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: 6
48
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




If it was true whomever changed the requirements for a whistleblower form wouldn't need to have changed the requirement to "hearsay."


The "requirements" were not changed. The form was changed to conform with the law and its "requirements", as the IG explained.




posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Amazing what mental gymnastics do liars like yourself have to make to avoid accepting facts...

This is Tristan Justice... He isn't Hispanic, and he isn't me...


twitter.com...

So quit making up BS, and accusing people with defamatory claims that only exist in your mind just to avoid the facts...



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




How fing convenient for you to make such accusations after the article was edited...


If the article had been edited, to fix the assertion that Jim Jordon was questioning the whistleblower when he was admonished by Schiff, there would be an "updated" line at the bottom of the article, just like if you edit a post here on ATS, there's a little note at the bottom of the post. Professionally boards and publications do that.



Again, stop making FALSE accusations and stay in fing topic...


That is the fing topic! Your OP claims that mean ole Adam Schiff is being mean to Republicans and not letting ask questions. But the question that Jim Jordon asked would have revealed the whistleblower's name, had Vindman answered truthfully. That's illegal, so Schiff stopped it.

But your OP asserts that Jim Jordon was questioning the whistleblower, and didn't deserve to be censored by that evil Schiff! He wasn't, and he did.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




This is Tristan Justice... He isn't Hispanic, and he isn't me...


LOL! You're right! He doesn't look anything like your avatar! But I don't see a Blue Verified Check Mark, so I don't know. It could be you. It could be your boyfriend. It could be Bob Mueller! IDK.


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



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha


The "requirements" were not changed. The form was changed to conform with the law and its "requirements", as the IG explained.



LOL yes they were. TheFederalist has a picture of how the requirement was before, which I presented in one of my responses.


thefederalist.com...



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

BTW...



Schiff Directing Witnesses Not To Answer GOP Questions
October 29, 2019 By Tristan Justice
...

thefederalist.com...

edit on 30-10-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct excerpt.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:34 PM
link   

...
While ICIG’s admission vindicates a huge story that the mainstream media quickly downgraded to a debunked conspiracy theory, the news release left unanswered the larger question: Had the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’s office adopted a policy that whistleblower complaints must be supported by first-hand knowledge?

The evidence suggests as much and the news release, rather than providing clarity, obfuscated the question.

“Although the form requests information about whether the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute,” the news release says. But, in fact, the form did more than request information about whether the individual possessed first-hand knowledge: The form emphatically statedFIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED.
...




Icwpa Form 401 (24may18)



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:36 PM
link   
I truly think that this is happening so if Trump tries to step in he will look like he is obstructing. That is the trap.

My analogy to someone the other day was like when you break up with someone and the ex keeps showing up where you are trying to get you to show your ass....



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:04 PM
link   


That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


This is nobodies fault but our own for allowing this to happen and for our rights to be violated. We have a constitution that defines our freedoms and gives a road-map to securing those freedoms.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: MisterSpock
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Makes sense, Hillary seems more likely by the day to be ready to jump back in the field.

And why not???

"I beat him before, I can beat him again." - Hillary Clinton
You know that sounds familiar... oh yah it was the guy who kicked Bruce Lee in the back after Lee won the match...
edit on 30-10-2019 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 01:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

LOL! You're right! He doesn't look anything like your avatar! But I don't see a Blue Verified Check Mark, so I don't know. It could be you. It could be your boyfriend. It could be Bob Mueller! IDK.



WTH?... I am not gay, and imo no one gives a hoot about your sexual preference. It is not what the op is about... So, stop projecting yourself on others, leave me out, and leave out your deviant sexual fantasies from this thread which I am certain most members of ATS don't care about...



edit on 31-10-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 01:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

That is the fing topic! Your OP claims that mean ole Adam Schiff is being mean to Republicans and not letting ask questions. But the question that Jim Jordon asked would have revealed the whistleblower's name, had Vindman answered truthfully. That's illegal, so Schiff stopped it.


Schiff is not allowing due process. Of course you LOVE this, you don't care if anyone whom is opposed to you gets shafted by your socialist/globalist leaders.

As for the "so called whistleblower"... It's obvious to anyone with any honesty left in them that he was made a whistleblower so he doesn't have to be questioned by Republicans. Because then we would find out that he worked for Brennan. I used to think it was someone else, but now everyone who knows who it is, is calling the whistleblower a he.

Schiff, and your socialist leaders, don't want Republicans questioning the witnesses. What do they have to hide? Is the whistleblower perhaps someone close to Schiff? Did Schiff coach the last witness as Republicans are saying it happened meanwhile Schiff vetoed the questions from Republicans?

This so called "impeachment" is a farce.



originally posted by: Sookiechacha
But your OP asserts that Jim Jordon was questioning the whistleblower, and didn't deserve to be censored by that evil Schiff! He wasn't, and he did.


The op was what The Federalist had in that article... You are so paranoid that you keep trying to make this thread about me. IT ISN'T ABOUT ME...

You really have issues you have to deal with... Perhaps you should take your medications already.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Adam Schiff is so psychotically delusional, he actually thinks he's a special counsel now !!!

I bet Nancy Pelosi actually told him that too because she's as nuts as he is 😃



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 02:41 AM
link   
I don't know RCP's reputation here, but for what its worth, the identity of the whistle blower seems to be an open secret. My thinking is that Schiff was worried his own name might come out of the "witness's" mouth. Would seem pretty much par for the course. The Beltway's 'Whistleblower' Furor Obsesses Over One Name



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Aren't we approaching or have we past the point where this could be called sedition? Congress seems to making up the rules as they go to suit their needs.



Legal Definition of sedition : the crime of creating a revolt, disturbance, or violence against lawful civil authority with the intent to cause its overthrow or destruction



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
"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."

False...

Liar liar...


No one is pretending, except those like you.

What am I pretending?


"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."

False.

Liar liar...


From the start those accused should be allowed due process.

Agreed.


What you are claiming is that if for example, if YOU were accused of rape, you want to claim that during the "investigation" that your defense has no right to make their own investigation, that they have no right to question the witnesses, that they have no right to the evidence that the prosecution has.

I'm sorry, you must have me confused with Gryphon66 or some other delusional TDS sufferer.

Nowhere have I ever said anything even remotely supportive of what you just said.


This is false, and it denies due process to the accused, which includes a POTUS.

I think you need to step back and take a few deep breaths. It appears we are on the same page.

Go back and re-read what I said.

The 'initial examination' I was describing would have no subpoena power and would question no witnesses. It would merely 'examine' the charge(s) - are they credible? Who made them? Are they credible? - and the evidence the one(s) making the charge(s) may (or may not) have provided - does the evidence support the charge(s)? Is the evidence credible?

That is all the 'initial examination', that would require no vote, would be empowered to do.

If whoever is examining the charge(s) thinks there is enough 'there' there to move forward, then they inform the leadership, and a Resolution to initiate a formal impeachment inquiry is drawn up, and submitted to the House for a vote. The vote determines whether or not the House moves forward with an impeachment inquiry.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
"The "requirements" were not changed. The form was changed to conform with the law and its "requirements", as the IG explained."

LOL yes they were. TheFederalist has a picture of how the requirement was before, which I presented in one of my responses.


thefederalist.com...

Sorry, but for the first time that I can recall, I have to say, Sookie is correct on this one.

Yes, you are right that the form was changed, and Sookie hasn't denied this.

He merely pointed out that the underlying law that the form is based on does not actually require first hand knowledge. When I first heard this claim, I didn't believem so I looked it up. It is true.

The law absolutely needs to be changed, and the fact that the form used to require first hand knowledge is strongly supportive of that need.
edit on 31-10-2019 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Some of the morally bankrupt GOP were trying to get the witness to Name the Anonymous Whistle-blower that Trump suggested should be executed.

Eff Them.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

LOL! You're right! He doesn't look anything like your avatar! But I don't see a Blue Verified Check Mark, so I don't know. It could be you. It could be your boyfriend. It could be Bob Mueller! IDK.



WTH?... I am not gay, and imo no one gives a hoot about your sexual preference. It is not what the op is about... So, stop projecting yourself on others, leave me out, and leave out your deviant sexual fantasies from this thread which I am certain most members of ATS don't care about...




LOL
I have no idea what is going inside your head that translated my post into sexual innuendo or deviance.

I have no idea what you look like, or whether you're male or female, white, black, Asian or Hispanic or a mole person. So, when you show me a picture of the person who reposted your lie, 24 hours later, as proof it's not you, that's not proof. It's comedy!

Your OP contains a hoax, that doesn't exist in the link you quoted. Jim Jordon did not question the whistleblower, he was trying to get Vindaman to name the whistleblower. That's illegal.


edit on 31-10-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Archive.is link of original article linked on the OP showing the follow up ng text:


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.


Not sure when it was changed, but it obviously was and not noted as being edited.
edit on 31-10-2019 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
48
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join