Friday, September 27, 2019

The CIA Is Nonpolitical

How do I know this? The NYT tells us so:

Dean Baquet, the executive editor of The New York Times, said The Times was right to publish information about the whistle-blower. “The president and some of his supporters have attacked the credibility of the whistle-blower, who has presented information that has touched off a landmark impeachment proceeding,” Mr. Baquet said. “The president himself has called the whistle-blower’s account a ‘political hack job.’” 
Mr. Baquet added, “We decided to publish limited information about the whistle-blower — including the fact that he works for a nonpolitical agency and that his complaint is based on an intimate knowledge and understanding of the White House — because we wanted to provide information to readers that allows them to make their own judgments about whether or not he is credible. We also understand that the White House already knew he was a C.I.A. officer.”

Rest easy!


  1. Mark, I don't know if you and your readers are as confused as I am about who Burisma Holdings is, what their position in the Ukraine was, why in the world Hunter Biden would go on their board, why a Prosecutor General would have investigated Burisma, why Joe Biden would have cared who the Prosecutor General was, why Biden threatned to withhold a billion dollars of US aid, and whether the Prosecutor General should have kept his job...not to mention what all of this might have to do with the Deep State's efforts to destroy Donald Trump and Trump's telephone conversation with Volodymyr Zelensky. All good questions, I think.

    This article, written almost five months ago, begins to answer some of these questions.

  2. And if you are inclined to do a little bit more reading this (cloudy, chilly good day to read where I am) afternoon, I recommend sundance's post today about Lawfare.

    As I posted yesterday, I'm done with Adam Schiff. Perhaps I should have said I'm done with Lawfare, since, if you connect the dots as sundance has done, they are behind Schiff, as well as the Steele, Mueller, Kavanaugh, and every other dirty trick over the last three years.

    Says sundance:

    "The Lawfare continuum is very simple. The corrupt 2015 Clinton exoneration; which became the corrupt 2016 DOJ/FBI Trump investigation; which became the corrupt 2017 DOJ/FBI Mueller probe; is currently the 2019 “impeachment” plan. Weissmann and Mueller delivering their report evolved the plan from corrupt legal theory into corrupt political targeting by Jerry Nadler in the House Judiciary. Every phase within the continuum holds the same goal."

    Well, 'dirty trick' might not quite be a strong enough term.

  3. So, as I ponder these things, the next question I have is: Who is funding Lawfare?

    1. You can probably start with Soros related groups. He's at the root of so much of this.

  4. One answer (to who is funding Lawfare) is something called The Democracy Fund.

    See and

    The Democracy Fund is a vehicle of one Pierre Omidyar.

    And, yes, Mark, Omidyar appears to have Soros connections. See here:

    And here:

    I can't vouch for these websites but its hard to imagine the connections aren't real. And I'm sure I've just brushed the tip of the iceberg.

    I would have thought that Trump needs sooner or later to go directly after these guys...

    1. When money for Leftist ops is an issue, Soros is ALWAYS a safe bet.