UPDATED: NYTimes 'Outs' Ukraine-Call "Whistleblower" As CIA Officer

Per Zerohedge:

And sure enough, if The New York Times is to be believed, the complainant is a C.I.A. officer who was detailed to work at the White House at one point, according to three people familiar with his identity. 

The man has since returned to the C.I.A., the people said. 

The NYTimes, of course, puts its spin on the news, claiming that the whistle-blower's expertise will likely add to lawmakers' confidence about the merits of his complaint. However, given the current state of affairs, we suspect it will simply remind a deeply divided nation of the bias and prejudice that exists behind the President's back. 

So the identity is known, at least to three people who leaked to the NYT.

Gina Haspel, watch your back.

UPDATE: CTH believes the CIA officer in question is one Michael Barry

The outlined profile, in combination with the political motive, have led many people to begin searching through: (1) current CIA operatives; (2) who come from the era of Brennan; and (3) were previously assigned to the White House (NSC); and (4) then removed; and (5) then returned to the CIA.  That profile has led to suspicions of identity.

A strong possibility for the identity, a person who checks all the boxes of known attributes, follows a trail to Michael Barry.

Follow the link for more. 

"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.