News
news New biometric database can identify people through scars, tattoos and even their voice
news Cattle Are Being Mutilated And Killed In Eastern Oregon
news Insider Interview on Skinwalker Ranch History
news Squirrels Can Speak Bird
news US Navy pilot says mystery ‘dark mass’ emerged from ocean and swallowed torpedo
news Cognitive scientist says we see things as we need to, rather than as they are.
news A Movie You Control With Your Mind
news Radioactive Cloud That Blanketed Europe Traced to Russian Nuclear Facility
news Organization Says It’s Obtained ‘Exotic’ Metals Unknown to Science
news The frightening supernatural story of the Black Bird of Chernobyl
news Recent UFO Encounters With Navy Pilots Occurred Constantly Across Multiple Squadrons


Username:
Password: or Register
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Vote(s) - 2.78 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Let's discuss and debunk this whistleblower charade
Eustace Muffins
Registered User
User ID: 269062
10-09-2019 04:32 PM

Posts: 8,449




Post: #1
Let's discuss and debunk this whistleblower charade
Advertisement
Here’s what I don’t understand about the entire “CIA whistle-blower” meme.

Lets say(hypothetically speaking) , I was once was a US Navy Officer. And I had Top Secret, and Immediate Top Secret clearances, at one time or another. And I had access to things like the US and NATO war plans for European (and especially UK) mobilization etc... I took and/or signed multiple oaths related to National Security....etc.

So, one day , let’s say I overhear something in an office or on the phone that I think is Bush Jr or maybe Clinton doing something “wrong” for purely partisan political purposes, to win an election. So, I file a “whistle-blower report” with the OIG or Navy JAG etc.... But before that, I run to my local Congressman, let’s say his name was Comrade Bernie Sanders, and I tell him all about the suspected “evil deeds” of the President. In the process, to document those deeds, I give up half of the nation’s European war plans, and some how, those plans leak from somewhere to the “public domain”, and is eventually traced back to me....

Now, listen carefully, do I get the deluxe Democrat media spin treatment? Is my identity carefully concealed? Do I have high powered lawyers paying my expenses, raising defense funds, and representing me? Does the House try to find a hiding place to put me in, to “shield me” from any potential repercussions? 

Uh….not really. Not even close


I would be convicted of espionage, Court Martialed, and go to Federal prison for probably the rest of my natural life. “But I’m a whistle-blower!! But I’m a whistle-blower!!” I cry, as I’m dragged away in chains.

Now, switch back to “real life”. How in the f*#k can this CIA agent/analyst/janitor (who the f*#k knows?) escape legal jeopardy for revealing, and/or causing to be revealed, the classified conversation of the US President with a foreign leader? If this guy/gal/it didn’t actually leak the recording or transcript, his complaint quoted from at least part of it. 

In fact, this guy/gal/it was blowing the whistle on something entirely out of his area of authority. It’d be as if I not only (in my scenario) revealed Top Secret European war plans that I had direct access to as a part of my job, but also tossed in the plan to defend South Korea, just because I could. For argument sake. 

The way the “law” now reads, at least for the CIA, anyone who has “rumors” about anything, can blow security, reveal classified information, as long as it’s considered politically valuable for the Democrat party . The ICIG just gutted national security. By Inspector General Atkinson’s standard, there’s not a single classified state “secret” that can’t be released, as long as it’s by a “Whistle-blower”, based upon this standard. 

I’ll bet Bradley Manning (a.k.a. “dickless Chelsea”) wishes this was in effect before he released his USAF secrets.



Boom!

[ ]Not my fault you're thin skinned !!!!!!!!!!![/size]
Quote this message in a reply
UnAcceptance
Registered User
User ID: 519115
10-09-2019 04:51 PM

Posts: 2,093




Post: #2
RE: Let's discuss and debunk this whistleblower charade
OP, this is just a Standards Law.
The Democrats have their own.
...and standard law and made up stuff apply to everyone else, not them. Bump
Quote this message in a reply
Travel assistant
Registered User
User ID: 430914
10-09-2019 04:55 PM

Posts: 2,196




Post: #3
RE: Let's discuss and debunk this whistleblower charade
This can't be much of a "discussion" if the outcome is already decided as being "debunked"!

Morning all happy Yom Kippur.
Quote this message in a reply
Eustace Muffins
Registered User
User ID: 269062
10-09-2019 04:55 PM

Posts: 8,449




Post: #4
RE: Let's discuss and debunk this whistleblower charade
UnAcceptance  Wrote: (10-09-2019 04:51 PM)
OP, this is just a Standards Law.
The Democrats have their own.
...and standard law and made up stuff apply to everyone else, not them. Bump

Correct, but someone has to call them out on their lies and deception. The Navy scenario is a perfect example how and where the Democrats have failed endlessly.

[ ]Not my fault you're thin skinned !!!!!!!!!!![/size]
Quote this message in a reply
Eustace Muffins
Registered User
User ID: 269062
10-09-2019 04:56 PM

Posts: 8,449




Post: #5
RE: Let's discuss and debunk this whistleblower charade
Travel assistant  Wrote: (10-09-2019 04:55 PM)
This can't be much of a "discussion" if the outcome is already decided as being "debunked"!

Morning all happy Yom Kippur.

Another way of saying your rebuttal lacks substance ^^^^ chuckle

[ ]Not my fault you're thin skinned !!!!!!!!!!![/size]
Quote this message in a reply
Eustace Muffins
Registered User
User ID: 269062
10-09-2019 04:57 PM

Posts: 8,449




Post: #6
RE: Let's discuss and debunk this whistleblower charade
TA doesnt like posts over 500 words. chuckle

[ ]Not my fault you're thin skinned !!!!!!!!!!![/size]
Quote this message in a reply
Eustace Muffins
Registered User
User ID: 269062
10-09-2019 04:59 PM

Posts: 8,449




Post: #7
RE: Let's discuss and debunk this whistleblower charade
Well almost 500, more like 485


chuckle

[ ]Not my fault you're thin skinned !!!!!!!!!!![/size]
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 490177
10-09-2019 05:03 PM

 




Post: #8
RE: Let's discuss and debunk this whistleblower charade
yeah
nobody wants to read how you support the trump show

Srjceahd
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 519121
10-09-2019 05:09 PM

 




Post: #9
RE: Let's discuss and debunk this whistleblower charade
I've read that the Democrats changed the whistleblower law the day this report was filed to allow for hearsay, rather than direct knowledge. Ahead has no direct knowledge and his account of a phone call was inaccurate.

The anonymous whistleblower is a CIA agent, a registered Democrat who has been working with one of the current Democrat candidates.

He also worked with Democrat intelligence Committee Chairman to initially write the complaint.
Quote this message in a reply
UnAcceptance
Registered User
User ID: 519115
10-09-2019 05:10 PM

Posts: 2,093




Post: #10
RE: Let's discuss and debunk this whistleblower charade
LoP Guest  Wrote: (10-09-2019 05:03 PM)
yeah
nobody wants to read how you support the trump show

Srjceahd

Ya know what? I think I heard something about you that I have no first-hand knowledge of, but think it is worth reporting to another source who can then make it "official".
Your guest number is 2748729 with a datestamp of 1570633407. I'm betting I can get you investigated.
I take that back; you are a lefty. Lefties don't get investigated.
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 370698
10-09-2019 05:13 PM

 




Post: #11
RE: Let's discuss and debunk this whistleblower charade
Well, we can DAD this WBC, but then the others will get jealous. Everybody has TCO because my department's defense. With the D&D, you get the AD&D clause with a few pirates in the jazzband orchestra. Their cantor CBP because of KURU section.
Quote this message in a reply
Luvapottamus
Registered User
User ID: 372884
10-09-2019 05:17 PM

Posts: 12,498




Post: #12
RE: Let's discuss and debunk this whistleblower charade
Let's just say you're the vice president or the secretary of state.

And you sit in on a phone call where the president agrees to sell weapons to Ukraine, but he needs a favor first.

First he wants them to investigate the DNC's favorite Wallstreet whore for the democrat nomination.

What do you do?

1)Cover it up. Move the communications to a secure server than have people send texts describing the conversation as clearly not being a quid pro quo a few days later.

2)Stonewall congress.

3)Resign.

4)Tell the president he's a dumbass. If he's asked the president of Ukraine to investigate Cofer Black and any other sketchy American executives operating in Ukraine without mentioning Biden, and without a quid pro quo.....

The president of Ukraine would have wanted to do that, and Biden would have been ensnared automatically.

Without getting impeached.

There is no such thing as sovereign debt. Reinstate Greenbacks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb5OQUElilo
Tax Wallstreet Party
United Front Against Austerity
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 471663
10-09-2019 05:17 PM

 




Post: #13
RE: Let's discuss and debunk this whistleblower charade
Manning and Snowden considered themselves whistleblowers too. Didn't work out so well for them. The Dems seem to have learned from the Kavanaugh debacle. Had Ford not been scrutinized, but everyone just had to accept anything and everything she had said....


So if they suddenly rewrote the rules for whistleblowers, what approval process of those changes did they go through? Who approved the changes right before the whistle blower blew? Did those specific changes aid this particular whistle blower? Have others, in random cases, from a variety of fields and jobs been utilizing the new changes? What was grandfathered over? Changing rules opens the doors to a lot of what used to be no longer being viable. Can Manning and/or Snowden appeal and apply the new changes in retro? What else might they be able to reveal now?
Quote this message in a reply
Travel assistant
Registered User
User ID: 430914
10-09-2019 05:22 PM

Posts: 2,196




Post: #14
RE: Let's discuss and debunk this whistleblower charade
I could give two hoots about this topic.
I just enjoyed pointing out the futility of discussing something that the outcome is predetermined.
Title is a type of oxymoron!
Quote this message in a reply
Luvapottamus
Registered User
User ID: 372884
10-09-2019 05:27 PM

Posts: 12,498




Post: #15
RE: Let's discuss and debunk this whistleblower charade
LoP Guest  Wrote: (10-09-2019 05:17 PM)
Manning and Snowden considered themselves whistleblowers too. Didn't work out so well for them. The Dems seem to have learned from the Kavanaugh debacle. Had Ford not been scrutinized, but everyone just had to accept anything and everything she had said....


So if they suddenly rewrote the rules for whistleblowers, what approval process of those changes did they go through? Who approved the changes right before the whistle blower blew? Did those specific changes aid this particular whistle blower? Have others, in random cases, from a variety of fields and jobs been utilizing the new changes? What was grandfathered over? Changing rules opens the doors to a lot of what used to be no longer being viable. Can Manning and/or Snowden appeal and apply the new changes in retro? What else might they be able to reveal now?

It's cowardice on the democrats' part that they weren't protected.

If OP had his way Daniel Ellsberg would be executed in GITMO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

There is no such thing as sovereign debt. Reinstate Greenbacks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb5OQUElilo
Tax Wallstreet Party
United Front Against Austerity
Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement









Contact UsConspiracy Forum. No reg. required! Return to TopReturn to ContentRSS Syndication