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.
a reply to: network dude
Trump has to prove his innocence.
a reply to: projectvxn
He leaked rather than reporting to proper channels.
He thinks his opinion should supersede the policy set by the president.
He's a liar, a leaker, and seditious.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
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?
originally posted by: tinner07
a reply to: network dude
Trump has to prove his innocence.
Can you qoute her saying that? or just more BS?
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.
a reply to: network dude
Link is in previous post. Is there any more work I can do for you?
originally posted by: tinner07
a reply to: shooterbrody
Lt liar just got boxed in and admitted lying
I watched a lot of it, when did he admit lying?
a reply to: projectvxn
Yeah, it's called his testimony.
Instead of asking everyone for proof of easily verifiable quips, why don't you try arming yourself with the facts?
This isn't a school house.
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan
He didn't admit lying. He was caught, at least twice that I saw:
First, he & Schiff deny knowing who the whistleblower is; but their little detente where Schiff told him to STFU made it clear that both know who the whistleblower is. If they didn't that conversation could not have happened.
a reply to: shawmanfromny
It's how the Left play when their narrative is being flushed down the toilet....Deflect and Spin