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.

 

Schumer's 74 Letters - Chuck Just Made it Worse for Them

page: 3
29
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Well he knew that going in, and honestly, he was going to have that problem even if his accusations were founded.

I think he'll land on his feet in the left leaning NGO sector somewhere though.




posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I sense a great fear coming from the Democratic leadership .
Something is about to happen within their ranks , and it ain't good...



posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: Trueman

I do think that something should be done to limit retaliation against whistle-blowers. This could set a dangerous precident if not.


Except the Vindmans weren't the only ones fired. 70 Obama holdovers were also fired. Don't you think something should have been done the 8 prosecuted whistleblowers during the Obama years?



posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: jhn7537
I think Trump has EVERY right as President to remove anyone working against his policies, especially people who weren't voted into their public office roles, but were merely placed there by the past administration to work against President Trump. Schumer can try this stunt out, but its only that, a stunt.. Trump had every right to remove Vindman, Sondland and others from their positions within the administration

Trump should of cleaned house his first day fire all Obama appointees and GWB's neocons that was his first and maybe his fatal mistake.
edit on 10-2-2020 by JON666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Or maybe it was part of his plan.


originally posted by: JON666

originally posted by: jhn7537
I think Trump has EVERY right as President to remove anyone working against his policies, especially people who weren't voted into their public office roles, but were merely placed there by the past administration to work against President Trump. Schumer can try this stunt out, but its only that, a stunt.. Trump had every right to remove Vindman, Sondland and others from their positions within the administration

Trump should of cleaned house his first day fire all Obama appointees and GWH neocons that was his first and maybe his fatal mistake.



posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 06:35 PM
link   
These people are not whistle blowers to begin with. They didn't claim any status for it. Everyone already knows who the democrat plant/patsy/mole was, and these two others aren't it.

Simply having something bad to say about the president doesn't constitute or grant whistle blower status anyways.

Plus the fact that Trump was acquitted proves there is no valid whistle blower for the entire case of impeachment.

The game is over, there aren't any real whistle blowers with anything valid or criminal.

The democrats lost. Game over.



posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

They lack the mental faculties to realize they lost.

They lost 5 years ago and it still hasn't sunk in.



posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 07:18 PM
link   
If folks want to see retaliation look up some of the interviews with the whistleblower form the fast and furious gun walking scheme done under a previous administration.

Also if folks really want to see obstruction also read some of the articles on the fallout around 2016.

They had enough to relieve vindman after it came to light he trash talked the US, and the president to foreign officials while serving in an official capacity for the Government.



posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: fringeofthefringe




I do not agree with the anonymity element to the whistleblower law.


What's your real name?



posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Is that somehow supposed to support the whistleblower anonymity law?

I have not falsely accused anyone of any crime, have I?

You win the dumbest post of the year to date, congratulations.

You should read the rules of this forum, I would expect something will be done regarding your participation in this postings.
15). Posting: You will not Post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate. You will not solicit personal information from any member. You will not use information gathered from this website to harass, abuse or harm other people


originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: fringeofthefringe




I do not agree with the anonymity element to the whistleblower law.


What's your real name?

edit on 10-2-2020 by fringeofthefringe because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Trueman
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Chuck is full of it. Nobody fired Vindman.


Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman expects to serve out the remainder of his time on the National Security Council, according to his attorney.

"He is still there," White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham also confirmed to the Washington Examiner.


Just moved to different area. All this cry democrats doing now just confirms that they got hit where it hurts.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...


Yes, but the more they say it, the more people believe it. It's the "perception equals reality" thing.



posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: fringeofthefringe




I do not agree with the anonymity element to the whistleblower law.


What's your real name?


Chelsea Manning.

Carmen Segarra.

Edward Snowden.

Ben Strickland.

All whistleblowers.

How on earth do we know their names?

/faceplam



posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

So you do understand why someone would want or need to keep their identity a secret.



posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

And how did letting the world know their names work out for them?



posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe

Or maybe it was part of his plan.


What plan would that be?



posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: fringeofthefringe




I do not agree with the anonymity element to the whistleblower law.


What's your real name?


Thaddeus B. Higginbotham

Wait....what?



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 05:03 AM
link   
Screw Schumer.

It's been a presidential RIGHT to hire or fire anyone he likes since Washington.

Even Hollylame has made a big arse deal about 'Serving at the pleasure of the President'.

ETA:

Where was Schumer when the last president went after whistleblowers like NO other president before?
edit on 11-2-2020 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 06:46 AM
link   
The plan is to drain the swamp.

Let them think that nobody is watching them, give them a false sense of security and then uncover a vast network of deep state operatives who work to circumvent the law and siphon billions of dollars from foreign assistance.

As the old saying goes:
Give them enough rope to hang themselves, that is exactly what has happened.

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe

Or maybe it was part of his plan.


What plan would that be?




edit on 11-2-2020 by fringeofthefringe because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 06:54 AM
link   
What are you talking about?

If I accuse the president or my neighbor of a serious crime I had better be willing to back it up and the accused has a right to face the accuser. That is jurisprudence in the USA, the law we are discussing gives whistleblowers anonymity and I disagree with that element of the law. Furthermore, in the very least once the whistleblowers claims were proven untrue he should be held accountable, if you disagree then make your case. It has nothing to do with me or my name, get it?



originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

So you do understand why someone would want or need to keep their identity a secret.




posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
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.

Wrong. They exist to protect those who might blow the whistle on 'waste, fraud and abuse' from retaliation.

The only one who is legally obligated to protect the identity of the whistle-blower is the IG who receives the report - and that only applies (logically) while the investigation is ongoing. It certainly diesn't give them blanket anonymity, and certainly not blanket/permanent 'career protection' - especially when it becomes clear that they were not, in fact, a whistle-blower, but a leaker trying to frame a duly elected official - especially when that official is the President.


Lawmakers in both parties have historically backed those protections.

Really? Are you totally clueless? Obama aggressively pursued whistle-blowers and leakers in an unprecedented manner, including reporters they whistled to, during his tenure.

Get off the high horse. Leakers are a real threat to National Security. Whistleblowers should be protected, but that does not include anonymity.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

What does this mean?
What is the timeframe to make his identity known?

There is no legal timeframe. As I said, anyone, other than the IG, could make their identity known at any time, without consequence.
edit on 11-2-2020 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
29
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join