contact with Rep. A Schiff in the Professional work areas of Security / Intelligence work...

courts will hear evidence the Intel worker had a open pipeline of reporting info to the Intel Committee over time---
and the 'Whistle Blower' designation was trying to throw-off any Name release of the Intel Agent
which could have been a Promise that Rep A Schiff 'knew' he could not keep in the course of Investigation.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
APNews is on the same level as CNN unfortunately.

The whistleblower form was revised in august 2019

here it is - there's a clear box asking if your complaint is first hand or second hand
www.dni.gov...



here's the submission form from 2018
www.scribd.com...

Which clearly has the requirement:

In order to find an urgent concern credible the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information.



So yes, the form was changed from needing firsthand info, to simply asking if your info is first or second hand.

Trump also said

WHO CHANGED THE LONG STANDING WHISTLEBLOWER RULES JUST BEFORE SUBMITTAL OF THE FAKE WHISTLEBLOWER REPORT? DRAIN THE SWAMP!


the form was changed, when and why - who knows.
but there was a specific point that FIRST HAND information was required - coincidentally, that no longer exists on the new form.


Couple this with Pelosi letting slip that she knew what was in the transcript before the WH released it, as well as...well, Schiff in general, and it appears to be another smear job.

Seems to be ramping up, Since Barr and Durham are beginning to dig in.

I need some popcorn. (no, not corn pop
)



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Veryolduser

So in other words you want people to listen to second/third-hand reporting that confirms your narrative instead of listening to the actual source that reviewed the form and determined that there was enough information to suggest an urgent and legitimate concern?


Yes, they want to listen and believe anything that supports their ridiculous idea's Trump is a criminal. They can't find any real evidence of it, so they believe this kind of garbage even when the actual transcript is available to them. It's really amazing.

It's cognitive Dissonance and it is a lot more freakin powerful than I ever imagined, but it is on display by the left everywhere.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: PilSungMtnMan
The Dems/MSM ran an organized effort to unseat a duly elected President using fake evidence and illegal FISA warrants and THIS is what has some peeps all spun up?

MAGA 2020


Of course. The useful idiots have been programmed by OrangeManBad.exe, and don't realize the corrupt swamp is telling them to hate a man for trying to stop the corrupt swamp.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: seeker1963

To actually change the rules surrounding whistleblower complaints it would require an act of Congress. Remember that the Whistleblower Protection Act is an actual law in the USC. It isn't just some departmental policy.


Yet the language WAS changed - apparently to avoid confusion LOL.,,, 2 days before the complaint was filed.
Yeah, ok. Pull the other one.



posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
So can we stop perpetuating this false conspiracy theory?


No. Because the secondhand knowledge theory is meant to discredit the whistleblower and portray him or her as a political operative with political motivations. And for all we know, he or she could be. But that doesn’t mean the inspector general changed the rules.

They can't dispute the facts which the President confirmed through both his statements to the press and the release of the memo.




top topics



 
19
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join