|
2019-11-09 Home Front: Politix
|
|
Alexander Vindman's Testimony Appears To Confirm He Illegally Leaked To The Whistle-Blower
|
[RedState] Outside of that issue though, there are other questions involving the original whistle-blower (reported to be Eric Ciaramella). We know he was not legally privy to anything on the telephone call between Trump and Zelensky, which has formed the genesis of this matter. That means that whoever gave him the contents was illegally leaking classified information. Perhaps the whistle-blower himself is protected by statute for simply passing that information along, but whoever gave it to him certainly isn’t it for their original crime.
That leads us to Alexander Vindman. He’s become a central figure in these discussions after he marched up to Capitol Hill, proclaiming himself a patriot, and shared all his deep concerns about Donald Trump. He accused the President of "subverting" U.S. foreign policy, which gives you a window into the perverted minds of some of these bureaucrats that assume it is they who actually run things.
It’s been suspected that Vindman was the one who leaked to the whistle-blower and now that his testimony has been released, it seems fairly certain. Check out these excerpts and see what you notice.
...In these transcripts, we see Jim Jordan pressing Vindman on who outside of the chain of command he talked to about the call. Then we see Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell jump in and stop him from answering. But it’s what they say when they stop Vindman that gives the entire thing away.
"Mr. Chairman, I want to object that the question calls to reveal the whistleblower, and if there’s no other ‐ (interruption)
Then Schiff says this to follow up.
"Mr. Jordan, the minority may not care about protecting the whistleblower, but we in the majority do."
The problem is that Jordan never asked about the whistle-blower. This means that both Schiff and Swalwell accidentally confirmed here that Vindman is indeed the source for the ICIG complaint. In short, if Vindman answering the question about who he talked to would give up the whistle-blower’s identity, that means Vindman was the source.
Ooops.
Last I checked, it’s a crime to share classified information with people not legally able to receive that information. We’ve been told from the beginning of this ordeal that the whistle-blower himself did not have the proper clearance to access the phone call.
Something sufficient to lock him up & throw away the key? 
|
Posted by g(r)omgoru 2019-11-09 07:26||
||
Front Page|| [11136 views ]
Top
|
|
Posted by Bobby 2019-11-09 08:29||
2019-11-09 08:29||
Front Page
Top
|
|
Posted by 49 Pan 2019-11-09 09:00||
2019-11-09 09:00||
Front Page
Top
|
|
Posted by Besoeker 2019-11-09 09:03||
2019-11-09 09:03||
Front Page
Top
|
|
Posted by g(r)omgoru 2019-11-09 09:08||
2019-11-09 09:08||
Front Page
Top
|
|
09:43 Mullah Richard
09:27 Warthog
09:11 Mercutio
09:07 AlmostAnonymous5839
08:52 Matt
08:24 Matt
08:20 SteveS
07:43 Procopius2k
07:42 BrerRabbit
07:42 Procopius2k
07:39 Procopius2k
07:36 Procopius2k
07:35 Procopius2k
07:34 trailing wife
07:31 Procopius2k
07:30 NN2N1
07:22 NN2N1
07:18 trailing wife
07:14 Richard Aubrey
07:10 NN2N1
07:09 Besoeker
07:03 NN2N1
06:58 NN2N1
06:58 Besoeker
|
