It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
You linked to USA Today you yourself provided the answer for your own question. Post a link to a reputable [cough cough] source.
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.
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:
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.
Apparently you missed the coughing in regards to reputable sources ie they do not exist as it is all propaganda to manipulate our thinking.
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.