Whistleblower Indirectly Identified by Schiff and Vindman

originally posted by: tinner07

a reply to: TomLawless
what are your feelings on General Flynn?




I asked you first.

a reply to: TomLawless

I have none. He made it to General, must have some good qualities. there you go.

why do you want to know? what are you feelings about Bruce Springsteen?

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Vindman is supposed to be a man who fought on actual battlefields? Yet a few words, words that we've all seen, make him "unsettled"?

Something's not right here. I think the theory at www.abovetopsecret.com... may be the correct one.

oh wow

So you admit you were factually wrong with your first question.

Now you move the goal post.

No, it is not evident that Trump made a demand, as even zelensky has admitted he didnt feel pressured, and when he agreed to investigate corruption into things mentioned on the call, he wasnt even aware that aid was being withheld.

Your prostitution metaphor is inaccurate.

a reply to: Grambler

I have been looking for that first question, I guess too you, that you mentioned. Maybe you could qoute it. I cant get past everybodys stupidity here... sorry.

a reply to: tinner07


So you don't see the connection?

Are you just being obtuse?

Either way, I've apparently wasted ones and zeros.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Vindman is supposed to be a man who fought on actual battlefields? Yet a few words, words that we've all seen, make him "unsettled"?

Something's not right here. I think the theory at www.abovetopsecret.com... may be the correct one.

WOW, did that pos just say that? Maybe he can offer up his combat experience for us all... how about that?

a reply to: TomLawless

yep you are right...just me being obese...

originally posted by: tinner07

do you have proof his isn't?

a reply to: network dude

that is a pretty strong retort... So I will go with... he did not call me.... so ball is now back in your court. You have evidence to prove he is a leaker?

You can admit that you are just a diehard trump supporter that will disparage a LT. Colonel or an ambassador to overlook your gods criminal activities.

I'm a bit tired of jack holes telling me what I said. I said it, so I know exactly what I said, K.

Since you have zero clue about the UCMJ, I'll offer you a hint. Nowhere in the code of conduct for a military person, be he enlisted of commissioned, are members allowed tell whistleblowers what they think, or even what wrongdoing may have occurred. They have a chain of command, and are instructed to follow that, when filing a complaint. You don't get to decide if it was handled correctly, or even like the outcome, but you MUST follow the chain of command or there is a breakdown of rules, and bad things happen from there.

lt. Col, Vindman has the first amendment right to talk to anyone, but there are repercussions to divulging classified information to others. He will likely be charged under the UCMJ for his crime.

Now, on to the proof. Since you can't prove Vindman didn't leak, he must have. It's up to him to prove he didn't do it. Much like it's up to Trump to prove he is innocent, of whatever the charge de jour may be. If that's not how our new justice system works, I think someone needs to let the idiot left know.

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Being a whistleblower requires knowledge of a situation, not first hand knowledge.

The whistleblower’s complaint was validated by the Intelligence Community Inspector General.

The Complaint made to to the House Intelligence Committee which is required by law.

The Committee investigated the matter, which has resulted in the impeachment inquiry.

Lt. Col. Vindman was directly on the call, so his testimony is more than enough to vindicate the inquiry.

And on top of all that, the piece that really makes all these complaints about the whistleblower completely ridiculous, is that we have a “transcript” of the call which outlines the alleged wrongdoing of the President.

Claims that this is illegitimate because the original whistleblower didn’t hear the call are ridiculous.

Now, in my opinion, the whole thing is ridiculous because of the President’s very broad powers of diplomacy.

But, the investigation was valid, the current inquiry is valid, Trump did ask another country to investigate Biden and other matters, and the Administration did hold up the sale of Javelins within the same time period.

So you don't see the connection?

Are you just being obtuse?

Either way, I've apparently wasted ones and zeros.

a reply to: TomLawless

ok show me the connection between me not knowing General Flynn and whatever connection you want to make? Seriously.

a reply to: network dude

And if a Marine is assigned to the National Security Council and told to report to the superiors in that area?

NO one has claimed that Trump has to prove that he is innocent. You guys apparently don’t understand the meaning of the word exculpatory.

Does anyone still want to get sour with me for calling this shill in uniform a seditious POS?

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Is this confirmation that the Lt. Col. is the supposed second whistleblower then? It’s okay to out him (if so) but not the first whistleblower? Why is that?

Vindman chose to testify publicly.

The first whistleblower did not. However, as one of the gang noted recently, legally speaking only the ICIG is required to keep the identity confidential.

So, yeah, letter of the law and all.

Still, since we have the “transcript” and it clearly shows that Trump did what they are considering for impeachment, what’s the difference again? Who heard what when?

a reply to: network dude

you MUST follow the chain of command or there is a breakdown of rules, and bad things happen from there.

Or, Vindman, upon realizing he could not in good conscience support the policy of the Commander in Chief, could have resigned his commission and left military service. Instead, he chose to undermine said policy. As you have pointed out, that doesn't work well.

Cheers

a reply to: projectvxn

Wait for it......

Flynn was railroaded and they used his son as pressure. However, there is a reason he has not been sentenced and that usuall means that they are a witness in a pending case.

Being a whistleblower requires knowledge of a situation, not first hand knowledge.

The whistleblower’s complaint was validated by the Intelligence Community Inspector General.

a reply to: Gryphon66
That is the thing... They have nothing so go for the whistleblower...

According to republicans, any crime stopper thing is illegal. You know, anonymous tips on crimes... so republicans must be for crimes... Right?

The trumpsters here know everything but pretend not too... but it does not matter. no matter how many stars and flags any anti dem thread gets, their opinion is worth less than my dogs poop... lol

originally posted by: matafuchs
Flynn was railroaded and they used his son as pressure. However, there is a reason he has not been sentenced and that usuall means that they are a witness in a pending case.

Flynn is innocent, Stone is innocent, Manafort is innocent ... guys. Come on.

If General Flynn is innocent, why hasn’t the President pardoned him?

originally posted by: tinner07

So you admit you were factually wrong with your first question.

Now you move the goal post.

No, it is not evident that Trump made a demand, as even zelensky has admitted he didnt feel pressured, and when he agreed to investigate corruption into things mentioned on the call, he wasnt even aware that aid was being withheld.

Your prostitution metaphor is inaccurate.

a reply to: Grambler

I have been looking for that first question, I guess too you, that you mentioned. Maybe you could qoute it. I cant get past everybodys stupidity here... sorry.

Hmm you already forgot what you asked?

do you agree the military aide was withheld by trump until an investigation into Biden was announced?

I did not agree, because that is factual wrong

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: network dude

And if a Marine is assigned to the National Security Council and told to report to the superiors in that area?

NO one has claimed that Trump has to prove that he is innocent. You guys apparently don’t understand the meaning of the word exculpatory.

That's exculpatory evidence: anything that clears someone or something of guilt or blame is exculpatory. Exculpatory comes from the Latin word exculpat, meaning "freed from blame." The verb exculpate means to free from guilt or blame.

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: That remains – the facts, if the President has information that demonstrates his innocence in all of this, which we haven’t seen. His transcript of a phone call is tucked away in a highly sensitive, compartmentalized intelligence server so we can’t see that. If he has information that is exculpatory, that means ex, taking away, culpa, blame, then we look forward to seeing it.

www.dailywire.com...

I'm still not a smart man, but this still looks like Pelosi is saying what she said. Trump has to prove his innocence. And to satisfy you, he must do so with exculpatory evidence. Which is not how the justice system in the United States of America works. or used to. But I'm sure you have some new way of explaining things, as you usually do.

Does anyone still want to get sour with me for calling this shill in uniform a seditious POS?

a reply to: projectvxn
I'll take the bait... I will have to lok up the word seditious though... He calling him a shill? why?