Tuesday, October 8, 2019

Uh Oh! Whistleblowing Updates--Briefly Noted

Two updates re Sammy the "whistleblower."

The first provides polling data that shows, by a wide margin, that respondents believe Sammy should testify publicly:

Half of voters say the whistleblower at the center of President Trump's Ukraine controversy should publicly testify before Congress, according to a Hill-HarrisX poll released Tuesday.
The survey found that 51 percent of registered voters said the whistleblower should testify in a public setting on Capitol Hill, while 35 percent said the person should testify privately in a congressional committee hearing.

Could any result be less surprising? Americans have a pretty good idea of what fair play is and what it isn't. Dems are playing with fire with their shenanigans, and the fire will be fanned by the second new bit of information.

The second update has to do with the reports that Sammy was connected to a prominent Dem politician in a professional capacity. More details are being alleged. Byron York reports that three sources state that the prominent Dem is a 2020 candidate. Yeah--that would be indicia of bias, just maybe. No wonder Sammy's identity needs to be hidden. And what does this say for the credibility of Sammy's lawyer?

In an Aug. 26 letter, the Intelligence Community's inspector general, Michael Atkinson, wrote that the anonymous whistleblower who set off the Trump-Ukraine impeachment fight showed "some indicia of an arguable political bias ... in favor of a rival political candidate." 
A few weeks later, news reports said the whistleblower's possible bias was that he is a registered Democrat. That was all. Incredulous commentary suggested that Republicans who were pushing the bias talking point were so blinded by their own partisanship that they saw simple registration with the Democratic Party as evidence of wrongdoing. 
"Give me a break!" tweeted whistleblower lawyer Mark Zaid. "Bias? Seriously?"
Now, however, there is word of more evidence of possible bias on the whistleblower's part. Under questioning from Republicans during last Friday's impeachment inquiry interview with Atkinson, the inspector general revealed that the whistleblower's possible bias was not that he was simply a registered Democrat. It was that he had a significant tie to one of the Democratic presidential candidates currently vying to challenge President Trump in next year's election. 
"The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship with one of the Democratic candidates," said one person with knowledge of what was said. 
"The IG said the whistleblower had a professional relationship with one of the 2020 candidates," said another person with knowledge of what was said.
"What [Atkinson] said was that the whistleblower self-disclosed that he was a registered Democrat and that he had a prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic presidential candidate," said a third person with knowledge of what was said. 
All three sources said Atkinson did not identify the Democratic candidate with whom the whistleblower had a connection. It is unclear what the working or professional relationship between the two was.


  1. What could the blower testify about, lacking any first hand knowledge, i.e. the blower is a witness to nothing.

    In civil proceedings, there is discovery where depositions are recorded to ascertain the substance and credibility of the evidence to be proffered by the witness in question.

    This blower episode appears to be another version the Christine Ford Blasey circus of hearsay and fabricated testimony.

    As has been said about cops in the process of framing a suspect--they don't testify in court, the test-a-lie.

    1. Absolutely. As Peter van Buren and others have emphasized, we have the best evidence--the transcript. But as before, the surrogate media ignores the facts.

    2. Though on the cross-exam side, at least, he could be made to testify what a hyper-conflicted shill he is and what an active fraud and farce the process has been from the start. That'd be worth something :)

  2. I am guessing that both whistle-blowers were CIA analysts assigned to Vice President Biden for his assignments to serve as "point-man" on issues of China and Ukraine.

    Whistle-Blower #2 -- the one who claims to have first-hand information of Trump's phone conversation -- perhaps was allowed, as a Ukraine specialist, to be present during President Trump's phone conversation.

    Whistle-Blower #2 informed Whistle-Blower #1 -- the latter thus having only second-hand knowledge about Trump's phone conversation.

    In accordance with my speculation, Whistle Blower #2 is a CIA analyst specializing in Ukraine issues, and Whistle Blower #1 is a CIA analyst specializing in China issues.

    That's my speculation.

    1. Shrewd, plausible. I'm guessing we'll find out fairly soon.

    2. My further speculation.

      Everyone in the White House knew that Whistle Blower #1 was the whistle-blower. Everyone knew also that he had been a CIA analyst assigned as a China specialist to Vice President Biden.

      If so, then who informed Whistle Blower #1 about President Trump's phone conversation?

      One obvious suspect would be the CIA analyst who had been assigned as a Ukraine specialist to Vice President Biden -- especially since this Ukraine specialist had been present during Trump's phone conversation.

      In these circumstances, the Ukraine specialist was in trouble for violating security rules by informing the China specialist.

      Therefore, the Ukraine specialist likewise became a whistle-blower. Now he can try to use that status to defend himself against accusations that he violated security rules. Whistle Blower #2 can argue even that he cannot be questioned about whether he informed Whistle Blower #1.

      Also, both whistle-blowers can argue that their accusations are Intelligence matters, because both of them are CIA analysts. Therefore the Intelligence Community's Inspector General should have jurisdiction.

    3. !) given CIA's track record to argue that there's anything "intelligent" about them is an up hill slog.
      2) Let them argue with their cellmates in Leavenworth. Need to know means NEED to know.
      Sammy #2 didn't go to the IG, he went to Sammy #1, who had no business hearing it and violated the law by not REPORTING #2 for spreading classified info where it did not belong. Let them be hero's in Leavenworth for the next 40 years. Pollard went to prison for life for arguably less. They can high-five Rosenstein when they pass him in the exercise yard.
      Tom S.

    4. If the second wb was a witness, how come he gave the first WB the wrong info?

  3. My further speculation.

    The two CIA analysts -- Whistle-Blower #1 and Whistle-Blower #2 -- assigned to Vice President Biden were specially selected and supervised by CIA Director John Brennan.

    Brennan might have known that these two analysts were partisan Democrats.

    In addition to advising Biden about China and Ukraine, the two CIA analysts were supposed to inform Brennan about political developments that interested Brennan.

    In particular, the two CIA analysts informed Brennan about any developments that might involve Donald Trump in China or Ukraine.

    The analysts surely accompanied Vice President Biden in his many visits to, respectively, China and Ukraine. During those visits, the analysts surely had opportunities to question and task well-informed people in China and Ukraine.

    1. The only thing wrong with your scenario is the Intel hard rule of never using embedded "info sources" for actual hands-on ops. But, then again, no one ever said Brennan was smart. None of these people rise above the level of criminal cunning.
      Tom S.

  4. One more speculation.

    If Whistle-Blower #2 indeed was a CIA specialist on Ukraine assigned to Vice President Biden, then Whistle-Blower #2 surely was involved personally in Biden's pressuring the Ukrainian President to fire the Ukrainian prosecutor.

    In particular, Whistle-Blower #2 provided to Biden the evidence and arguments that the Ukrainian prosecutor deserved to be fired.

    If so, then Whistle-Blower #2 is not some innocent by-stander who is objectively reporting his concerns about wrong-doing. Instead, Whistle-Blower #2 himself is a participant in corrupt circumstances. He helped Biden to cause the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor.

    1. Placed in that perspective the Deep State op becomes very ...