- 13 Nov 2019 00:48
#15048172
It's immaterial to Ukrainegate.
The number of people with ties to the Clintons who died in an untimely manner is statistically significant. That doesn't mean that the Clintons killed people individually--that's unlikely. You could just chalk it up to it being very bad luck to hang out with the Clintons. I have a friend in Democratic politics who steers clear of them, but his girlfriend has been on some of these Clinton Foundation junkets. I think my friend is wise to steer clear of them. Statistically speaking--just ask an actuary--it's bad luck to be close to the Clintons.
Unresponsive. I noted that the whistleblower now has a whistleblower. Whistleblowers aren't guaranteed anonymity, but I can see why in a world with ties to the Clintons that such people might be very nervous. As noted, it's bad luck to be associated with the Clintons.
It says the IG cannot do so.
The transcript makes the whistleblower irrelevant. Vindman is the only witness that was on the call, and he hasn't named any crimes committed either. He indicated he was upset that some irrelevant remarks weren't included.
If the CIA was doing its job instead of trying to shape foreign policy, it might actually be good at something.
Again, you still aren't dealing with the facts. A whistleblower is blowing the whistle on another whistleblower--again, not the Monica Lewinsky variety.
late wrote:1) Trump is a bully, and bullies are cowards.
It's immaterial to Ukrainegate.
late wrote:2) There were no Clinton assasinations. Old propaganda.
The number of people with ties to the Clintons who died in an untimely manner is statistically significant. That doesn't mean that the Clintons killed people individually--that's unlikely. You could just chalk it up to it being very bad luck to hang out with the Clintons. I have a friend in Democratic politics who steers clear of them, but his girlfriend has been on some of these Clinton Foundation junkets. I think my friend is wise to steer clear of them. Statistically speaking--just ask an actuary--it's bad luck to be close to the Clintons.
late wrote:3) It's anonymous because he doesn't want to get in trouble with the whistleblower law.
Unresponsive. I noted that the whistleblower now has a whistleblower. Whistleblowers aren't guaranteed anonymity, but I can see why in a world with ties to the Clintons that such people might be very nervous. As noted, it's bad luck to be associated with the Clintons.
late wrote:4) First, the law says not to disclose a whistleblowers identity.
It says the IG cannot do so.
late wrote:5) Odd thing is, we have had multiple witnesses since then, who had direct involvement, making the whistleblower irrelevant.
The transcript makes the whistleblower irrelevant. Vindman is the only witness that was on the call, and he hasn't named any crimes committed either. He indicated he was upset that some irrelevant remarks weren't included.
late wrote:Unless what you are doing is attacking the intelligence services to render them impotent.
If the CIA was doing its job instead of trying to shape foreign policy, it might actually be good at something.
late wrote:6) Deep State is projection...
Again, you still aren't dealing with the facts. A whistleblower is blowing the whistle on another whistleblower--again, not the Monica Lewinsky variety.
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden
-- Joe Biden