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.

 

Whistleblower offers Republicans testimony

page: 3
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2019 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Oraculi


What difference will the name of the accountant make at that point, other than give me the option to have my revenge on that person?


Revenge is all Republicans want. How dare someone expose anything unethical they’ve been a part of.

The real crime is reporting the crime.


The trigger word was Crowdstrike that is what this is about Creepy Joe was videotaped about his corruptness and is not the winner of the Democratic primary that has yet to take place so he is not the official candidate just a creepy hair sniffing corrupt jagoff with an odd affection for children. If the Dems had this schmuck as their candidate they would be finished forever as he is a coorupt vile disgusting pos.

Show evyeryone where he won the primary that has not occurred yet or stop with your baseless rhetoric that has been DEBUNKED. How can their be QPQ if there is not a candidate yet? Did you you go to public schools and then foolishly pay for a degree that you still are paying interest on?


edit on 3-11-2019 by CrazyFox because: Spelling




posted on Nov, 3 2019 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Oraculi
He is actually facing his accusers right now, except the White House has had zero strategy on how to defend against the accusers.


what a total load of crap.

0 strategy? they released the transcript.
The President of Ukraine came out and said there was 0 qui quo pro.

What more do you need?
You have a politically corrupt 'whistleblower' taking instructions from a morally corrupt 'senator' who is leaking only the tid bits that backup his phony accusation.

You're deluded, If you haven't figured out the game plan from the Democrats yet, then you're willfully going along with it.

Lets wait until questions start being asked about the 2016 Election interference with Ukraine, or Bidens quid quo pro. I truest you will be as equally open to all those lines of questioning and evidence?



posted on Nov, 4 2019 @ 03:51 AM
link   
a reply to: CrazyFox




You linked to USA Today you yourself provided the answer for your own question. Post a link to a reputable [cough cough] source.

Like Gateway Pundit or The Federalist? LOL

It's a link to the actual, verbatim, word for word, whistleblower's complaint. IF you don't want to click on a USAToday link, there are plenty of other places that you can find it.

Still, no one has pointed out any lies in the whistleblower complaint. In fact, congressional testimony has confirmed his allegations to be true, and then some.

It wouldn't matter if the whistleblower had the reputation of a coke whore, because what was written in the complaint all turned out to be true, confirmed by the very people named in the whistleblower complaint, and verified by the ICIG.



posted on Nov, 4 2019 @ 06:50 AM
link   
I can't believe it if I can't see it! No way that will get by as acceptable for the defense to be denied by failing to present the witness to the Grand Jury of Congress for cross examination and call it an impeachment inquiry!! That is the double secret probation BS from Animal House.

A person claiming facts against another must be in person when presenting the evidence they claim to have. To not do so is not sufficient, ever.

How can they be vetted by all of us if they deny us his or her personal testimony of this so called crime they supposedly witnessed. Recent news that has Bill Clinton charges of rape back out for discussion have more to do with these people than the messenger DJT.




originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The "whistleblower" does not meet legal criteria to be considered one. Secondly it is hearsay which no court will accept. third the person actually broke the law by doing what he did and the ICIG did the same when he decided to back a policy change that changed the requirement of having direct knowledge.

Blocking questions to any of the people called as a witness is a non starter and smack of democrat desperation.


have you not bothered to ask yourself the question of why this was placed with the intelligence committee and not the judicial committee? By doing this they can hide the depositions and info, can block member of congress from hearing / reviewing evidence / documents / testimony and finally the 3 big hitters for Republicans are based in the judicial committee and not intelligence.


edit on 4-11-2019 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2019 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Iscool




This lying creep needs to be present while the Republicans drill him about his lies...


What did the whistleblower lie about? Here's a link to the complaint...www.usatoday.com...< br />
Can you show me where the lies are?


The whistleblower lied on the form when he said that he had no contact with Congress before making his complaint.
Councidentally, Adam Schiff also lied when he stated that his committee had no contact with the whistleblower.


Here's a timeline of the Ukraine controversy events:

www.washingtonpost.com...

If you cut through all the stuff that doesn't involve the whistleblower directly, it turns out that the whistleblower actually attempted to file the complaint twice. The whistleblower is a CIA employee. He/she first submitted the complaint up through the CIA chain of command. At that point in time, it was true that the whistleblower had had no contact with Congress--so, no lying involved. The CIA told the White House and the DOJ about the complaint and the White House instructed them to not put the complaint forward to Congress, and they complied with that instruction. The Whistleblower then contacted the Congressional staff directly, which the law allows them to do. The staff told the Whistleblower to resubmit the complaint through the Office of Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), which he/she did. The Inspector General for ODNI investigated the complaint and found it credible and urgent and recommended to the acting DNI that it should be reported to Congress. The White House instructed the acting DNI to not forward it to Congress and he complied. Eventually (Sept. 26) the White House relented and published the complaint.

The whistleblower did not disclose previous contacts with Schiff when he filed the complaint form with the ICIG. That is a question on the form. Anything filed with his employer (the CIA) doesn't really mean anything in relationship to the submission of the form to the ICIG... which he lied on.
Redstate.com



posted on Nov, 4 2019 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Apparently you missed the coughing in regards to reputable sources ie they do not exist as it is all propaganda to manipulate our thinking. Ever since Royko retired there is not a single one I feel I can trust. FTR I have a friend who is a "reporter" who admitted that there is a style that journalists have to obey. I quit my inclinations for being a reporter after 1 semester at college decided to think for myself. reply to: Sookiechacha

Back to my journalist friend during the debates he brought some colleagues from the newspaper he was working at. They did not understand why one side wore red ties and the other blue. Until that major problem is fixed I do not waste my time with any of them.



posted on Nov, 4 2019 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: CrazyFox



Apparently you missed the coughing in regards to reputable sources ie they do not exist as it is all propaganda to manipulate our thinking.


Sorry. Your lack of faith in the US Intel Community Inspector General isn't a good enough excuse for me to dismiss the whistle blower's complaint. Besides, government officials testimonies verify the facts in the complaint.



posted on Nov, 4 2019 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy



Anything filed with his employer (the CIA) doesn't really mean anything in relationship to the submission of the form to the ICIG... which he lied on.

Schiff lied as well about this.
The whole event is a made up story based on 2nd and 3rd hand rumors and documented by lies.

tlb



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join