Fred Fleitz Takes His Well Earned Victory Lap

Yesterday afternoon Fred Fleitz took a well deserved victory lap. Tuesday evening he had appeared on Chris Cuomo's show to talk about the CIA's attempted takedown of President Trump--disguised as "whistleblowing." Fleitz told Cuomo:

When I saw this one, I thought it was very unusual, not just that it was extremely well written, but it had legal references and footnotes. That was a little bit unusual, but I compared that with the fact that Adam Schiff was talking about the subject matter of this complaint throughout the month of August. He posted a tweet at the end of August that almost identically reflected this complaint.

In other words, as a longtime intelligence professional with a wide experience both in the Intel Community and working for Congress (read about his career here), he gave his professional assessment on the likely origins of the complaint. Cuomo tried to paint Fleitz as partisan, in effect just repeating GOP talking points:

“But you don’t know any of that,” Cuomo pushed back. “You’re raising it as questions. You know that is meaningless unless you can put some meat on the bones. Of course the Republicans are agreeing with you. That’s the whole state of play. Anything you say that’s negative about this guy or this woman they’re going to pick up on.”

When the NYT came out with its story exposing Schiff as a liar and, by implication, a bozo, Fleitz took to Twitter:

1/ The NYT confirmed what I said last week: Schiff knew about the CIA whistleblower in advance -- way in advance. Before he even filed his complaint. This is a much bigger scandal that people realize. At a minimum, Schiff should recuse himself from this impeachment inquiry.
Below is this twitter thread and the two relevant tweets: 

That "at a minimum" is a nice touch, mocking the Dem calls for Bill Barr to recuse himself "at a minimum."

Thread by @FredFleitz: "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 […]" 

Thread by @FredFleitz: "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 …
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1177206661603348480.html

3/ So the whistleblower DID come to the @HouseIntelComm first just as i said. We now know that the request by the whistleblower to meet with committee members was a fraud -- he already did this.

4/ Supposedly the @HouseIntelComm dem counsel told the CIA whistleblower to hire counsel and go through the ICIG process. That would be believable if Schiff and his staff revealed this weeks ago. @Susan_Hennessey and @MiekeEoyang : don't be fooled by this.

5/ Schiff talked about the Ukraine issue throughout the month of August. The contents of the complaint leaked before it was presented to Congress. There is zero chance in mind mine that Schiff's HPSCI lawyers were not working hand and glove with the WB and his lawyers.

6/ And here's the kicker (@Susan_Hennessey & @MiekeEoyang pay attention): under @HouseIntelComm rules, any classified info brought to the committee from outside sources MUST BE SHARED WITH BOTH SIDES. Schiff broke committee rules by not telling committee GOP members about this.

7/ This is a very serious violation of @HouseIntelComm rules. Why did Schiff do this, especially when he was using this information to score political points throughout the month of August? The reason is clear: it was part of the latest Dem ploy to take down @realDonaldTrump

8/ It never made any sense to discuss impeachment or a non-intelligence matter like the Ukraine allegations in @HouseIntelComm . Given Schiff's politicization of this issue and serious violations of HPSCI rules, the impeachment charade must end.

So that demonstrates very succinctly why Dems--for the umpteenth time--are backpedaling madly. The question is, will there be consequences for his bozo performance, or will he be absolved by Dem leadership because he was doing it all with their knowledge and at their request?

And the even bigger question: Will heads roll at CIA, as they should?

"A Grevious Violation Of Trust"

That's what Fred Fleitz calls the Dem "gossipblower" hoax. And of course he's right. Here's his twitter thread on the subject, nicely unrolled. It repays a close reading:


Fred Fleitz
@FredFleitz

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. . .

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.