Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You should clarify that this "reporting" is largely done by a left/liberal owned/slanted press, and almost uniformly despises Trump and roots for his impeachment daily.
He still would be guessing. That's not perjury. Vindman did not deny he spoke to someone. But he has no independent knowledge what the person did with the information.
I've never gotten around to reading the WB Complaint so offhand I don't know how it was structured - how many individuals the WB spoke with but I believe was several. And numerous individuals appears to have found the call inappropriate - albeit with only one filing a Complaint.
Again, this isn't to deny that Vindman contact may well be the whistleblower. Rather going down the "perjury" road using nonsensical reasoning for every single witness becomes tiresome.
Perjury is hard to prove in the most obvious cases, so no, there won't be perjury charges based on what he refused to disclose.
IIRC, The Blower's complaint was based on info he claimed to receive from six or more people. Of course Vindman was one of them. No doubt others are among the group testifying.
So Trump DID put a hold on aid and only released it AFTER the investigation started and he knew that he was going to get caught trying to us aid money to bribe a foreign president to open a case into his political rival.
You have no idea " what he knew" . You can't read minds.
" he was going to get caught"
Doing what, holding up the aid which he is legally entitled to do as the POTUS ?
" bribe " ? How can some one be bribed for something they have and nothing was returned in due course?
It doesn't make sense.
None of it makes sense. Opinions, policies, speculation innuendo....
The guy is a lying sack of garbage. His nervousness is distracting to his testimony. He comes off like Blasey-Ford, just throw a few lines out and hope it sticks.
You are an extremely poor judge of character, and have contributed nothing to this discussion.
Vindman said he does not know the identity of the whistle-blower but declines to answer who he shared the information with in order to protect the whistle-blower. At least, Schiff won't let him answer the question because he does not want the identity of the whistle-blower outed.
Vindman - if he does not know the name of the whistle-blower - and since Schiff has said he also does not, what is the problem with identifying the people that Vindman spoke with?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA
Vindman said he shared the information with someone in the intelligence community. Right wing conspiracy sites are already jumping to the conclusion that that unnamed person is the whistleblower, but there is zero evidence to support that.
Are you kidding me? The evidence is right there in the testimony staring you in the dang face!!!
You should clarify that this "reporting" is largely done by a left/liberal owned/slanted press, and almost uniformly despises Trump and roots for his impeachment daily.
That is important to note, based on your links.
You should clarify that you are speaking from a biased and unfounded fantasy perspective with no evidence that the reporting is inaccurate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
