JD
Lv 5
JD asked in Arts & HumanitiesPhilosophy · 3 weeks ago

Is Lt. Col. Vindman the whistleblower?

After watching his testimony, and his attorneys directive to ostensibly plead the 5th, I don t think it is a stretch to suggest he might be the whistleblower. What do you think?

6 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    2 weeks ago

    WRONG FORUM. Belongs in current events, not philosophy. FAIL

  • 2 weeks ago

    The Dims and their constant bogus rant on behalf of the disgusting globalist controllers is disgusting, and I'm getting less involved in their nonsense, at least with their impeachment waste.

  • 2 weeks ago

    I think we should respect the laws of confidentiality regarding whistleblowers and not suggest names.

  • j153e
    Lv 7
    2 weeks ago

    Apparently the whistleblower, a CIA operative whose identity is known, and who was attached on duty to the White House and who is left-Obama politically, was informed by Lt. Col. Vindman--the person who shared or leaked the phone call information--during the ~ week-long interval between Vindman's listening live to the Trump-Zelensky phone call and Vindman's being advised by DoJ counsel to tell no further individuals (Vindman had already told his brother, and at least two other individuals, including the CIA whistleblower, while not telling his chain-of-command superior--the normal procedure).  The same CIA operative is also linked to the illegal (felonies) release early in the Trump administration of at least two other classified phone calls between Trump and e.g. Australian and Mexican leaders.

    It makes more sense that "A A" be allowed to testify before Congress during the impeachment hearing, as "A A"' identity is widely known in Washington, D. C., and thus his (or her) "safety" by anonymity is rather a canard.

    What such testimony under oath would reveal includes "A A"'s prior leaks (felonies), his (or her) very partisan reasons for so doing (extreme left-wing bias), and his direct links to and guidance by a top official in the (George Soros funded) Open Society Foundation.  This foundation sponsors training of local community organizers and activists in such nations as Macedonia, Chile, and Ukraine; the targeted nations' governments are viewed by OSF as undesirable (e.g., Macedonia was pro-Israel, pro-life, and free market). The CIA officer was also a co-worker with Lt. Col. Vindman, on Ukrainian-U.S. policy, he and Vindman sharing similar policy views. That Lt. Col. Vindman did not notifiy his chain of command superior, and additionally went off the chain of command to notify "A A," who had been removed from the White House staff, is another consideration. That Lt. Col. Vindman was considered a security threat by his superior officer, and that his transfer out of the White House staff was requested, and it was blocked and slow-walked by an Obama holdover in HR, is also an indication of the kind of "Game of Thrones" and turf claiming that has no place when a change of administrations occurs. The election was in part an indication of the wishes of those who voted for Trump, hence the superiorism of the in-place officers is unacceptable as a matter of course.

    It is the case that Ambassador Yovanovich has been identified as giving a verbal "list" of several "do not investigate" groups, such as the Soros-funded Anti-Corruption Action Centre (AntAC), to the well-regarded (e.g., by VP Biden, as well as Ukranians, as he'd spent two years in prison under the corrupt regime) Ukrainian Prosecutor General Lutsenko; a deceptive reportage was the U.S. media's party line: that Lutsenko had "retracted" his "list" statement allegation--when in fact he has not--he, given Ukrainian-English language translation, had stated the list given him was of Ambassador Yovanovich--she did not write any list--Lutsenko wrote the list while listening to her verbal-only "do not prosecute these groups" statement. Lutsenko's emendation was the correction of Yovanovich's listing mode--not a "retraction," as the media deliberately and/or ignorantly blared. An article relating to this U.S. Ambassador's verbal "orders" (which orders were a reason for DJT to remove her): https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/435906-us-emb...

    An insightful example of the planning and strategic intents of the Soros groups:is given at this url: https://www.scribd.com/document/421078499/Soros-Uk...

    It is worth noting that the reason BHO did not follow through with his/US official promise of support to Ukraine in return for Ukraine disarming other weapons systems (the US promised Javelin anti-tank missile system) is believed to have been occasioned by Obama's desire not to offend Putin, even as Russia annexed parts of Ukraine and Ukraine waited for promised aid.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 3 weeks ago

    if not he can pass for him

  • John
    Lv 7
    3 weeks ago

    I think everybody needs to stop chasing shadows and focus on the task at hand. A president who thinks the Constitution is something to wipe his rear with.

    And the nonsense answer is exactly why.  It is from Jr. High School girls, fishing for gossip. "Well, since everybody KNOWS, you might as well whisper it in MY ear too!"

    Thankfully the nonsense answer was erased.  It was the alt-right story - "Well, ALL of Washington knows who it is, they just won't publish it." chew gum, chew gum, blow bubble.

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.