The ‘Whistleblower’ Probably Isn’t
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Start with the initial headline, in the story the Washington Post “broke” on September 18th:
TRUMP’S COMMUNICATIONS WITH FOREIGN LEADER ARE PART OF WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT THAT SPURRED STANDOFF BETWEEN SPY CHIEF AND CONGRESS, FORMER OFFICIALS SAY
The unnamed person at the center of this story sure didn’t sound like a whistleblower. Our intelligence community wouldn’t wipe its ass with a real whistleblower.
Americans who’ve blown the whistle over serious offenses by the federal government either spend the rest of their lives overseas, like Edward Snowden, end up in jail, like Chelsea Manning , get arrested and ruined financially, like former NSA official Thomas Drake , have their homes raided by FBI like disabled NSA vet William Binney , or get charged with espionage like ex-CIA exposer-of-torture John Kiriakou . It’s an insult to all of these people, and the suffering they’ve weathered, to frame the ballcarrier in the Beltway’s latest partisan power contest as a whistleblower.
Drake, who was the first to expose the NSA’s secret surveillance program, seems to have fared better than most. He ended up working in an Apple Store , where he ran into Eric Holder, who was shopping for an iPhone.
I’ve met a lot of whistleblowers, in both the public and private sector. Many end up broke, living in hotels, defamed, (often) divorced, and lucky if they have any kind of job. One I knew got turned down for a waitressing job because her previous employer wouldn’t vouch for her. She had little kids.
The common thread in whistleblower stories is loneliness. Typically the employer has direct control over their ability to pursue another job in their profession. Many end up reviled as traitors, thieves, and liars. They often discover after going public that their loved ones have a limited appetite for sharing the ignominy. In virtually all cases, they end up having to start over, both personally and professionally.
With that in mind, let’s look at what we know about the first “whistleblower” in Ukrainegate:
- He or she is a “ CIA officer detailed to the White House ”;
- The account is at best partially based upon the CIA officer’s own experience, made up substantially by information from “more than a half dozen U.S. officials” and the “private accounts” of “my colleagues”;
- “He or she” was instantly celebrated as a whistleblower by news networks and major newspapers.
That last detail caught the eye of Kiriakou, a former CIA Counterterrorism official who blew the whistle on the agency’s torture program.
“It took me and my lawyers a full year to get [the media] to stop calling me ‘CIA Leaker John Kirakou,” he says. “That’s how long it took for me to be called a whistleblower.”
Kirakou’s crime was talking to ABC News and the New York Times about the CIA’s torture program. For talking to American journalists about the CIA, our federal government charged Kiriakou with espionage. That absurd count was ultimately dropped, but he still did 23 months at FCI Loretto in Western Pennsylvania.
When Kiriakou first saw the “whistleblower complaint,” his immediate reaction was to wonder what kind of “CIA officer” the person in question was. “If you spend a career in the CIA, you see all kinds of subterfuge and lies and crime,” he says. “This person went through a whole career and this is the thing he objects to?”
It’s fair to wonder if this is a one-person effort. Even former CIA official Robert Baer, no friend of Trump, said as much in an early confab on CNN with Brooke Baldwin:
BAER: That’s what I find remarkable, is that this whistleblower knew about that, this attempt to cover up. This is a couple of people. It isn’t just one.
BALDWIN: And on the people point, if the allegation is true, Bob, what does it say that White House officials, lawyers, wanted to cover it up?
BAER: You know, my guess, it’s a palace coup against Trump. And who knows what else they know at this point.
That sounds about right. Actual whistleblowers are alone. The Ukraine complaint seems to be the work of a group of people, supported by significant institutional power, not only in the intelligence community, but in the Democratic Party and the commercial press.
In this century we’ve lived through a president lying to get us into a war (that caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and the loss of trillions in public treasure), the deployment of a vast illegal surveillance program , a drone assassination campaign, rendition, torture, extralegal detention, and other offenses, many of them mass human rights violations.
We had whistleblowers telling us about nearly all of these things. When they came forward, they desperately needed society’s help. They didn’t get it. Our government didn’t just tweet threats at them, but proceeded straight to punishment.
Bill Binney, who lost both his legs to diabetes, was dragged out of his shower by FBI agents. Jeffrey Sterling, like Kiriakou, was charged with espionage for talking to a reporter . After conviction, he asked to be imprisoned near his wife in St. Louis. They sent him to Colorado for two years . Others tried to talk to congress or their Inspectors General, only to find out their communications had been captured and cc’ed to the very agency chiefs they wanted to complain about (including former CIA chief and current MSNBC contributor John Brennan).
The current “scandal” is a caricature version of such episodes. Imagine the mania on the airwaves if Donald Trump were to have his Justice Department arrest the “whistleblower” and charge him with 35 years of offenses , as Thomas Drake faced. Trump incidentally still might try something like this. It’s what any autocrat of the Mobute Sese Seko/Enver Hoxha school would do, for starters , to mutinying intelligence officials within his own government.
Trump almost certainly is not going to do that, however, as the man is too dumb to realize he’s the titular commander of an executive branch that has been jailing people for talking too much for over a decade. On the off chance that he does try it, don’t hold your breath waiting for news networks to tell you he’s just following an established pattern.
I have a lot of qualms about impeachment /“Ukrainegate,” beginning with this headline premise of the lone, conscience-stricken defender of democracy arrayed against the mighty Trump. I don’t see it. Donald Trump is a jackass who got elected basically by accident, campaigning against a political establishment too blind to its own unpopularity to see what was coming.
In 2016 we saw a pair of electoral revolts, one on the right and one on the left, against the cratering popularity of our political elite. The rightist populist revolt succeeded, the Sanders movement did not. Ukrainegate to me looks like a continuation of Russiagate, which was a reaction of that defeated political elite to the rightists. I don’t feel solidarity with either group.
The argument that’s supposed to be galvanizing everyone right now is the idea that we need to “stand up and be counted,” because failing to rally to the cause is effectively advocacy for Trump. This line of thinking is based on the presumption that Trump is clearly worse than the people opposing him.
That might prove to be true, but if we’re talking about the treatment of whistleblowers, Trump has a long way to go before he approaches the brutal record of the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, as well as the cheerleading Washington political establishment. Forgetting this is likely just the first in what will prove to be many deceptions about a hardcore insider political battle whose subtext is a lot more shadowy and ambiguous than news audiences are being led to believe.
By
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
79 visitors
I am not going to defend this article. It is a powerful argument coming oddly enough from - the left!
The one point he avoids talking about is the HUGE difference between these whistleblowers and the others he mentions and defends, the fact that the media did not get their information that there was a whistleblower from the whistleblower. Someone else leaked their existence to the media, the whistleblowers themselves apparently followed protocol in going through the chain of command. In virtually every example Matt Taibbi lists, they went to the media directly leaking their complaints after feeling the chain of command wasn't either listening or was actively quashing their complaints. Some of those listed above are likely the inspiration for the whistleblower protections that have been put in place today.
Its humorous to see you find common cause with Matt Taibi , who has been drifting off the charts left over the past few years.
I guess you will grasp any straw in the wind.
Yes, Ukrainegate (as it is being called) really is an overt intelligence operation against a sitting President. The intelligence effort is really all about protecting a coup that has already been accomplished. Trump is changing the geopolitical status quo and that threatens the power structure carefully created by the intelligence community. The intelligence community requires a compliant President that will obey the dictates imposed by geopolitical strategists still engaged in a Cold War that has been rebranded as the War on Terror.
The urgent concern of the intelligence agencies is that an accidental President (who has not been groomed into compliance) will utilize civilian government to pursue interests that are counter productive to established geopolitical strategy.
There is a distressing amount of conspiracy nonsense on this website, but I suppose that is the nature of some people attracted to internet forums.
Since when did CIA analysts become concerned with FEC violations? The allegation is that Trump used the Office of President to dig up dirt against Biden to be used by his reelection campaign. That's an FEC violation; it really doesn't have anything to do with national security.
No one has alleged that Trump required the CIA, FBI, or any other government agency to dig up dirt on Biden or to cover up any attempts to dig up dirt on Biden. Ukrainegate really isn't the same as Watergate.
And Trump attempting to coax an investigation of Biden based on unsubstantiated political dirt isn't any different than the basis for the Mueller investigation. Trump is engaged in a parody of the whole Russian collusion investigation. Trump's crime (if it is a crime) is using his position and status as President in a attempt to put together a dossier on Biden; that really is very similar to how the Steele dossier was created and used to coax investigations of Trump. And the role of Hunter Biden in the parody really isn't different than the role of Trump Jr. and Kushner as a justification for investigating Trump.
The intelligence agencies did play a role in the Russian collusion investigation against Trump. Now those same intelligence agencies are playing a role in Ukrainegate against Trump. Suggesting that as some sort of coincidence does require suspending disbelief.
The Steele Dossier was not commissioned by any US officeholder, let alone the president of the United States. If you dont see the difference there is no point in discussing it.
The Clinton campaign paid a private firm for oppo research on Trump. Included in the oppo research was the Steele Dossier information. Clinton did not order or direct the Steele Dossier in any way.
Trump, the most powerful person in the world, attempted to use his authority as president of the United States to demand information from a foreign government about his election opponent.
Is Rudy Giuliani a government employee?
And since when does a political campaign pay a political contractor without any direction or oversight? That's expecting us to suspend disbelief, once again.
That's the allegation. But Trump is also running a political campaign; Trump never suspended his campaign after the 2016 election. So, the crime (if there is a crime) is a violation of FEC regulations.
Candidates use their political connections in a number of ways to assist their campaigns. Expecting someone holding a political office to not engage in politics is another expectation to suspend disbelief.
People in office get in trouble when they use the power of their office to further their re-election campaigns and get in trouble if they so much as use federal stationary to mail out political campaign ads. Here we have the President withholding millions of dollars of congressionally approved aide in an attempt to coerce a foreign government to find dirt on his leading political opponent. That is far beyond misappropriating some stationary. While the stationary might be far more tangible, using threats to withhold money as leverage is a far more egregious abuse of power.
It is a waste of time to discuss this with you.
Unless the politicians are members of Congress. Members of Congress receive stipends to defray 'representational' costs. Remember Dianne Feinstein using the Kavanaugh confirmation to bolster her reelection?
Except that didn't happen; Ukraine really did get the money without having to do any digging. And remember that Joe Biden has bragged about withholding money to force the Ukrainian government to do what the US wanted. You really expect everyone to believe that political threat wasn't used as a reminder to garner future friendly gestures of cooperation by the Ukrainians?
Biden sent a clear message, don't bite the hand that feeds you. And the hands feeding the Ukrainians are the intelligence agencies of the United States. Without support of the intelligence agencies, it is unlikely the United States would be spending money on Ukraine.
I suppose a dog whistle does technically require a whistle blower.
Other than you, who's calling it that? Links please.
Didn't read the seeded article, did you?
Yes, but it takes more than 1 person.
Yeah, that's about where I'm at on this story. Sure, Trump grasps about at things in ways that aren't always justified and pursues his goals in ways that are politically sloppy, but that doesn't mean we need to expel him from the White House. The idea that a whistle even needed to be blown over this is a stretch. We're not talking about secret documents or black ops activity.
This conversation was probably always going to be accessible to the public and if anything came of a Ukrainian investigation, the genesis of that investigation wouldn't remain a mystery. In fact, Democrats who acted like Trump was hiding something are probably pretty pissed that he immediately released a transcript of the conversation. This is a lot of screaming at the sky over a coverup that isn't happening.
Trump released it because a congressional committee was going to get it through the Inspector General and Trump wanted to try and look like it was his idea.
I dont think Democrats minded him releasing it at all. It is extremely damaging to him and he was forced to essentially admit his own guilt.
McConnell apparently encouraged him to release it. Part of me wonders whether McConnell did that to troll Trump ... he had to have known it didn't exonerate Trump, as Trump claims.
The real transcripts of the Ukraine call and others are probably coming and will be like the Nixon tapes, which revealed Nixon to be a pretty petty potty mouthed mean individual. Certainly not enough to impeach him, but Nixon's WH, like the current one, went way overboard trying to cover up. It's always the coverup & lies. Same with Clinton's cover up & impeachment.
So the conspiracy now is that President Trump released a fake transcript of the Ukraine call? Alrighty then. I think you spend to much time reading JR's seeds.
No one said it was a "fake transcript" but they admitted that it was edited for release and is not the complete transcript.
Right there near the top of the released transcript it states:
" CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion . The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place."
"Independent Senator King told CNN host Anderson Cooper Tuesday that he and his staff had reconstructed the call using the memo, determining that more than two thirds of the call time was unaccounted for."
So no one is saying it's a fake, it's just an incomplete recreation that does not represent a word for word phone call.
The real transcripts of the Ukraine call
The real transcripts of the Ukraine call
The real transcripts of the Ukraine call
I posted what SP said three times so you can have three chances of spinning what he said.
Trump resists document requests (tax returns anyone?) and other congressional requests all the time. You really think if the White House was that worried about this phone call that they would have just released it without a fight?
It hasn't damaged at all, much less "extremely" so. The reaction of many people has been basically, "that's it?" Meanwhile, he's still president, we don't even have official impeachment proceedings in the House, and there is no indication that it has changed anybody's thinking in the Senate regarding conviction of impeachment.
But it does include the part that Democrats claim is so damaging, so the White House clearly wasn't trying to cover that part up.
It's not "spin" to accurately point out that when someone says "The real transcripts" they are not necessarily calling the existing transcripts "fake". When you get a summation of a conversation it's not that they lied or any of the summation was false, but it's not the "real" word for word "transcripts" are they? No, they are exactly what the administration said it was on page one of the transcript "A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion."
No spin needed, just facts.
Actually, many of the potential gaps exist right where that damaging information is, so until we see the entire transcript, we won't know if there is more damaging stuff.
how do you know this...
without seeing the whole damn thing ?
Like what?
Doesn't it seem a little unfair that we should assume the worst in an investigation of Trump, but inquiring into Biden's behavior as VP is somehow beyond the pale?
Their behavior speaks to their intent. They released something knowing Democrats would scandalize it. No court battle. No insistence on official procedures or anything. They willingly released stuff they knew could cause them problems.
It's likely that anything left out is probably something classified like discussion of anti-Russia strategies.
Who's assuming the worst? I merely commented that until we see the entire transcript, we don't know whether or not there is more damaging stuff.
Trump asking the Ukraine to investigate Biden is wrong on all levels, and you should know that. But then, Trump has constantly tried to abuse his power to investigate his political rivals; even some of the GOP have agreed that this was clearly political on Trump's part. I'm sorry if you have so little respect for our country that you somehow think this is OK.
Yeah I seen this spin on Rachel Madcow the other night while she slobbered all over herself building up the suspense for the easily fooled. It does not represent word for word but also it does not omit the context of the call. Not being word for word doesn't mean what the left is getting there panties in a bunch hoping it means. They may have missed simple words as they scribed the call, they didn't omit Trump telling The Ukraine President that if he doesn't get dirt on Biden he is withholding money.
and Trumps behavior doesn't speak of HIS INTENT...?
You're absolutely right, they did not omit that part, that was right there in the text of the call when Trump immediately asks for "a favor" "though" after the Ukrainian President asks for military equipment and weapons contracts.
[Removed]
Where did he say that? Your fantasies don't count.
I'm sorry you can't have a conversation with me without attacking me personally. I was going to respond to the other things you wrote, but this changed my mind. Have a nice day.
" We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United· States for defense purposes." - Zelenskyy
" I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike. I guess you have one of your weal thy people. The server, they say Ukraine has it, there are a lot . of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you' re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you said yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible ." - DJT
"Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier." - Zelenskyy
One paragraph of Zelenskyy metaphorically tongue cleaning Trumps balls with things like " just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) and "We are great friends and you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership", later...
" The former ambassador from the United States, the woman was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that the other thing , There's a lot talk about Biden's son,. That Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great . Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me." - DJT
" I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all, I understand arid I'm knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament , the next prosecutor .general will be 100% my person , my candidate , who will be approved, by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look . into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue."
Yeah?
So where is Trump threatening to withhold from Ukraine unless they get dirt on bidden? Oh yeah right I forgot we need the "real" transcripts.
I noticed you left out everything Zelenskyy said. before hand.
I'll have to dummy down and watch Rachel slobber all over herself tonight, Maybe she has that breaking revelations your trying to say is there.
Whistle"Blowers"
:
4 Whistle"Blowers" worked against the country (so it was said). Name put in "Bright" lights. Jailed !
1, maybe 2 Whistle'Blowers" , working for Our own Government against a President of the United States. Superduper secret Un-named. Protected !
Weird !
You've got it backwards. Our President is working against our own government.
Ours is a system of checks and balances, and one of Congress' official duties is oversight of the Executive Branch. Why are you so upset about people actually doing their jobs, rather than allowing the president to act like a dictator?
You sure seem worried about our Old "Corrupt" Dinosaur government these days.
When one comes out of government service as a big money "Aire", instead of going in as a big money "Aire", It Kinda makes one wonder why you wouldn't be more "Verklempt" about that.
Been that way for decades now. Pre-Trump, if that helps understand !
Why aren't you so upset about people actually NOT doing their jobs ?
They weren't elected to constantly hold hearings on themselves. It Makes them look like "Selfish Little Bi-partisan whiney People" !