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 Indirectly Identified by Schiff and Vindman

page: 6
30
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: tinner07

I think it tends more to an authoritarian outlook than a political one per se, tinner ...

Authoritarians love to apply rules to others, not so much to themselves or their “side.”

This is just a travesty of logic though ... Trump is not guilty of any wrongdoing, because the “first” person in the chain didn’t have direct knowledge, but not only do we ALL have direct knowledge (and an admission directly from the White House) that this happened as the Democrats claim, but we have multiple witnesses that have testified to the fact that the President used the power of the Office for purely political reasons, not national security, not law enforcement, just pure politics.




posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: tinner07

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.
edit on 11 19 2019 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 01:09 PM
link   


Trump has to prove his innocence.
a reply to: network dude

Can you qoute her saying that? or just more BS?



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 01:11 PM
link   


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.
a reply to: projectvxn
so you have proof of that or just opinion?



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 01:11 PM
link   

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?


we have the call. So file the articles of impeachment, or don't. Or do we need to know how everyone who never spoke to anyone feels before we do?

The phone call is the only evidence needed, based on the charges. File the articles and bring on the Senate hearings!



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Pelosi did say what she said which was if Trump had information that could clear him he should present it.

That’s what exculpatory means.

Sayin “if you have evidence that proves you’re innocent show it” is not saying “you are guilty and have to prove you are innocent.”

That’s so basic and you’re not stupid, so I have to believe you’re willingly misconstruing it.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: tinner07





posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: tinner07

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.
edit on 11 19 2019 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: tinner07



Trump has to prove his innocence.
a reply to: network dude

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.


Link is in previous post. Is there any more work I can do for you?



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 01:13 PM
link   
and calling him a traitor?



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 01:20 PM
link   


Link is in previous post. Is there any more work I can do for you?
a reply to: network dude
yeah, try to speak the truth or idk...

Did she say he has to prove his innocence like you said? No she did not and you know it. you trumpers are something else. lol
Listen kid, its ok... trump is still your president,



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 01:22 PM
link   
the key question - t this entire " whistleblower " farce :

why does the aledged whistleblower have teh right to anonmimity ?????????????

a whistle bloer has the protection from reprisal

but anonimity ???

cite reason



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

It's how the Left play when their narrative is being flushed down the toilet....Deflect and Spin



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: tinner07



Lt liar just got boxed in and admitted lying
a reply to: shooterbrody
I watched a lot of it, when did he admit lying?


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.

Second, Vindman claimed he was following the chain of command, then admitted to doing an end-run around his superior. This is, by definition, not following the chain of command.

There might be others, but those are the two most obvious lies he's been caught at today. For example, he almost certainly lied when he claimed he had no idea Hunter Biden was on the board at Burisma, but he at least didn't contradict himself in sworn testimony about it.
edit on 19-11-2019 by AndyFromMichigan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 01:27 PM
link   


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: projectvxn
you are saying he is a leaker,show your proof. instead of ATS facts



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 01:30 PM
link   


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: AndyFromMichigan

OK so you know for a fact that he was lying? I mean you have straight up real evidence that he was lying about that?



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 01:32 PM
link   


It's how the Left play when their narrative is being flushed down the toilet....Deflect and Spin
a reply to: shawmanfromny
That is funny #... did you not watch the republicans today? LOL



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Chain of command when assigned to duty at the NSC is as directed by NSC.

[ X ]
edit on 19-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Size queen



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

So, show us where she says that he’s guilty until proven innocent.

Can you?



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Haha
Lt Col liar was busted on national television.
No going back from that.

Mishandling classified info is a crime.
More never trump follies.

Attempting to hide behind his uni is disgusting.







 
30
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join