(11-19-2019 01:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 12:29 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 12:23 PM)solohawks Wrote: [ -> ]Could they have picked a more unlikable military personnel???
Boohooo they left me out of meetings and didnt follow my talking points
Pretty obvious Vindman is the leaker. He comes out of a phone call he is on and tells the "whistleblower" whom no one knows the identity. If know one knows the identity of the "whistleblower" then how would anyone know if he is outed? What a joke.
I
I guess you missed the part of his testimony where he said that the people he told were cleared to know the information.
And? What does that have to do with what I said?
(11-19-2019 02:09 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 01:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 12:29 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 12:23 PM)solohawks Wrote: [ -> ]Could they have picked a more unlikable military personnel???
Boohooo they left me out of meetings and didnt follow my talking points
Pretty obvious Vindman is the leaker. He comes out of a phone call he is on and tells the "whistleblower" whom no one knows the identity. If know one knows the identity of the "whistleblower" then how would anyone know if he is outed? What a joke.
I guess you missed the part of his testimony where he said that the people he told were cleared to know the information.
And? What does that have to do with what I said?
You said he was the leaker. Got any evidence? He just testified under oath that he told two people, both of whom were authorized to hear about the call. You also have no evidence that one of the two people he told were the whistleblower. So it relates to what you said because pretty much everything you said was, well,
. What a joke.
(11-19-2019 02:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 02:09 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 01:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 12:29 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 12:23 PM)solohawks Wrote: [ -> ]Could they have picked a more unlikable military personnel???
Boohooo they left me out of meetings and didnt follow my talking points
Pretty obvious Vindman is the leaker. He comes out of a phone call he is on and tells the "whistleblower" whom no one knows the identity. If know one knows the identity of the "whistleblower" then how would anyone know if he is outed? What a joke.
I guess you missed the part of his testimony where he said that the people he told were cleared to know the information.
And? What does that have to do with what I said?
You said he was the leaker. Got any evidence? He just testified under oath that he told two people, both of whom were authorized to hear about the call. You also have no evidence that one of the two people he told were the whistleblower. So it relates to what you said because pretty much everything you said was, well, . What a joke.
Well Shifty Schift certainly seems to think one of those two people are the whistleblower...since their identity must be "protected"
(11-19-2019 02:34 PM)MonarchManiac Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 02:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 02:09 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 01:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 12:29 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote: [ -> ]Pretty obvious Vindman is the leaker. He comes out of a phone call he is on and tells the "whistleblower" whom no one knows the identity. If know one knows the identity of the "whistleblower" then how would anyone know if he is outed? What a joke.
I guess you missed the part of his testimony where he said that the people he told were cleared to know the information.
And? What does that have to do with what I said?
You said he was the leaker. Got any evidence? He just testified under oath that he told two people, both of whom were authorized to hear about the call. You also have no evidence that one of the two people he told were the whistleblower. So it relates to what you said because pretty much everything you said was, well, . What a joke.
Well Shifty Schift certainly seems to think one of those two people are the whistleblower...since their identity must be "protected"
Doubtful. But if he names the other guy, or the agency he worked in, it would have been pretty easy to then find out who it was so he was right not to let them go there.
Just more pathetic desperation from a flailing party. Sad.
(11-19-2019 03:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 02:34 PM)MonarchManiac Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 02:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 02:09 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 01:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]I guess you missed the part of his testimony where he said that the people he told were cleared to know the information.
And? What does that have to do with what I said?
You said he was the leaker. Got any evidence? He just testified under oath that he told two people, both of whom were authorized to hear about the call. You also have no evidence that one of the two people he told were the whistleblower. So it relates to what you said because pretty much everything you said was, well, . What a joke.
Well Shifty Schift certainly seems to think one of those two people are the whistleblower...since their identity must be "protected"
Doubtful. But if he names the other guy, or the agency he worked in, it would have been pretty easy to then find out who it was so he was right not to let them go there.
Just more pathetic desperation from a flailing party. Sad.
What do you mean doubtful? As soon as the guy started to say what agency the second guy was with Schiff jumped in and stopped him because we need to protect the identity of the whistleblower. How else can you interpret that?
Hope MISTER Vindman was less nervous in battle.
The attacks on him in Twitter must have been devastating....
(11-19-2019 03:15 PM)MonarchManiac Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 03:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 02:34 PM)MonarchManiac Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 02:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 02:09 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote: [ -> ]And? What does that have to do with what I said?
You said he was the leaker. Got any evidence? He just testified under oath that he told two people, both of whom were authorized to hear about the call. You also have no evidence that one of the two people he told were the whistleblower. So it relates to what you said because pretty much everything you said was, well, . What a joke.
Well Shifty Schift certainly seems to think one of those two people are the whistleblower...since their identity must be "protected"
Doubtful. But if he names the other guy, or the agency he worked in, it would have been pretty easy to then find out who it was so he was right not to let them go there.
Just more pathetic desperation from a flailing party. Sad.
What do you mean doubtful? As soon as the guy started to say what agency the second guy was with Schiff jumped in and stopped him because we need to protect the identity of the whistleblower. How else can you interpret that?
Right, that's exactly what I said. Doubtful that the guy he told in this agency was the WB as LTC Vindman says he doesn't know him. So the WB is the likely in the agency of the other guy LTC Vindman told, so that agency needs to be kept out of the record.
Riiiiight.
They both know exactly who it is. Schiff has been lying about it for weeks now. Just as he has lied about so many other things in this charade (and the previous charade).
(11-19-2019 03:30 PM)MonarchManiac Wrote: [ -> ]Riiiiight.
They both know exactly who it is. Schiff has been lying about it for weeks now. Just as he has lied about so many other things in this charade (and the previous charade).
Riiiiight.
But trumpy never lied about anything here. That about sum it up?
(11-19-2019 03:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 03:15 PM)MonarchManiac Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 03:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 02:34 PM)MonarchManiac Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 02:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]You said he was the leaker. Got any evidence? He just testified under oath that he told two people, both of whom were authorized to hear about the call. You also have no evidence that one of the two people he told were the whistleblower. So it relates to what you said because pretty much everything you said was, well, . What a joke.
Well Shifty Schift certainly seems to think one of those two people are the whistleblower...since their identity must be "protected"
Doubtful. But if he names the other guy, or the agency he worked in, it would have been pretty easy to then find out who it was so he was right not to let them go there.
Just more pathetic desperation from a flailing party. Sad.
What do you mean doubtful? As soon as the guy started to say what agency the second guy was with Schiff jumped in and stopped him because we need to protect the identity of the whistleblower. How else can you interpret that?
Right, that's exactly what I said. Doubtful that the guy he told in this agency was the WB as LTC Vindman says he doesn't know him. So the WB is the likely in the agency of the other guy LTC Vindman told, so that agency needs to be kept out of the record.
Please cite the federal statute that says a WB can’t be identified.
(11-19-2019 03:31 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 03:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 03:15 PM)MonarchManiac Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 03:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 02:34 PM)MonarchManiac Wrote: [ -> ]Well Shifty Schift certainly seems to think one of those two people are the whistleblower...since their identity must be "protected"
Doubtful. But if he names the other guy, or the agency he worked in, it would have been pretty easy to then find out who it was so he was right not to let them go there.
Just more pathetic desperation from a flailing party. Sad.
What do you mean doubtful? As soon as the guy started to say what agency the second guy was with Schiff jumped in and stopped him because we need to protect the identity of the whistleblower. How else can you interpret that?
Right, that's exactly what I said. Doubtful that the guy he told in this agency was the WB as LTC Vindman says he doesn't know him. So the WB is the likely in the agency of the other guy LTC Vindman told, so that agency needs to be kept out of the record.
Please cite the federal statute that says a WB can’t be identified.
Oh, you can identify him all you want, but you better hope to hell that after you do that he doesn't get a scratch on him as a result, or you'll quickly find out about federal statutes!
I have a question.
What corruption did Ukraine clean for trump to finally release the Congressionally approved money to them? Surely they did or trump would have been negligent to release the funds, right?
(11-19-2019 03:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]I have a question.
What corruption did Ukraine clean for trump to finally release the Congressionally approved money to them? Surely they did or trump would have been negligent to release the funds, right?
Tom they didn't have to clean anything up (you know - the Quid).... it was not a requirement to have the funds released (you know - the Pro Quo)....
(11-19-2019 03:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 03:31 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 03:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 03:15 PM)MonarchManiac Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 03:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]Doubtful. But if he names the other guy, or the agency he worked in, it would have been pretty easy to then find out who it was so he was right not to let them go there.
Just more pathetic desperation from a flailing party. Sad.
What do you mean doubtful? As soon as the guy started to say what agency the second guy was with Schiff jumped in and stopped him because we need to protect the identity of the whistleblower. How else can you interpret that?
Right, that's exactly what I said. Doubtful that the guy he told in this agency was the WB as LTC Vindman says he doesn't know him. So the WB is the likely in the agency of the other guy LTC Vindman told, so that agency needs to be kept out of the record.
Please cite the federal statute that says a WB can’t be identified.
Oh, you can identify him all you want, but you better hope to hell that after you do that he doesn't get a scratch on him as a result, or you'll quickly find out about federal statutes!
WB laws protect your career. They aren't a witness protection program.
(11-19-2019 03:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 03:31 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 03:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 03:15 PM)MonarchManiac Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 03:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]Doubtful. But if he names the other guy, or the agency he worked in, it would have been pretty easy to then find out who it was so he was right not to let them go there.
Just more pathetic desperation from a flailing party. Sad.
What do you mean doubtful? As soon as the guy started to say what agency the second guy was with Schiff jumped in and stopped him because we need to protect the identity of the whistleblower. How else can you interpret that?
Right, that's exactly what I said. Doubtful that the guy he told in this agency was the WB as LTC Vindman says he doesn't know him. So the WB is the likely in the agency of the other guy LTC Vindman told, so that agency needs to be kept out of the record.
Please cite the federal statute that says a WB can’t be identified.
Oh, you can identify him all you want, but you better hope to hell that after you do that he doesn't get a scratch on him as a result, or you'll quickly find out about federal statutes!
Your point? If its not against federal laws to identify the WB why would the person who outed him be concerned about any scratches the WB got?
So you admit the democrats dont have any federal laws or reason to not let the public know the name of the WB?
(11-19-2019 03:44 PM)Eldonabe Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 03:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]I have a question.
What corruption did Ukraine clean for trump to finally release the Congressionally approved money to them? Surely they did or trump would have been negligent to release the funds, right?
Tom they didn't have to clean anything up (you know - the Quid).... it was not a requirement to have the funds released (you know - the Pro Quo)....
It's no longer about Quid Pro Quo, now it's about bribery. Bribery resonates better with the unwashed masses according to democrats.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman admitted he made up elements of President Donald Trump’s call with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky in an official summary.
Prior to the call, Vindman included a discussion about corruption in the talking points provided to the president but Trump did not use them in the call.
The summary Vindman wrote after the call read:
President Trump underscored the unwavering support of the United States for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity – within its internationally recognized borders – and expressed his commitment to work together with President-elect Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people to implement reforms that strengthen democracy, increase prosperity, and root out corruption.
When asked by the Democrat counsel about whether the summary he wrote was false, Vindman hesitated.
“That’s not entirely accurate, but I’m not sure I would describe it as false, it was consistent with U.S. policy,” Vindman said.
Vindman said he included the rhetoric about corruption as a “messaging platform” to describe U.S. policy toward Ukraine, even though it was not discussed on the call.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/...l-summary/
(11-19-2019 03:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 03:31 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 03:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 03:15 PM)MonarchManiac Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2019 03:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]Doubtful. But if he names the other guy, or the agency he worked in, it would have been pretty easy to then find out who it was so he was right not to let them go there.
Just more pathetic desperation from a flailing party. Sad.
What do you mean doubtful? As soon as the guy started to say what agency the second guy was with Schiff jumped in and stopped him because we need to protect the identity of the whistleblower. How else can you interpret that?
Right, that's exactly what I said. Doubtful that the guy he told in this agency was the WB as LTC Vindman says he doesn't know him. So the WB is the likely in the agency of the other guy LTC Vindman told, so that agency needs to be kept out of the record.
Please cite the federal statute that says a WB can’t be identified.
Oh, you can identify him all you want, but you better hope to hell that after you do that he doesn't get a scratch on him as a result, or you'll quickly find out about federal statutes!
Please cite the specific federal statutes that you are referring to...
Bwahaha
That guy is as gay as they come bruh
Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk