"The way this complaint was written suggested the author had a
lot of help," adding "I know from my work on the House Intel
Commitee staff that many whistleblowers go directly to the
intel oversight committees. Did this whistleblower first meet
with House Intel committee members?"

========================

"He Had Help": Former CIA, NSC Official Questions 'Too Convenient' And
'Too Perfect' Whistleblower Report

Thu, 09/26/2019 - 11:56

In light of Thursday's public release of a 'whistleblower' complaint,
who was "not a witness to most of hte events described" in their
allegation that President Trump abused his office to request that
Ukraine investigate former Vice President Joe Biden's dealings in the
country, former CIA analyst and National Security Council (NSC) official
Fred Fleitz has provided his take on the whole thing via Twitter.

Notably, Fleitz - CEO of the Center for Security Policy - points out
that "The way this complaint was written suggested the author had a lot
of help," adding "I know from my work on the House Intel Commitee staff
that many whistleblowers go directly to the intel oversight committees.
Did this whistleblower first meet with House Intel committee members?"

Fleitz then writes that "that this whistleblower complaint is too
convenient and too perfect to come from a typical whistleblower," adding
"Were other IC officers involved? Where outside groups opposed to the
president involved?"

Read the thread below (emphasis ours):

1/ As a former CIA analyst and former NSC official who edited
transcripts of POTUS phone calls with foreign leaders, here are my
thoughts on the whistleblower complaint which was just released. . .
intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/

2/ This is not an intelligence matter. It is a policy matter and a
complaint about differences over policy. Presidential phone calls are
not an intelligence concern. The fact that IC officers transcribe these
calls does not give the IC IG jusrisdiction over these calls.

3/ It appears that rules restricting access and knowledge of these
sensitive calls was breached. This official was not on this call, not on
the approved dissem list and should not have been briefed on the call.

..3/ The way this complaint was written suggested the author had a lot of
help. I know from my work on the House Intel Commitee staff that many
whistleblowers go directly to the intel oversight committees. Did this
whistleblower first meet with House Intel committee members?

..4/ It is therefore important that Congress find out where this
complaint came from. What did House and Senate intel committee dem
members and staff know about it and when? Did they help orchestrate this
complaint?

5/ My view is that this whistleblower complaint is too convenient and
too perfect to come from a typical whistleblower. Were other IC officers
involved? Where outside groups opposed to the president involved?

6/ This complaint will further damage IC relations with the White House
for many years to come because IC officers appear to be politicizing
presidential phone calls with foreign officials and their access to the
president and his activities in the White House.

7/ Worst of all, this IC officer -- and probably others -- have
blatantly crossed the line into policy. This violates a core
responsibility of IC officers is to inform, but not make policy.

8/ This is such a grevious violation of trust between the IC and the
White House that it would not surprise me if IC officers are barred from
all access to POTUS phone calls with foreign officials.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...nd-too-perfect

This is like complaining whether a fire alarm call came from one
person or three, whether it was made from a phone booth or a cell
phone, when in fact there is a fire and however it was reported,
they did a great public service. This accusation is very specific,
very credible, and so far, it's proved to be 100% correct, we have
the WH provided pseudo transcript that shows Trump saying *exactly*
what was alleged by the whistleblower and it's bad, really, really bad.
Even some Republicans are admitting that.

I hope Trump and the trumptards continue to attack the patriot who
blew the whistle, it will just make things worse for Trump. This
isn't at all like the Russian investigation, where we had little
bits and pieces, but never a complete, interlinked picture, backed
up by verifiable evidence. This time it involves people in the WH,
presumably mostly decent career employees, who haven't committed any
crimes so far. They will be summoned, as will the fired US ambassador
to Ukraine, the special envoy to Ukraine, the US envoy to the EU,
VP Pence, whoever was ordered to put the records of this call into
a super secure computer, where it normally would not go, whoever at
the State Dept asked Ruddy to get involved in Ukraine (if that's true),
the Attorney General and many others.
All of them will have a choice. Either lie and try to cover this up, try
to minimize it, or to tell the truth. Which is why Flynn and the
like going to prison are important, as an example of what happens when
you lie. I doubt Trump has many, if anyone in the WH willing to go
down on his sinking ship with him and the truth is going to come out,
one way or the other.

Nixon said on the day he left the WH for the last time, that others may hate
you, but they only win if you hate them back and then you destroy yourself.
Trump should have listened and learned.

On 9/27/19 9:49 AM, trader_4 wrote:
This is like complaining whether a fire alarm call came from one
person or three, whether it was made from a phone booth or a cell
phone, when in fact there is a fire and however it was reported,
they did a great public service. This accusation is very specific,
very credible, and so far, it's proved to be 100% correct, we have
the WH provided pseudo transcript that shows Trump saying *exactly*
what was alleged by the whistleblower and it's bad, really, really bad.
Even some Republicans are admitting that.

I hope Trump and the trumptards continue to attack the patriot who
blew the whistle, it will just make things worse for Trump. This
isn't at all like the Russian investigation, where we had little
bits and pieces, but never a complete, interlinked picture, backed
up by verifiable evidence. This time it involves people in the WH,
presumably mostly decent career employees, who haven't committed any
crimes so far. They will be summoned, as will the fired US ambassador
to Ukraine, the special envoy to Ukraine, the US envoy to the EU,
VP Pence, whoever was ordered to put the records of this call into
a super secure computer, where it normally would not go, whoever at
the State Dept asked Ruddy to get involved in Ukraine (if that's true),
the Attorney General and many others.
All of them will have a choice. Either lie and try to cover this up, try
to minimize it, or to tell the truth. Which is why Flynn and the
like going to prison are important, as an example of what happens when
you lie. I doubt Trump has many, if anyone in the WH willing to go
down on his sinking ship with him and the truth is going to come out,
one way or the other.

Nixon said on the day he left the WH for the last time, that others may hate
you, but they only win if you hate them back and then you destroy yourself.
Trump should have listened and learned.


Wow! Vitriol_4 is working overtime. Election years must be hard on you.

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 10:15:20 AM UTC-4, devnull wrote:


Wow! Vitriol_4 is working overtime. Election years must be hard on you.

I just know a lying, incompetent, mental case shyster when I see one.
And I warned what would happen back when Trump entered the race.
Now it's playing out. There is only one reason we keep having these
**** shows, one fiasco after the other, it's because you trumptards
insisted on electing a lying, incompetent, mental case shyster to
the most powerful and important office in the world.

trader_4 wrote:

This is like complaining whether a fire alarm call came from one
person or three,

This so-called "whistle" doesn't even qualify as meeting the test of a
whistle report under the domain of the DNI.

I watched the first 1.5 hours of the DNI (director of national
intelligence) testifing (in public, which is a first for these things)
in front of the house Committee (Schiff and Nunes). This was yesterday,
starting at 8 or 9 am.

Did you watch it?

The DNI, as part of answering variations of the same question over and
over and over again, stated the legal terms of what qualifies as a
"whistle-blower" report, and the conversation between Trump and anyone
else DOES NOT QUALIFY.

In short, a "whistle" can't be blown if it does not pertain to financial
or operational events or pertain to people under the chain of command of
the DNI. The POTUS is not, under previously determined law, is not a
member of the intelligence community, and he DOES NOT report TO the
DNI. The DNI reports to HIM.

And further more, ANY communications the president has with ANYONE is
AUTOMATICALLY covered by executive privlege and can't be subpoena'd by
congress.

A whisle-blower report filed with the DNI must be turned over to the
house (and senate?) intelligence committee within or by 7 days after the
filing.

Even after seeking all appropriate legal council, even though this DID
NOT MEET THE TEST for an incident or situation that the whistle-blower
law was designed for, the DNI treated it as a whistle-blower report
(WBR).

BUT - BUT he's torn to uphold another rule - that of executive
privledge, which ordinarily wouldn't kick in because a LEGIT WBI would
NEVER APPLY TO THE PRESIDENT IN THE FIRST PLACE. So he can't release
the WBI to the committee because it meets the test of Executive
Privledge.

During the hearing, the democrats focused EXCLUSIVELY on why they
weren't given the report. They are treating this as a process-crime, a
cover-up.

They didn't delve AT ALL into the merits of the so-called "whistle"
being blown.

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 10:45:59 AM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote:
trader_4 wrote:

This is like complaining whether a fire alarm call came from one
person or three,

This so-called "whistle" doesn't even qualify as meeting the test of a
whistle report under the domain of the DNI.

I agree. But that won't matter any more here than it did when Deep Throat
was feeding info to Woodward and Gates during Watergate. That
whistleblower did the country a great service, exposing abuse of power,
betrayal of his duties, and trading foreign policy, national security
issues, for his personal and campaign purposes. The more Trump gets
away with, the more emboldened he is and the more illegal and stupid
things he does.











I watched the first 1.5 hours of the DNI (director of national
intelligence) testifing (in public, which is a first for these things)
in front of the house Committee (Schiff and Nunes). This was yesterday,
starting at 8 or 9 am.

Did you watch it?

I listened to a lot of it.


The DNI, as part of answering variations of the same question over and
over and over again, stated the legal terms of what qualifies as a
"whistle-blower" report, and the conversation between Trump and anyone
else DOES NOT QUALIFY.

And like Republicans and their defenders usually do, he did a terrible
job. He kept saying that the report did not meet the legal definition
of urgent concern. He went round and round on that. From my reading,
I agree with you, the real issue is that the whistleblower law for the
intel community says it applies to abuses, irregularities, within the
intel community. It says nothing about irregularities that they hear
about concerning other areas of govt. But the DNI instead kept referring
to the legal definition of "urgent concern" and it left the impression
that he was making the claim that it just wasn't an 'urgent concern".
Score one for the Dems. But it's irrelevant at this point, the cat is
out of the bag and this will be fully investigated.





In short, a "whistle" can't be blown if it does not pertain to financial
or operational events or pertain to people under the chain of command of
the DNI. The POTUS is not, under previously determined law, is not a
member of the intelligence community, and he DOES NOT report TO the
DNI. The DNI reports to HIM.

I agree.




And further more, ANY communications the president has with ANYONE is
AUTOMATICALLY covered by executive privlege and can't be subpoena'd by
congress.

That isn't true. A president can only legitimately assert exec privilege
on certain things. Had Trump tried to exert it on that phone call,
the House would have subpoenaed it and it would have wound up in the
courts. And 99% the courts would have upheld that since it involves
an alleged abuse of office and a crime, that EP does not apply.
Even the WH realized that, which is why they made it public.





A whisle-blower report filed with the DNI must be turned over to the
house (and senate?) intelligence committee within or by 7 days after the
filing.

Even after seeking all appropriate legal council, even though this DID
NOT MEET THE TEST for an incident or situation that the whistle-blower
law was designed for, the DNI treated it as a whistle-blower report
(WBR).

BUT - BUT he's torn to uphold another rule - that of executive
privledge, which ordinarily wouldn't kick in because a LEGIT WBI would
NEVER APPLY TO THE PRESIDENT IN THE FIRST PLACE. So he can't release
the WBI to the committee because it meets the test of Executive
Privledge.

During the hearing, the democrats focused EXCLUSIVELY on why they
weren't given the report. They are treating this as a process-crime, a
cover-up.

I agree, that was mostly wrong too. They tried to make it sound like
the DNI was part of a cover up. They berated him for going to the WH
lawyers on the issue of exec privilege and for going to the DOJ for
clarification of the law. At one point, I think it was Schiff, was
all over the DNI saying that he was not in the DOJ, suggesting that the
DNI did not have to take their legal opinion. He suggested it was wrong
to go to the DOJ, because Barr was mentioned in the phone call. OK,
Schiff has a point. But then who was the DNI supposed to go to for
the legal opinion? Some local law firm? The Energy Dept?




They didn't delve AT ALL into the merits of the so-called "whistle"
being blown.

Like I said, the Republicans aren't very good at this. But it's water
under the bridge, the cat is out of the bag, so far the WB has been
100% correct with what they claimed. And any attempts to discredit
the WB will likely just make things worse for Trump. He's toast this
time. There are just way too many moving parts, all over the place,
which will confirm and expand on what we already know.

On 9/27/2019 10:15 AM, devnull wrote:
On 9/27/19 9:49 AM, trader_4 wrote:
This is like complaining whether a fire alarm call came from one
person or three, whether it was made from a phone booth or a cell
phone, when in fact there is a fire and however it was reported,
they did a great public service.Â*Â*Â* This accusation is very specific,
very credible, and so far, it's proved to be 100% correct, we have
the WH provided pseudo transcript that shows Trump saying *exactly*
what was alleged by the whistleblower and it's bad, really, really bad.
Even some Republicans are admitting that.

I hope Trump and the trumptards continue to attack the patriot who
blew the whistle, it will just make things worse for Trump.Â* This
isn't at all like the Russian investigation, where we had little
bits and pieces, but never a complete, interlinked picture, backed
up by verifiable evidence.Â*Â* This time it involves people in the WH,
presumably mostly decent career employees, who haven't committed any
crimes so far.Â* They will be summoned, as will the fired US ambassador
to Ukraine, the special envoy to Ukraine, the US envoy to the EU,
VP Pence, whoever was ordered to put the records of this call into
a super secure computer, where it normally would not go, whoever at
the State Dept asked Ruddy to get involved in Ukraine (if that's true),
the Attorney General and many others.
All of them will have a choice.Â* Either lie and try to cover this up, try
to minimize it, or to tell the truth.Â* Which is why Flynn and the
like going to prison are important, as an example of what happens when
you lie.Â* I doubt Trump has many, if anyone in the WH willing to go
down on his sinking ship with him and the truth is going to come out,
one way or the other.

Nixon said on the day he left the WH for the last time, that others
may hate
you, but they only win if you hate them back and then you destroy
yourself.
Trump should have listened and learned.


Wow! Vitriol_4 is working overtime.Â* Election years must be hard on you.

When Trump gets reelected, our traitor should be very entertaining.

On 9/27/19 12:01 PM, Frank wrote:
On 9/27/2019 10:15 AM, devnull wrote:
On 9/27/19 9:49 AM, trader_4 wrote:
This is like complaining whether a fire alarm call came from one
person or three, whether it was made from a phone booth or a cell
phone, when in fact there is a fire and however it was reported,
they did a great public service.Â*Â*Â* This accusation is very specific,
very credible, and so far, it's proved to be 100% correct, we have
the WH provided pseudo transcript that shows Trump saying *exactly*
what was alleged by the whistleblower and it's bad, really, really bad.
Even some Republicans are admitting that.

I hope Trump and the trumptards continue to attack the patriot who
blew the whistle, it will just make things worse for Trump.Â* This
isn't at all like the Russian investigation, where we had little
bits and pieces, but never a complete, interlinked picture, backed
up by verifiable evidence.Â*Â* This time it involves people in the WH,
presumably mostly decent career employees, who haven't committed any
crimes so far.Â* They will be summoned, as will the fired US ambassador
to Ukraine, the special envoy to Ukraine, the US envoy to the EU,
VP Pence, whoever was ordered to put the records of this call into
a super secure computer, where it normally would not go, whoever at
the State Dept asked Ruddy to get involved in Ukraine (if that's true),
the Attorney General and many others.
All of them will have a choice.Â* Either lie and try to cover this up, try
to minimize it, or to tell the truth.Â* Which is why Flynn and the
like going to prison are important, as an example of what happens when
you lie.Â* I doubt Trump has many, if anyone in the WH willing to go
down on his sinking ship with him and the truth is going to come out,
one way or the other.

Nixon said on the day he left the WH for the last time, that others may hate
you, but they only win if you hate them back and then you destroy yourself.
Trump should have listened and learned.


Wow! Vitriol_4 is working overtime.Â* Election years must be hard on you.

When Trump gets reelected, our traitor should be very entertaining.


LOL, I am so looking forward to it!