FBI Looking To Speak With Whistleblower

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: shooterbrody

Not if you're one of the protected few who feel entitled.

Entitled is a disease these days
Typical whining anti trumpers

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Actually he, Vindman , said he passed the information on to two people.
I think Devin Nunes was questioning him and it was obvious he was going for the identity of the whistleblower when Adam Schiff cut him off on that line of questioning.

But you can't have it both ways. You either know the identity and say you take the 5th or you don't know the identity and should be able to name who you told classified information. Both Schiff and Vindman stated they do not know the identity, and Vindman under oath.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Evidence points to both Schiff and Vindman as LIARS in this instance.

(Correction: Schiff lies constantly.)

Yes but these lawyers will weasel some half cocked story like...he wasn't sure if that IC member he relayed the call to was or was not the leaker and thought it best to not mention the persons name just in case.
These arguments are made all the time, I am not confident that Vindamin will get called out for this even though he should. It is infuriating but it happens all the time. Like when Comey lied to congress and leaked classified documents to his professor friend. Which led to the Special Counsel! Not a peep about him going to trial!
We see it all the time.
Do we really think Schiff will get called out in a courtroom for perjury? I don't think so but I am hoping more than a couple low level patsies get brought to justice when the storm arrives...I am hopeful.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
I was under the impression that there was an agreement with Vindaimt's attorney and Schiff to not discuss who he spoke to in the intelligence community without having to plea the 5th...so maybe not a rule but an agreement.
Either way not cool, it proves Vindamit knows he told the whistleblower.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

That was the direction of Nunes' line of questioning, no doubt. Which is why it was shut down, as he knew it would be. Against the rules.

How was it against the rules? If neither Schiff nor Vindman know the identity of the whistleblower then how does protecting someone they don't know to be the whistleblower within the rules? I'm shocked Schiff is just taking Vindmans word for it that whomever he told was on "need to know" status.....that should have been hammered.

That would also mean he lied under oath because he stated he didn't know. He can't have it both ways. He either knows and won't say or doesn't know and as such the identity of whom he told should be known. We are talking something that was classified at the time he spoke to whomever can't be named but are supposed to take his word that this person is qualified to have heard this and is not the whistleblower...

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
Yes but these lawyers will weasel some half cocked story like...he wasn't sure if that IC member he relayed the call to was or was not the leaker and thought it best to not mention the persons name just in case.
These arguments are made all the time, I am not confident that Vindamin will get called out for this even though he should. It is infuriating but it happens all the time. Like when Comey lied to congress and leaked classified documents to his professor friend. Which led to the Special Counsel! Not a peep about him going to trial!
We see it all the time.
Do we really think Schiff will get called out in a courtroom for perjury? I don't think so but I am hoping more than a couple low level patsies get brought to justice when the storm arrives...I am hopeful.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
I was under the impression that there was an agreement with Vindaimt's attorney and Schiff to not discuss who he spoke to in the intelligence community without having to plea the 5th...so maybe not a rule but an agreement.
Either way not cool, it proves Vindamit knows he told the whistleblower.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

That was the direction of Nunes' line of questioning, no doubt. Which is why it was shut down, as he knew it would be. Against the rules.

How was it against the rules? If neither Schiff nor Vindman know the identity of the whistleblower then how does protecting someone they don't know to be the whistleblower within the rules? I'm shocked Schiff is just taking Vindmans word for it that whomever he told was on "need to know" status.....that should have been hammered.

That would also mean he lied under oath because he stated he didn't know. He can't have it both ways. He either knows and won't say or doesn't know and as such the identity of whom he told should be known. We are talking something that was classified at the time he spoke to whomever can't be named but are supposed to take his word that this person is qualified to have heard this and is not the whistleblower...

Well that would absolutely mean that Schiff was lying then. He is the one that stopped the line of questioning.

What ever came of this? How come we have not heard of the leaker being sought by the FBI.
Where is the 4th branch of government, we are in the middle of a revolution, a bloodless revolution with plenty of victims.
Of course the left and never trumpers are the cheerleading squad for it all....oh the shame.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
Yes but these lawyers will weasel some half cocked story like...he wasn't sure if that IC member he relayed the call to was or was not the leaker and thought it best to not mention the persons name just in case.
These arguments are made all the time, I am not confident that Vindamin will get called out for this even though he should. It is infuriating but it happens all the time. Like when Comey lied to congress and leaked classified documents to his professor friend. Which led to the Special Counsel! Not a peep about him going to trial!
We see it all the time.
Do we really think Schiff will get called out in a courtroom for perjury? I don't think so but I am hoping more than a couple low level patsies get brought to justice when the storm arrives...I am hopeful.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
I was under the impression that there was an agreement with Vindaimt's attorney and Schiff to not discuss who he spoke to in the intelligence community without having to plea the 5th...so maybe not a rule but an agreement.
Either way not cool, it proves Vindamit knows he told the whistleblower.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

That was the direction of Nunes' line of questioning, no doubt. Which is why it was shut down, as he knew it would be. Against the rules.

How was it against the rules? If neither Schiff nor Vindman know the identity of the whistleblower then how does protecting someone they don't know to be the whistleblower within the rules? I'm shocked Schiff is just taking Vindmans word for it that whomever he told was on "need to know" status.....that should have been hammered.

That would also mean he lied under oath because he stated he didn't know. He can't have it both ways. He either knows and won't say or doesn't know and as such the identity of whom he told should be known. We are talking something that was classified at the time he spoke to whomever can't be named but are supposed to take his word that this person is qualified to have heard this and is not the whistleblower...

Well that would absolutely mean that Schiff was lying then. He is the one that stopped the line of questioning.

I am still hoping for a follow up to this report.

What did the whistleblower say when the FBI spoke to him/her?

Do we have confirmation of a whistleblower ?

After all our President was just impeached because the brave whistleblower(coward) stood up(in hiding) and spoke out(anonymous claim)that the President of the United States said and did things on a phone call that the whistleblower never heard and things the President never said or did.
WTF is going on?

originally posted by: RealJohnLasheras

If the senate chooses to call witnesses I can not imagine there would be a scenario where the whistleblower would not be called to testify, then we will really learn about the genesis of the latest coup and Schiff will be in some hot water.
I am also interested in what the FBI learned and what information they have been sitting on, if any.
I would be very disappointed if they call witnesses and ignore the whistleblower.

This impeachment fiasco may have a few additional plot twists or it will just go away and the msm news cycle will ignore how wrong they were and move on to the next faux outrage at the mean President Trump.
Interesting times.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe

Looks like the time has come..
www.foxnews.com...

U.S. whistleblower laws exist to protect the identity and careers of people who bring forward accusations of wrongdoing by government officials. Lawmakers in both parties have historically backed those protections.

Looks like we will get to see if the whistleblower is actually an official whistleblower.

Cool post ! Hope some good comes of this !