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.

 

Former CIA whistleblower blasts media, dismisses unnamed official who flagged Trump-Ukraine call

page: 1
45
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+20 more 
posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 02:28 PM
link   
John Kiriakou, a whistleblower during the Bush years, has given his opinion on this current case. This is clearly someone who understands and respects what a whistleblower is.


A former CIA officer who blew the whistle on the use of waterboarding against Middle Eastern detainees claimed the individual in the Trump-Ukraine case is not a real whistleblower.

"I don't think this is a whistleblower -- not at all," he said.

"I think this is an anonymous source for the Democratic staff in the House of Representatives."


www.foxnews.com...




posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Fox News is not a credible source..while otherwise this is just an opinion exercise.
We don't need to be coerced by any political parties faithful Et Al.
As for the whistleblower, it's natural for any opposing political party to go after them when accusations are directed toward those parties or their leaders, in a situation.
The whistleblower on Fox news was exposing military extremes, much the same as the Wikileaks exposures in the Baghdad video, which was a real condemnation on military MO, AKA not a mistake, and...something no one would ever have heard of again...ever.
Politics is a different ball game, although often intertwined with military philosophy for reasons above.
So, where do you want to be? do you, the OP, think that Donald Trump would not engage in the exercise with lies and cant as given by the 'phonecall' whistleblower?

Personally, I do,



He proves himself, and is undefensible by virtue of his own gub..all you need to do is listen, and understand.



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy




Fox News is not a credible source.

Then what pray tell is a CREDIBLE source? lol



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

"Fox News is not a credible source."


That's funny.....I would estimate that they were 95% accurate on everything they reported about Cankles and her server.


I bet you think CNN is a credible source.



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: smurfy




Fox News is not a credible source.

Then what pray tell is a CREDIBLE source? lol

That's for you to decide isn't it?



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The problem is everyone has OPINIONS, but very few FACTS that matter. We heard tons of them this past week during Schiff's circus.



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The problem is everyone has OPINIONS, but very few FACTS that matter. We heard tons of them this past week during Schiff's circus.


How would you know above everyone else?



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The problem is everyone has OPINIONS, but very few FACTS that matter. We heard tons of them this past week during Schiff's circus.


How would you know above everyone else?


Anything stated, which is not from the person who experienced it, comes from someone else expressing an opinion, or relaying what they were told.

99% of the threads on ATS, and news stories in the media, fit those criteria.



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy




That's for you to decide isn't it?


As well as it is for you. How can you dictate what is not credible
without offering your idea of what is credible dodgy? So what have
you decided since my choice is obviously skewed? Or should I just
ask where you get the truth so unrecognizable in obvious absurdity?


+2 more 
posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

Logical fallacy. Source is named, who published it is meaningless. Oh wait, are you claiming this person did not say this???
I have nothing else to say about your post of nothingness.
edit on 17-11-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The problem is everyone has OPINIONS, but very few FACTS that matter. We heard tons of them this past week during Schiff's circus.

That's why I put it in mudpit, it's opinion. But from an actual whistleblower who can compare and contrast his experience with this one.



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy


So, where do you want to be? do you, the OP, think that Donald Trump would not engage in the exercise with lies and cant as given by the 'phonecall' whistleblower?

Personally, I do,


Then you are an idiot.

The transcript is out there, after all... its contents have been verified by the transcribers, the President, the Ukraine President and Schiff's own witnesses.

VS a person who had third and fourth hand information about other people's opinions...

Which isn't even allowed as evidence in an American courtroom.

As for opinions, I'd give more weight to the opinion of an ACTUAL whistleblower then some socialist poster from Europe.




posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

It's all lies. My cousin's friend's sister's boyfriend's landlord said he overheard Trump did something wrong. Impeach!



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 09:37 PM
link   
I hope the whistleblower gets the book thrown at him, since he’s not a whistleblower but somebody intentionally causing havoc to protect and give the corrupt time to manoeuvre

Oh Eric, you naughty soy



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: smurfy

"Fox News is not a credible source."


That's funny.....I would estimate that they were 95% accurate on everything they reported about Cankles and her server.


I bet you think CNN is a credible source.


How do you not have a credible source for opinion?

I mean, opinion is just opinion. It doesn't have sources.




posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 04:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: smurfy

"Fox News is not a credible source."


That's funny.....I would estimate that they were 95% accurate on everything they reported about Cankles and her server.


I bet you think CNN is a credible source.


How do you not have a credible source for opinion?

I mean, opinion is just opinion. It doesn't have sources.



They must be saying FOX is making the quotes up. It's the only logical answer. Pretty much all news is opinion. At least this is the opinion of someone involved rather than the opinion of the editor or writer. News is so slanted today that the actual story, the fact piece, accounts for very little. It's all unnamed sources and written to make you believe what the writer wants you to believe rather than the truth.



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 04:58 AM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

smart people evaluate the content rather than just being lazy and trashing the source.



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Fox News is not a credible source.

Said the CNN groupie.

As for Trump saying he wanted to get rid of that house... so what? Did he say he wanted to torch it? Drop a bomb on it?

No? Oh, so, he likely wanted his team to go make the owner an offer, buy it, then demo it.

Now, if you had him talking about using corrupt practices to engage the local government in an imminent domain action, that would be something I'd have a problem with.



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: smurfy




Fox News is not a credible source





That's for you to decide isn't it?


So on one hand..his source is not credible, and on the other he should decide what is credible (which he did since he used it as a source) ?


Good thinking



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 08:43 AM
link   
At least you know the names of the people on Fox News.

Can't same the same for political HACK 'whistleblowers' that ran straight to a political opposition party.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<<   2 >>

log in

join