how does someone bribe a billionaire who has more money than most country's and is working for free?

Yep, the more this guy’s name is out there the more apparent it becomes that he was nothing more than a butthurt Obama sycophant:



Retired Army Officer Remembers Lt. Col. Vindman as Partisan Democrat Who Ridiculed America

Yo, Vindman, here comes the Great Unblinking Eye.

Enjoy, babe err Lt. Col. babe.

https://twitter.com/weijia/status/1197164972276629505

Our sharp @CBSNews photographer captured a good spirited Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman returning to work after testifying in #ImpeachmentHearings. Here, Vindman is with his twin brother clearly wanting to be seen as they take a selfie in front of the West Wing.

video at link




Mr Pompous Prick (glasses) w his twin brother

Both just happen to work in the NSC


Lt Col sdy

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

https://twitter.com/NateOnTheH.../1196818954964086784

Nunes: Did you know that financial records show a Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma, routed more than $ 3 million to American accounts tied to Hunter Biden?

Vindman, whose job is to handle Ukraine policy: "I'm not aware of this fact."

video at link

Nunes asks several questions and Vindman answers "he was not aware of that"

ANALYSIS: Despite Schiff’s claims, whistleblower has no 'statutory right' to anonymity

https://www.washingtonexaminer...y-right-to-anonymity



Rep. Adam Schiff has repeatedly stated in impeachment hearings in front of the House Intelligence Committee that the Ukraine whistleblower has “a statutory right to anonymity” and blocking Republican questions about him.

The problem, many legal experts say, is that the committee chairman, a California Democrat, is wrong — no specific legal requirement to shield the whistleblower’s identity from the public exists.

The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act establishes rules for whistleblowers to report on waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption in a lawful manner, and it, along with presidential directives, provides legal protections against reprisals and punishment. Anonymity, however, is not one of those guarantees.

“There is no language in the statute as written — or amended — that gives a whistleblower from the intelligence community the statutory right to anonymity,” Cully Stimson, a former Pentagon official and the head of the Heritage Foundation’s National Security Law Program, told the Washington Examiner. "That’s separate and distinct from whether Congress wants to make the decision to not provide the name — that’s at the discretion of the chairman.”

Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, who received the whistleblower’s complaint in August, has said he must keep the whistleblower’s name secret, but it does not appear this legal prohibition extends to President Trump, his allies, or anyone else. Atkinson said his review of the whistleblower's allegations related to a July 25 call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky "identified some indicia of bias of an arguable political bias on the part of the complainant in favor of a rival political candidate."

He wrote: “Such evidence did not change my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern appears credible."

Arthur Rizer, a former Army officer and DOJ prosecutor who leads the R Street Institute’s criminal justice team, said he doubts the law guarantees whistleblower anonymity.

“I am pretty sure on its plain reading only the individual who receives the complaint has a ‘statutory obligation’ to keep anonymity — and, I think, even then there are circumstances where the veil of anonymity can be pierced,” Rizer told the Washington Examiner. “So, as a starting point, the chairman’s comment is vague and overbroad — and legally speaking, that makes him wrong.”

There are, however, laws against witness intimidation that could apply if the whistleblower was outed.

“In a nutshell, there’s no per se right to whistleblower anonymity,” Stephen Vladeck, a national security legal expert and law professor at the University of Texas, told the Washington Examiner. “But revealing the whistleblower’s identity here may nevertheless be unlawful.”

Both Vladeck and Ukraine whistleblower attorney Mark Zaid referred the Washington Examiner to an article in Just Security, a left-leaning online legal journal based at New York University’s Law School, that offers a lengthy analysis of whistleblower protections.

“Many of those seeking to protect the whistleblower argue that it is unlawful to publicly identify an anonymous whistleblower. Whether that is, in fact, the case is complicated and highlights a significant flaw in how the whistleblower protection laws actually apply,” wrote national security expert Ken Clanahan, who runs the D.C.-based National Security Counselors, in the journal article. “Simply put, there is no clear, unambiguous provision in either the criminal or civil law generally prohibiting the disclosure of a whistleblower’s identity.”

Zaid has told the Washington Examiner he hopes the fate of this whistleblower's identity would be similar to former FBI official Mark Felt, who disclosed he was Watergate’s “Deep Throat” in 2005, more than three decades after the Watergate scandal, when he was 91.

Clanahan wrote “one option — the federal witness-tampering law — is a promising candidate for deterring and punishing the disclosure of this particular whistleblower’s identity during this particular investigation.”

Bradley Moss, a whistleblower expert in the same firm as Zaid but who isn't involved with this case, told the Washington Examiner some people are confusing these issues.

“Only the IC IG’s office is prohibited from releasing the identity, but that doesn’t change whether the statute otherwise considers the name to be confidential,” said Moss. “It simply doesn’t proscribe a restriction on anyone else’s ability to disseminate the name.”

Schiff has shut down Republican efforts to subpoena the whistleblower and cut off GOP witness questioning that could unearth evidence about the whistleblower’s identity, saying he won’t allow efforts to “exact political retribution against the whistleblower“ or “out” him.

Republicans say they want to know what motivated the whistleblower to file a formal complaint when no one else did and if political bias played a role, whether he had contact with Schiff’s office beyond a brief conversation with staffers, and if he received information from impeachment witnesses prior to filing his complaint, with speculation centered on Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman being the “shaken” official who told the whistleblower the call was “frightening,” “crazy,” and “completely lacking in substance related to national security.”

There are a number of laws that apply to federal whistleblowers.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 allowed federal employees to make certain complaints and protected them from being retaliated against for providing certain types of information to Congress. The Inspector General Act of 1978 provides a pathway for employees to file complaints, guards against reprisals, and instructs inspectors general to guarantee a whistleblower’s anonymity unless disclosing it was unavoidable as part of an investigation. And the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 was designed to ensure federal employees didn’t suffer reprisals for making lawful complaints.

Specific whistleblower protections exist for those in the intelligence community who report through the proper channels.

The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 laid out how whistleblowers could provide their complaints up the chain and to lawmakers, encouraged such reporting, and prohibited reprisals against whistleblowers.

The law was strengthened by President Barack Obama and Congress. Obama's Presidential Policy Directive 19, signed in October 2012, prohibits reprisals against whistleblowers at work or affecting their ability to access classified information. The Intelligence Authorization Act's Title VI, passed in July 2014, codified those protections against retaliation. And Intelligence Community Directive 120, issued by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in March 2014, further detailed how whistleblowers should be protected against retaliation when making protected disclosures of alleged wrongdoing.

Overall, lawful whistleblowers in the intelligence community are protected against being fired, demoted, suspended, transferred, denied raises or bonuses, having their security clearances interfered with, and other job-related retaliation.

But none of the legal language guarantees anonymity.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:


Our sharp @CBSNews photographer captured a good spirited Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman returning to work after testifying in #ImpeachmentHearings. Here, Vindman is with his twin brother clearly wanting to be seen as they take a selfie in front of the West Wing....

He probably cannot be fired now for political reasons, but he can sure be reassigned to some place very unpleasant, along with his brother.



.

Trump was very patient with Sessions as AG until he just plain had enough, and then he unloaded on Mr. Magoo. I have to believe he must be close to unloading on Barr. If he refrains from doing so, it's because of the closeness to the 2020 election, less than a year away now.

Trump's strength and will are epic. Who else could stand up to the daily onslaught he faces from an endless coup attempt, wearing one guise after another-- Russia collusion, obstruction, Ukraine-- and the frustration he must feel as first Sessions and now Barr do absolutely nothing, thereby allowing the Democrats to continue doing whatever the hell they want.

You want to see this impeachment circus fold its tent real fast? Let indictments come down for Comey, McCabe, Brennan, Clapper, etc.

Wasn't Barr just recently overseas with Durham interviewing witnesses and gathering information on what happened with the origins of the Russian hoax?

I watched a few minutes of Vindman’s testimony with a friend of mine who served in the Army and he just shook his head at Vindman. He said people “exactly like him” is the main reason he didn’t stay in longer. His words, “that guy is a fucking America hater”.

This guy Holmes who's testifying today had quite an amusing opening statement. Him recollecting the lunch he had with Sondland and overhearing the phone call Sondland had with Trump is the part I'm referring to. Talking about that rapper asap and whatnot...just too much.

Trump's tweet on the matter:

Good on the President stepping in... again... and preserving CPO Gallagher's status.

In my book you can put Adm. Green & Lt Col Vindman in a dinghy in the middle of the Pacific Ocean Garbage Patch and let them figure life for themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
ANALYSIS: Despite Schiff’s claims, whistleblower has no 'statutory right' to anonymity

The real whistleblower was sitting there yesterday wearing an Army dress uniform, why do you think Shithead Schiff was so quick to squash any discussion of it?

When is the light colonel getting PCS to Ice Station Zebra?

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:
When is the light colonel getting PCS to Ice Station Zebra?

Don't even need to do that.

Just PCS him to the Pentagon, Full Dress Uniform required, and give him a windowless office like this, with no internet or cellphone allowed.

0700-1900L daily, Sunday through Saturday.

30 min lunch break from 1210-1240L.

No holidays off.

I know many of you do not have FB accounts. This was posted this morning by John “Tig” Tiegan. He admits below that he didn’t write this, rather is among those who passed it on.

quote:

Impeachment...each and every one of you should be ashamed and pray that this doesn’t happen...and, I’ll tell you why. For 8 years, we sat silent, while Obama divided our nation. He used identity politics, race warfare, and class warfare to divide us all. Obama thrust universal healthcare upon us and we sat silent. In the meantime, Hillary and Obama let 4 Americans die in Benghazi, while they watched on closed circuit tv. Again, we were silent. We watched Hillary Clinton and Donna Brazil rig a primary against Bernie Sanders. We saw Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch (Attorney General at the time) sit on a flight line, only to find that Hilary was exonerated for any crime; regarding her acid washed / bleach bit server and 33,000 deleted emails. Again, we were silent...We have watched our duly elected president harassed each and every day, for 3 years; even though he has put millions back to work, brought jobs back to America, stood up to our adversaries, and fought like hell to protect our borders. Now, we see Joe Biden leveraging $1 Billion American dollars for his son. However, the Democrats and the media only care about impeaching Trump! So, I can tell you with the utmost certainty...if you are successful in your witch-hunt, we will NOT be silent!!! You will see a revolution you cannot even fathom! Tread lightly...
Borrowed. GOD please protect your chosen.

If you are trying to place the name, Tiegan co-authored the book, “13 Hours; The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi.” He served with the United States Marine Corps, became a Blackwater security specialist, and was a member of the CIA’s Global Response Staff in Benghazi. He was among those at the Annex who ignored a “stand down” order and rushed to the U.S. Consulate when it was assaulted. He and others, rescued CIA personnel at the consulate and moved them to the Annex where they withstood repeated assaults, leading to the deaths of Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:
When is the light colonel getting PCS to Ice Station Zebra?

Don't even need to do that.

Just PCS him to the Pentagon, Full Dress Uniform required, and give him a windowless office like this, with no internet or cellphone allowed.

0700-1900L daily, Sunday through Saturday.

30 min lunch break from 1210-1240L.

No holidays off.

My old office! Except I don't remember a clock.

https://www.breitbart.com/nati...ine-weapons-in-2015/

Dr. Fiona Hill told the impeachment inquiry Thursday that she was concerned that a hold on aid might endanger Ukraine’s security. But in a 2015 Washington Post op-ed, Hill argued against giving Ukraine any lethal weapons .

Hill was testifying in the seventh public hearing in the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment inquiry. As she had in her closed-door deposition last month, Hill said she was concerned about Ukraine’s security and stability as it defended itself against Russia. In that context, she — and others — were worried about a hold on security.

But Hill also had to admit that she co-authored an op-ed in 2015, when she was working at the left-wing Brookings Institution think tank, in which she opposed sending weapons to help Ukraine.

In her article, titled “How aiding the Ukrainian military could push Putin into a regional war,”

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Fiona Hill - deep state attack dog against Donald Trump

Benjamin Wittes - senior fellow in Governance Studies at Brookings Institution. And he is cofounder of Lawfare

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
Trump was very patient with Sessions as AG until he just plain had enough, and then he unloaded on Mr. Magoo. I have to believe he must be close to unloading on Barr.
<snip>

I still have faith in Barr. I just think DOJ efforts are on hold pending the imminent IG report.

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
I have to believe he must be close to unloading on Barr.

I have no idea why you would think such a thing. You couldn't possibly be more wrong. You are absolutely wrong.