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.

 

Schiff Directing Witnesses Not To Answer GOP Questions

page: 4
48
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

please try reading - and comprehending

the witness WAS the alledged whistleblower

how would revealing who they talked to comprimise thier identity ???????????????

SMH




posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape



please try reading - and comprehending


Source?

Lt. Col. Vindman tells lawmakers that he is not the whistleblower video.foxnews.com...=show-clips



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ignorant_ape



please try reading - and comprehending


Source?

Lt. Col. Vindman tells lawmakers that he is not the whistleblower video.foxnews.com...=show-clips



Like he wouldn't be the very first witness to ever lie under oath eh 🐇 😃 🐇



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Isn't this just the preliminary investigation portion of the proceedings?

Yes, precisely - except they are pretending that they have subpoena and other extra-ordinary powers to compel they would have if it were a formal impeachment inquiry.


I don't think that due process requiring discovery being shared to both legal teams takes place until just before the court case, which will be before Congress.

You are mistaken.

The initial 'examination' is very simple - the charge(s) and the evidence in hand are examined. If it warrants a full impeachment inquiry, a vote is held to see if the House is in agreement.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

They are asking questions to get the identity of the whistleblower. Those are the only questions they were told they could not ask.

Damning testimony again today that indicate that the memorandum of the phone call was not complete which I have been saying.
Its ten minutes of reading and its a thirty minute call.



I'm going out on a limb here. But the transcript was not done by Trump, it was done by the analysts in the room, listening in on the call. Apparently there were quite a few people listening in on the call. And to date, not one of them has said anything at all about the contents released, not being accurate. If somehow, Trump manipulated the transcript of the call, and lied about it's contents, that would be an impeachable offence, and one that needed no partisan backing. Everyone would have to call him out for it. So until you can bring some proof to what you think you know, I'll chalk this up as yet another silly thing said by a silly person, who has silly thoughts and tells silly stories instead of factual ones.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I thought it was established that the whistleblower's complaint was 2nd hand, hearsay, info, because he wasn't "on" the call. Vindman was on the call, both calls, as a matter of fact.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen

I thought it was established that the whistleblower's complaint was 2nd hand, hearsay, info, because he wasn't "on" the call. Vindman was on the call, both calls, as a matter of fact.





are you sure Vindman was who Jordan was speaking to? I believe they have called other witnesses, and with the need to keep the "whistle blower" identity secret, it's unlikely they would make huge announcements about the next guest on "Impeach 45 gameshow!!!" as they did for this person.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude


Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio acknowledged Republicans were trying to get Vindman to provide the names of others he spoke to after the July 25 phone call, in an effort to decide whom to call to testify. “He wouldn’t,” Jordan said.

www.marketwatch.com... ions-2019-10-29



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

so if Vindman isn't the whistleblower, how would he know the answer to that, and why would Jordan even ask him that?

eta, nevermind, I get what you are saying now.
edit on 30-10-2019 by network dude because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The "2nd" (or "3rd") whistleblower 😃 🐇 🥥



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
OhOh spaghetti-0's !!🐇🥥


Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and the Questioning of an American Jew's Patriotism
😃

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a decorated Iraq War veteran, was stationed in Moscow at the time as part of Zwack’s defense attaché’s office and was intimately involved in planning Flynn’s visit.




From your article, we know at least one person Vindman spoke to...his twin brother.


One of the NSC lawyers to whom Vindman took his complaint was his identical twin brother and fellow ROTC alum, Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman.



(bolding mine)

(lol...notice the inserted "fellow ROTC alum" as if THAT automatically makes him squeaky clean and impervious to shenanigans.)
edit on 30-10-2019 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Please share with us HOW you know this as you offered no link to corroborate your opinions into fects.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

sigh - try reading the thread OP

its all there :


Congressman Jim Jordan who attempted to asked the initial anonymous “whistleblower” who they spoke with following the infamous July phone call


vindman was not the only witness



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Okay. Now I see the problem.

From the OP:

One question that Schiff barred a witness from answering reportedly came from Ohio Republican Congressman Jim Jordan who attempted to asked the initial anonymous “whistleblower” who they spoke with following the infamous July phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president.

“Adam Schiff says, ‘no-no-no we’re not going to let him answer that question,’” Jordan said as reported by Fox News.


From the actual article linked in the OP:

One question that Schiff barred a witness from answering reportedly came from Ohio Republican Congressman Jim Jordan, who asked Vindman to disclose the individuals with whom he shared information about the July 25 phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky.

“Adam Schiff says, ‘no-no-no we’re not going to let him answer that question,’” Jordan said as reported by Fox News.


thefederalist.com...

So you see, nowhere in the OP's linked article does it say Jim Jordon was questioning the whistleblower. I don't know why the OP's quote isn't what the article actually says.

I guess when they transcribed the text to all caps, it happened, quite by accident!




edit on 30-10-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

They are asking questions to get the identity of the whistleblower. Those are the only questions they were told they could not ask.

Damning testimony again today that indicate that the memorandum of the phone call was not complete which I have been saying.
Its ten minutes of reading and its a thirty minute call.


I am sure that all the Democrats on that committee know the name of the whistle blower. Are they afraid the Republicans are going to leak the name because the Democrats leak names regularly?


They are legally required to keep the name secret. Whistleblower act and all that.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: Sillyolme

Please share with us HOW you know this as you offered no link to corroborate your opinions into fects.


The member has been directed by Adam Schiff not to answer that !!!! 😎



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Would that not be an Order from him for Witnesses to Commit Contempt of a Congressional Investigation ? Schiff is the One in Contempt here ...

edit on 30-10-2019 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 12:21 PM
link   

One question that Schiff barred a witness from answering reportedly came from Ohio Republican Congressman Jim Jordan, who asked Vindman to disclose the individuals with whom he shared information about the July 25 phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky.


Democrats, and their bots on Cnn and MSNBC.

That's who.

Closed door.

Refusing to answer questions.

Democrats should not be in power. They ALL should be locked the hell up, and the key thrown away.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Sounds like perhaps Vindman leaked the call details to the anonymous whistle blower. If Vindman said who he talked to about the conversation then one of those individuals would be the whistle blower.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen




Also came out the witness wanted to change the transcript to something it wasn't


No it wasn't. When there are more than one person creating a transcript, due to language, etc., editing takes place. Vinman edited the transcript and he said not all his edits were accepted, but the very damning ones for Trump were. He said that the actual transcript and the memo that the White House release were different. According to Vinman, Trump mentions Biden and Burisma a bunch more times during the call.

That's what the whistle blower said too.



For starters what difference does it make? Joe BIden has not won the Democratic Primary or been announced that he is their candidate. All they have are the "polls" which I have known since the 2nd grade that "poll" say what the creator of the poll wants it to, are you smarter than a 2nd grader?

Trump can ask the leader of any country at any to time to investigate possible corruption in that country PERIOD.

This is just the latest try by the Dems to unseat the duly elected president of the united states of america because he will not cave to their corruption. Do you support corruption? Do you Support Joe Biden even with those creepy youtube vids of him feeling up children? What about his wiring of $ to Pakistani ISI prior to 911? What about his "Not in my backyard" rants? What about his bragging about quid quo pro at the dinner? What about his miraculous prediction that a 911 type of event would occur on that he made on 910?

Again what difference does it make? The only difference I see is it will awaken more people to DEMEXIT like I did so long ago, and the rest will remain with their head stuck up their proverbially donkey. No pun intended as I was using donkey as a substitute for ass, but now after I typed it it makes one thing clear the reason they are the party of the Jackass



edit on 30-10-2019 by CrazyFox because: proofread and stuff




top topics



 
48
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join