UPDATED: Arrests Monday! Or Maybe Tuesday! Or ...

So Lindsey Graham went on with Judge Jeanine last night, and here's what he had to say:

LINDSEY GRAHAM: The Russia investigation, what happened? Half the people behind the Russia investigation are gonna go to jail and Trump was cleared. Hang tight! They come after Trump on Ukraine, and BIDEN blows up! So every time they throw a rock at Trump, THEY get hit. 

So here's what we should look at. Why did the State Department not act when they were told about the conflict of interest with Hunter Biden regarding the Ukraine, right? Who was the "whistleblower"? Does he have contacts on Schiff's staff? Did Colonel Vindman leak information to the "whistleblower"? And as to the FISA warrant, how could you sign the warrant four times and not know the whole thing was off the rails? That's where I come in. 

JUDGE JEANINE: OK, so you're gonna do something. Cuz even the head of the FISA court said it was wrong ... 

LINDSEY GRAHAM: Stay tuned. 

JUDGE JEANINE: ... it was not predicated on probable cause. You know the whole thing. So you're gonna do something. Wanna tell us what you're gonna do? 

LINDSEY GRAHAM: Yeah, I'm gonna give a list of witnesses to the Department of Justice that I wanna call. It's gonna be the Case Agent. I wanna find out how this thing got so screwed up. Why didn't they tell about the Russian source who said, 'The dossier's not reliable,' how could it be possible that it never goes up to the top [to Loretta Lynch]? I don't believe--I wanna know what Obama knew about this investigation. I wanna call Rosenstein, Sally Yates, Comey and McCabe, and all the people who worked on this case to find out how it got so off the rails and make sure it never happens again. And I wanna know who in the White House knew about this counterintelligence investigation against the Republican nominee.

Sounds good! Call the case agent, Rosenstein, Sally Yates, Comey and McCabe, and all the people who worked on the Russia Hoax. Where was Loretta during all this? Shoot, call Obama, too!

Investigate Eric Ciaramella?

Paul Sperry has an interesting take:

Despite making noises of investigating the whistleblower, SSCI Chair Burr wont follow thru, will continue to be coopted by Warner. Trump will have to leverage McConnell to push Burr off SSCI. McConnell is facing reelection vs a Marine w big war chest. He needs Trump & his rallies

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) February 6, 2020

Of Whistleblowers And The Office Of Net Assessment

During the past month I've twice written about DoD's Office of Net Assessment (ONA). These mentions have been in the overall context of the Michael Flynn aspect of the Russia Hoax. It's long been known that Stefan Halper, the CIA/FBI operative who was used to smear Michael Flynn as a Russian agent with false accusations that Flynn had had an affair with a Russian emigre professor in England, has had a relationship with ONA. Those who follow intel matters have also had ONA on their radar for a number of years. What really shook things loose was the bombshell that Sidney Powell, Flynn's attorney, set off in one of her recent filings, which I quoted in Can't Recommend Highly Enough:

Stefan Halper is a known long-time operative for the CIA/FBI. He was paid exorbitant sums by the FBI/CIA/DOD through the Department of Defense Department’s Office of Net Assessment in 2016. His tasks seem to have included slandering Mr. Flynn with accusations of having an affair with a young professor (a British national of Russian descent) Flynn met at an official dinner at Cambridge University when he was head of DIA in 2014. Flynn has requested the records of Col. James Baker because he was Halper’s ‘handler’ in the Office of Net Assessment in the Pentagon, and ONA Director Baker regularly lunched with Washington Post Reporter David Ignatius. Baker is believed to be the person who illegally leaked the transcript of Mr. Flynn’s calls to Ignatius. The defense has requested the phone records of James Clapper to confirm his contacts with Washington Post reporter Ignatius—especially on January 10, 2017, when Clapper told Ignatius in words to the effect of ‘take the kill shot on Flynn.’ It cannot escape mention that the press has long had transcripts of the Kislyak calls that the government has denied to the defense.

The Col. James Baker in question here is James H. Baker--not the James A. Baker who was General Counsel for the FBI under disgraced former FBI Director James Comey. In the linked blog I provide a link to an article by Margot Cleveland that provides all the detail you could desire regarding the whole sordid plot to smear and frame both Flynn and the Russian professor--Svetlana Lokhova. You've no doubt read about it, but Cleveland's article is a handy reference. I concluded my blog:

So, David Ignatius at WaPo has been completely exposed [by Sidney Powell] as a Deep State operative. Next question: Who are the other journos who will be exposed? We need to know all of that.

ADDENDUM: Nothing could be more clear at this point than this: The Russia Hoax never could have happened without massive, near total, complicity on the part of the MSM with the Deep State of federal Intel-related agencies. NYT, WaPo, CNN, DoS, CIA, FBI, DoJ, NSC--that's a beginning of your Russia Hoax alphabet soup. And of course we can now add in SSCI and assorted other Congressional actors as well as the top levels of the military--especially including McMaster.

Hatchet job? Barr needs a chain saw.

More recently in Looks Like Durham's Doing A Deep Dive On The Deep State I looked at reports that John Durham's interest in Stefan Halper has apparently led him to target ONA:

Confirmed: Mr. Vindman Is The "Whistleblower"

The sourcing seems impeccable. If Schumer says so, who would know better? After all, he could have called him a witness.

That's Lt. Colonel whistleblower.
Please address him with respect. https://t.co/CuhhfxgIWg

— Rising serpent (@rising_serpent) November 23, 2019

The FBI Has Sought To Interview Eric Ciaramella

This story comes via Yahoo, and the details are somewhat sketchy. The article stresses supposed internal debates at the FBI and suggests there was support for the idea that Ciaramella's complaint raised important issues: FBI seeks interview with CIA whistleblower. Whatever the nature of any internal debate, the FBI did reach out to Ciaramella but, obviously, since he's represented by Mark Zaid any such interview is unlikely. I would add that it's unlikely that the FBI would seek such an interview without having done significant background investigation on Ciaramella. The article specifically disclaims any knowledge re the scope of the intended interview and investigation. Excerpts below. Some of these statements are subject to more than one interpretation. Without knowing who the "former senior official" is it's difficult to judge. There are several former FBI officials who have adopted a clearly propagandistic stance in the Russia Hoax and related matters:

WASHINGTON — The FBI recently sought to question the CIA whistleblower who filed a complaint over President Trump’s July 25 Ukraine call — a move that came after a vigorous internal debate within the bureau over how to respond to some of the issues raised by the complaint’s allegations and whether they needed to be more thoroughly investigated, according to sources familiar with the matter. 

McCarthy: Trump impeachment inquiry obstructed by Democrats

Andy McCarthy has an excellently concise explanation of the way in which the whole "whistleblower" charade dishonestly and illegally--if the Impeachment Theater were an actual legal proceeding--obstructs the inquiry. You can read the whole thing: Trump impeachment inquiry obstructed by Democrats' 'whistleblower' secrecy charade. All this has to do with the supposed need to hide the identity of Eric Ciaramella, the putative author of the complaint against Trump.

I'll slightly rearrange McCarthy's argument a bit to hopefully help bring out the essentials.

First of all, we all know that Eric Ciaramella is not, in fact, an individual who is covered by the "Whistleblower Act".

Secondly, even if Ciaramella did qualify as a whistleblower, the Act does not provide for hiding a whistleblower's identity. What the Act does is protect individuals from reprisals for revealing information that may be embarrassing or incriminating.

Thirdly, it is a fundamental principle of our constitutional order, enshrined in the 6th Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, that due process of law requires that an accused person be allowed to confront his accusers and not be tried on the word of anonymous persons. Even if the "Whistleblower Act" purported to change that--it would be unconstitutional. In other words, "who we are as Americans" (the phrase so hypocritically used by liberals) forbids that we stage show trials without presenting witnesses to the actual events and facts that are at issue. Nor do we allow hearsay, generally--the facts must be vouched for by identified persons with firsthand knowledge who can be subjected to examination by the defense.

With these facts and principles firmly in mind, McCarthy provides a lucid account of what's been going on with Impeachment Theater--and how fundamentally and outrageously wrong it is:

Stalin Would Be Proud of Schiff

"Stalin Would Be Proud" is the title of a very good post at The Gateway Pundit. What TGP is referring to is Adam Schiff's 6 page memo on proper decorum in a Kangaroo Court. Specifically, Schiff is obliquely demanding that Eric Ciaramella not be mentioned by name, under pain of an ethics violation complaint. Here's the relevant portion of the memo:

Whistleblower Protection and Confidentiality. The Committee has a long, proud, and bipartisan history of protecting whistleblowers—including from efforts to threaten, intimidate, retaliate against, or undermine the confidentiality of whistleblowers. 

Among other authorities, the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2010 and the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act include procedures for Intelligence Community personnel to make protected disclosures to inspectors general across the Intelligence Community and to the congressional intelligence committees. Among other things, Intelligence Community personnel are shielded from any action constituting reprisal or the threat of reprisal for making disclosures in accordance with these procedures. 

The statutory framework also prevents obstruction of lawful communications by federal employees with Congress, and of congressional proceedings. And, as mentioned above, the Code of Official Conduct for Members of Congress requires that every Member “shall behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.” The Committee on Ethics has historically viewed this provision as “encompassing violations of law and abuses of one’s official position.”

Notice two things.

In the first paragraph Schiff attempts to put across the idea that it's somehow a bad thing to "undermine the confidentiality of whistleblowers"--on a par with threatening, intimidating, or retaliating against them.

But in the very next paragraph he, um, undermines that attempted subterfuge by plainly and accurately stating that the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2010 and the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act only shields whistleblowers from "any action constituting reprisal or the threat of reprisal for making disclosures."

Is mentioning a whistleblowers name a reprisal or threat? No. It's not. And Schiff doesn't dare make that bald assertion.

And, in fact, Eric Ciaramella isn't even a whistleblower, as defined by statute. As TGP concludes:

Stalin would sure be proud of Adam Schiff and his Soviet-style impeachment coup against Trump.

If the Republican members have even a single hair on their collective ass, each and every one of them will repeatedly mention Eric Ciaramella by name. Repeatedly and insistently. Every single one of them.

Is the USA now a banana republic or what?

It seems ludicrous that in an open society ...

That's how NeverTrump Paul Mirengoff begins his lament--Let’s hear from the whistleblower. He's happy enough having Trump impeached after every other effort to thwart him has collapsed, but he wants it done fairly:

It seems ludicrous that in an open society, a president could be impeached and possibly removed through a process that begins with a report by a bureaucrat whose identity is never formally revealed and who is immune from examination. After all, the impeachment process is an attempt to override the decision of the electorate as to who shall be president. It should not be undertaken, and certainly not consummated, without the fullest, most open process, including the possibility of investigating the origins of the process.

But isn't that what we've learned from the entire Trump episode in our political history? Isn't characterizing ours as "an open society" precisely begging the question? Hasn't it all been an effort at suppressing facts and substituting narrative?

MAJORLY UPDATED: Mark Zaid Linked To Epstein (Who Didn't Kill Himself)

Well! A shared interest in underage girls, judging from Zaid's social media. And Liberal politics. What other Dems is Zaid close to?

2. and what do you make of this?
Eric Ciaremella's attorney Mark Zaid bragging friendship with Epstein.
is the Mark Zaid name on the Flight logs of Epstein's Lolita Express?
and the Adam Schiff name?
Bill Clinton and Hitlary - we already know

disgusting. pic.twitter.com/C5kHHQYW6R

— Greg Rubini (@GregRubini) November 8, 2019

UPDATE: This "update" is a bit of a retrospective, digging up past blogging. Inquiring minds should find it rather fascinating that a "prominent national security lawyer" (a standard characterization of Zaid) was also a longtime lawyer for Epstein, and that Alex Acosta said he was warned off prosecuting Epstein for "intel" reasons.

From July, 2019:

Sean Davis Slam Dunks The Intel Community IG

UPDATE: As commenter Yancey promptly pointed out, this article is a month old--October 1, 2019. I got it from a link and failed to note the date. But it's good stuff, so I'm leaving it up.

------------------------------

Sean Davis of The Federalist has an outstanding take down of the whole process whereby Eric Ciaramella's bogus complaint was peddled to the public as "whistleblower" evidence of Trump wrongdoing:

Intel Community Admission Of Whistleblower Changes Raises Explosive New Questions

In a press release issued late Monday, the intelligence community inspector general admitted it changed its policy and its whistleblower form after an anti-Trump complainant alleged that Trump broke the law during a phone call with the Ukrainian president.

It's pretty dense, so to do justice to it I'd have to paste in the whole thing. I'll simply select what are "theme sentences" (with a few exceptions) to show the overall trajectory of Davis' reporting.

On Monday, the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) admitted that it did alter its forms and policies governing whistleblower complaints, and that it did so in response to the anti-Trump complaint filed on Aug. 12, 2019. ... 

The ICIG also disclosed for the first time that the anti-Trump complainant filed his complaint using the previously authorized form, the guidance for which explicitly stated the ICIG’s previous requirement for firsthand evidence for credible complaints. ... 

... 

The ICIG’s claim that it would have been incorrect to perceive a requirement for firsthand information is bizarre considering the previous version of the form clearly stated in unambiguous language that firsthand evidence was required in order for “urgent concern” whistleblower complaints to be deemed credible. It said, in bold, underlined, all-caps text, “FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED”:

Because the complaint did not allege wrongdoing against a member of the intelligence community (the president of the United States is an elected constitutional officer, not an employee of a statutory agency), did not allege wrongdoing with regard to an intelligence activity (a phone call between two elected world leaders is basic diplomacy, not the execution of a statutorily required intelligence activity), and relied primarily on hearsay rather than firsthand evidence, both the director of national intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel determined that the anti-Trump complaint was not an “urgent concern” under the law and was therefore not required to be transmitted to the relevant congressional committees. In spite of those determinations, the ICIG on its own and after revising its internal guidance and policies regarding firsthand evidence decided the complaint did qualify as an “urgent concern” and forwarded the anti-Trump complaint to Congress. 

Ciaramella Scrubbed Social Media In Prep For Starring Role

Paul Sperry notes today that Eric Ciaramella, the Deep State operative posing as a "whistleblower," scrubbed his social media in preparation for his role in Adam Schiff's ongoing Impeachment Theater:

BREAKING: Eric Ciaramella's Internet footprint--including photos & bios--began to be scrubbed beginning in early Sept, after the National Intelligence director transmitted whistleblower letter to Congress,like the digital tracks of Dems' other"whistleblower" Christine Blasey Ford

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) November 7, 2019

Monica Showalter has a nice discussion of this scrubbing phenomenon among public spirited leftists:

These things take time and organization. They also signal that far-left radicals know that their Internet past stinks. They're loaded with things that would discredit them if they were found out - things such as talk of violence, talk of Trump-hate, and crazy socialist dictator worship. They want to portray themselves as Little Miss Muffets, so scrub a dub dub... 

One wonders if Congress is ever going to get a chance to ask young Eric why those social media posts disappeared and who told him to do it. 

One suspects the answer would be interesting. One also notes that suddenly, Ciaramella doesn't want to testify to Congress.

I have no idea why Showalter brings up "Little Miss Muffets" in connection with social media scrubbing. However OANN recently attempted, unsuccessfully, to contact Ciaramella, both at his parents' home in CT as well as at Ciaramella's digs in Dupont Circle. So, no luck getting an explanation for the scrubbing from the horse's mouth.

UPDATED: More On Who "We" Are

It seems that "whistleblower" attorney is a deeply weird individual. Per Zerohedge:

Is 'Whistleblower' Attorney Into 'Disney Girls' And Visiting Amusement Parks Alone?

The answer appears to be: Yes!

UPDATE:

Why would the whistleblower’s lawyer brag about this? https://t.co/R8Wz9s81FL

— Arthur Schwartz (@ArthurSchwartz) November 8, 2019

UPDATED: Who Is "We"?

Not at all surprising--just confirmatory. Date of the tweet is a bit small, but it's July 1, 2017:

Interesting that the anti-Trump complainant's lawyer (not the one who worked for Clinton or Schumer--that's a different one!) vowed to "get rid" of Trump ahead of his client secretly coordinating with House Democrats to go after Trump. https://t.co/uxO4k3Zopx pic.twitter.com/hAIdyERzlO

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) November 6, 2019

UPDATE: "Coup has started":

#coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately. #lawyers https://t.co/FiNBQo6v0S

— Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq) January 31, 2017

Ukraine Convergences: Financial And Policy Interests

It seems very clear to me that, beyond Trump himself, the Ukraine Hoax is all about policy differences. And by policy differences I mean mostly MONEY. There are lunatics out there like John Bolton who believe the stuff they peddle, but the bottom line for the politicians is that Ukraine is a code for MONEY. Follow it and you'll understand. And look for George Soros' hand behind this, too. Well, that's MONEY as well.

I prefer to offer opinion, rather than retransmitting facts, but we're in a slow stretch. So I offer this twitter thread. Basically it identifies attendees at a White House dinner in October, 2016. Now, mere attendance at such a dinner doesn't mean everyone in attendance is on a first name basis with everyone else. Nor do we know everyone else who may have been in attendance. There are clearly outliers from the Ukraine Hoax. Leonardo DiCaprio?

Nevertheless, if you look for an intersection of two groups--those with financial/campaign connections to Ukraine and those with policy preferences re Ukraine that diverge from Trump's--you will find a remarkable convergence. And when people have a convergence of interests they tend to talk to one another. And sometimes to plot with one another when they also have a common enemy.

Who that's named had financial ties to Ukraine? One way or another, sometimes through close family ties, we can certainly name Biden, Pelosi, Kerry, the Podesta brothers. Those with decided pro-Ukraine policy views would include Ciaramella, Misko, Grace, Kupchan.

And then you have the congenital plotters: Brennan, Comey, Clapper. It's quite a mix. Keep those names in mind.


Follow the link for photos:

Greg Rubini@GregRubini 

 1. imagine if at a dinner in Washington DC, in Oct 2016, you had: - John Brennan, Director of the CIA - Susan Rice, Obama's Nat. Security Adviser together with Eric Ciaramella - the Adam Schiff 'whistleblower'...

 [THREAD] please retweet .

 2. imagine if at that dinner in Washington DC there were also: - Joe Biden - Nancy Pelosi - John Kerry - Obama's Secretary of State - Loretta Lynch - Obama's Attorney General

 3. imagine if at that dinner in Washington DC there were also: - John Podesta - Tony Podesta - Valerie Jarrett (obama's nanny) - Samantha Powers - Leonardo DiCaprio (???)

Who Is Eric Ciaramella?

This morning in a comment, Mike Sylwester linked to a blog at American Thinker that discussed possible "whistleblower" candidates: Who is the whistleblower? Eric Ciaramella is the third candidate discussed. There's some shocking material available about Ciaramella, who was a Susan Rice protege and was brought into the White House by H. R. McMaster, a truly disastrous appointment. Of course I have no idea whether Ciaramella is Sammy #1. I merely offer here some material re Ciaramella to show what Trump has been up against throughout his first term. These are excerpts only--the portions that pertain to Ciaramella--of longer blogs:

Ciaramella was involved in 2016 correspondence about $1 billion loan guarantee which Biden had held up, pending firing of prosecutor Viktor Shokin. Ciaramella associate of Clintonista neocon Victoria Nuland, whose name turns up too often, even re Steelehttps://t.co/vmkWBdjKU5

— Stephen McIntyre (@ClimateAudit) 

Trump’s reshuffle: the McMaster Chronicles — Part 2

On May 15, Alex Jones and Roger Stone wondered if McMaster was leaking information to save his job. Jones tweeted:

Mc Master Caught Leaking to Make Himself Indespensible

On June 11, Cernovich posted again on Medium. The Right News has a copy (emphasis mine):

Meet Eric Ciaramella — H.R. McMaster Appoints Susan Rice Ally to be his Personal Aide

This is an explosive article, excerpted below (emphases in the original):

Full Text Of Sammy The "Whistleblower's" Memo

Below is the full text of Sammy One the "whistleblower's" memo, in which Sammy records for posterity--or at least for Dem congress critters--the conversation he had with Sammy Two, a White House official who claims to have been present during President Trump's phone conversation with President Zelensky. The text was provided to CBS News. CBS doesn't provide any clue as to how they obtained this text, but makes the extraordinary (and unsupported) claim that:

The whistleblower's summary of the White House official's account of the call largely comports with the call record released by the White House, though some details are missing.

My impression, from a comparison with the actual call transcript, is that the memo is very tendentious. It definitely cannot be said, without serious qualification to "comport with" the call transcript.

For example, the claim is made that the call was "completely lacking in substance related to national security." OK. Supposing that to be the case, must phone calls between heads of state always involve "national security?" Moreover, "national security" is susceptible of broad interpretation. Might not the integrity of our elections, especially when foreign money is involved, be a national security concern? I believe so.

The president is said to have asked Ukrainian authorities to "investigate his political rivals, chiefly former Vice President Biden and his son, Hunter." "Rivals" is plural, yet only one such rival is mentioned in the transcript: Joe Biden. Hunter Biden is not a political rival--just a sleaze. Further, the notion that political rivals of a president are somehow ipso facto immune from investigation is extraordinary--and stupid. But this characterization of the conversation is readily seen from the transcript to be tendentious in the extreme, to the point of outright misrepresentation.

The claim that Trump asked Zelenskyy to meet with Giuliani and that Zelenskyy "reluctantly agreed" is a clear falsehood. Zelenskyy introduced and repeately pushed the idea of talking to Giuliani. Also false is the claim that Zelenskyy "demurred ... to most of the president's requests."

The clear takeaway is that Sammy Two is unreliable as a source of actual information, and probably a liar.

DiGenova: Sammy The Whistleblower Worked With Fusion GPS, And More

Joe diGenova appeared with Rudy Giuliani on Laura Ingraham's show. There was a variety of interesting chit chat, but the most interesting part was what diGenova said "Everybody knows." I'll just paraphrase here, but it's as close to literal as doesn't really matter. This topic arose in the context of Byron York's disclosure yesterday that Sammy had a professional relationship with one of the 2020 Dem candidates. So,

Everybody knows that Sammy

1) Worked with Fusion GPS, and

2) Worked with a former FBI agent.

Everybody also knows that Sammy didn't write the complaint and that the complaint was actually written by political consultants connected with the DNC.

Lawyers also know that IG Michael Atkinson "is a moron. He got slapped down so bad by the Office of Legal Counsel."

Laura says that even a liberal outfit like Axios defended Byron York's reporting on the 2020 candidate connection which means, she says, "We're gonna learn a lot more." To which diGenova responds, with a very broad smile, "It's gonna get a lot worse."

Giuliani also points out that the "whistleblower" law firm was offering bribes to get people to "come forward", i.e., to make up stories. The bribes were in the form of help with mortgages, etc.

DiGenova gets in a great line re Adam Schiff's nonsensical notions of "obstruction": "If it weren't for double standards Democrats wouldn't have any standards at all."

Amid general laughter at Schiff, Giuliani adds, "It'd be really funny if they weren't trashing our Constitution, and that has repercussions."

Laura closes with the simple factual assertion that the Dems are "trying to paralyze the country." It's the only way they can come up with to try to stop Trump from doing the job he was elected to do.

She then turns to diGenova and asks: "Joe, how confident are you that in the next couple weeks we're gonna know a lot more, from Horowitz, Durham, and the rest?"

DiGenova, with an ear to ear grin, responds: "This is gonna be a bang-bang couple of weeks," and then breaks into laughter.

Buckle up!

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.

IG Atkinson: Sammy One Worked For Prominent Dem Politico

Yeah, that's what Fox is reporting. Schiff isn't putting out a transcript, but Atkinson's testimony is gradually leaking. And this is big--you can see why GOP Reps are outraged that the Dems are trying to keep this under wraps and that Sammy One the "whistleblower" needs to be kept incognito:

Sources further have told Fox News that Atkinson revealed the whistleblower volunteered he or she was a registered Democrat and had a prior working relationship with a prominent Democratic politician. Attorneys for the whistleblower at the firm Compass Rose did not respond to requests for comment on this work history or on the lack of disclosure about the contact with Schiff's office.

Link to the story: IG could not explain 18-day window between Ukraine call and whistleblower complaint: sources.

Worst Possible Choice Of A Lawyer For A Whistleblower

A correspondent whom I'll call Incognito Emailer sent me a link to an article by John Kiriakou, a CIA whistleblower, as it happens. This is Kiriakou:

John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act—a law designed to punish spies. He served 23 months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration’s torture program.

Kiriakou writes at Consortium News regarding the RumorBlower's choice of legal representation--Mark Zaid: What was this CIA Officer Thinking? Money quote:

"Zaid is literally the worst possible choice for any whistleblower in national security ... impulsive, unnecessarily confrontational and untrustworthy."

That sounds promising.