I may be wrong but I believe the whistleblower is the head of antifa. That or he has nothing to do with them.
I see it as equating soldiers with street gangs. But I could be wrong.
Who is in charge of antifa? Who decides where, when, and who they will attack? Are they attacking another armed force? What would constitute victory for them? If they're simply freedom fighters trying to end the tyranny of an oppressive government, why are they attacking civilians? What happens when the civilians they attack decide to actually defend themselves? Will you call those people heros? Or will they be murderous Nazis for daring to defend themselves and not simply taking the beatings they deserve?
There is no good ending to this, my hunch is it's going to end with people dying for a movement based entirely in foolish rhetoric.
And those people are wrong. Their crimes don't justify antifias crimes. Why is that so hard to figure out?
Find where I said it did. Also find where I said I support all of antifa's methods, as you previously asserted.. They're subject to our laws the same as anybody else. It's likely you won't want to start counting numbers regarding political violence and who's the culprit.
You're still in the thread about right wing violent threats, droning on and on about antifa. They're so bad, there's gotta be a thread starting, newsworthy story out there for ya somewhere.
Meanwhile, continue to ignore what's being said and just accuse others of things with the high def projector you got. I'll make the popcorn.
Antifa is just a loose coalition of people and organizations that challenges Alt-Right and Far-Right ideals. Like any other coalitions, various folks and groups have their own ideas on how to proceed.I'm against violence in the streets, you find it acceptable. That's what this entire argument is about. You have now declared that position as idiocy. I don't see where we go from here. You continue to promote violent solutions, I'll pursue non violent ones.
I may be wrong but I believe the whistleblower is the head of antifa. That or he has nothing to do with them.
But I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people … The server, they say Ukraine has it.
It's all a dastardly Deep State plot by Antifas, Ukraine & our libruhl intelligence community to frame the Russians for the help they gave Hillary when they hacked the DNC. The whistleblower was obviously in on it from the start. How else could he know so much?
Maybe it's the shortening of the name that's confusing them. Maybe if we used the term anti-fascists instead it would make more sense to them.Antifa is just a loose coalition of people and organizations that challenges Alt-Right and Far-Right ideals. Like any other coalitions, various folks and groups have their own ideas on how to proceed.
Maybe it's the shortening of the name that's confusing them. Maybe if we used the term anti-fascists instead it would make more sense to them.
Also acknowledging Fskimospy's subsequent reply to your post.I would assume that the whistleblower would have to come forward at the senate trial. Eyewitness testimony is pretty much worthless if you can't produce the eyewitness.
Also acknowledging Fskimospy's subsequent reply to your post.
It seems what has transpired is similar to the original "Spartacus" movie toward its end, when the Romans ask the crowd of defeated slaves to identify Spartacus. They all stand up, one at a time, and say "I'm Spartacus!" "I'm Spartacus!" "I'm Spartacus!"
Think of it. First there was Marie Yavonovich, then Bill Taylor, then Lt. Col. Vindman, and I think a growing number of others. Since one or more of those bears firsthand witness to enough aspects in the sequence of events to nail Trump as principal instigator, it doesn't matter who the whistleblower is.
In fact, I can't see how we must dismiss the possibility that the anonymous whistleblower is really one of those above-mentioned who have since publicly come forward.
Mr. Zaid said his client would provide answers in writing under oath, but would not respond to any “inappropriate” questions, including those seeking identifying information.
Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, who as the top Republican on the House Oversight and Reform Committee has helped lead the president’s defense in Congress, rejected such a format.
“Written answers will not provide a sufficient opportunity to probe all the relevant facts and cross-examine the so-called whistle-blower,” he said. “You should not be able to ignite an impeachment effort and never account for your actions and role in orchestrating it. We have serious questions about this individual’s political bias and partisan motivations.”
Jim Jordan illustrates quite vividly why the whistleblower's identity is protected by law-
Whistle-Blower Willing to Answer Republicans’ Questions, Lawyer Says (Published 2019)
The lawyer said his client would respond to written questions, but Republicans, who have pushed for him to appear at an open hearing in the impeachment inquiry, appeared unsatisfied.www.nytimes.com
Seen the shit with Rand Paul? The way this whole thing is going, in case of actual defeat, impeachment, I see these fuckers riling the base up for conflict. Its going there...Prepare for more 2nd statements..