Former CIA official on whistleblower: ‘How could this be an intelligence matter?’
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Fred Fleitz, president of the Center for Security Policy, served in 2018 as deputy assistant to the president and to the chief of staff of the National Security Council. He previously held national-security jobs with the CIA, the DIA, the Department of State, and the House Intelligence Committee staff. He remarks on the whistleblower complaint.
I am troubled by the complaint and wonder how an intelligence officer could file it over something a president said to a foreign leader. How could this be an intelligence matter?
It appears likely to me that this so-called whistleblower was pursuing a political agenda.
I am very familiar with transcripts of presidential phone calls since I edited and processed dozens of them when I worked for the NSC. I also know a lot about intelligence whistleblowers from my time with the CIA.
My suspicions grew this morning when I saw the declassified whistleblowing complaint . It appears to be written by a law professor and includes legal references and detailed footnotes. It also has an unusual legalistic reference on how this complaint should be classified.
From my experience, such an extremely polished whistleblowing complaint is unheard of. This document looks as if this leaker had outside help, possibly from congressional members or staff.
Moreover, it looks like more than a coincidence that this complaint surfaced and was directed to the House Intelligence Committee just after Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), an outspoken opponent of President Trump, expressed numerous complaints in August 2019 accusing President Trump of abusing aid to Ukraine to hurt Joe Biden. This includes an August 28 tweet that closely resembled the whistleblowing complaint.
House Republicans need to ask the whistleblower under oath whether he spoke to the press or Congress about his complaint.
Also very concerning to me is how the complaint indicates intelligence officers and possibly other federal employees are violating the rules governing presidential phone calls with foreign leaders.
The content and transcripts of these calls are highly restricted. The whistleblower makes clear in his complaint that he did not listen to a call in question, nor did he read the transcript — he was told about the call by others. If true, intelligence officers have grossly violated the rules as well as the trust placed on them to protect this sensitive information.
I refuse to believe that the leaking, timing and presentation of this complaint is coincidence. I don’t think the American people will buy this either.
I’m more worried, however, that this latest instance of blatant politicization of intelligence by Trump haters will do long term damage to the relationship between the intelligence community and US presidents for many years to come.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
72 visitors
Yesterday with the media spotlight focused on the House Intelligence hearing, Chairman Schiff gave his own version of the Whistleblower report. Schiff embellished and gave the non-informed viewer the perception that the President had tied aid to an investigation of Joe Biden and then tried to hide it. When called on it by another committee member, Schiff said that he was making a "parody" out of the WB report! He went on to call the acting DNI's actions and judgement into question. When the ranking member called Schiff on that, Schiff responded that he wasn't trying to denigrate the acting director!
If the facts were so damning why wasn't Schiff able to simply read from the phone conversation transcript or the WB account?
The truth is that there was no quid pro quo and the President did turn over all the records of the call as well as the WB's 2nd hand unverified allegations.
He had to let everyone hear the Damning evidence he keeps promising !
What a kindergarten "Clown" shifty is !
They are going to use their two week recess to try and sell it to the American public, just like they tried to sell the Russia hoax. The media will help as usual. If the polls show that Americans still don't want impeachment they lose everything.
Guaranteed !
They wouldn't want to actually go about this on their own ........ since the evidence is soooo damning.
I'm strongly of the opinion that if you are going to impeach a president, that you do it because you believe it's the correct course of action and not because of an opinion poll. IMO politics should not be part of this.
But we both know that politics is all this is about. The left has been pushing impeachment since before Trump took the oath of office. And we both know that the left will continue to beat this drum all thru the 2020 elections because it's the only arrow in their quiver. They really don't seem to have anything else to use to beat Trump with except how much they hate him. But Pelosi won't take a vote on starting the impeachment inquiry because of politics, she needs to provide cover to the democrats who are in danger of losing re-election to republicans. If they don't take a vote then the individual is not on record, it's only the "democrats" who are pushing it. So the individual can hide behind that as cover for their re-election.
At least they talked about doing it for a few years
…… The Lemmings go wild ! 
She had a meeting with the freshmen democrats yesterday because they want guidance.They were given the talking points etc. Today the radical Rashida Tlaib held an impeachment rally (a tiny group) in front of the Capitol building, laced with profanities and smears. That should have been broadcast into America's homes. Hopefully the RNC will use it as a campaign commercial.
The problem for the Democrats is that most citizens have no confidence or trust in them and dislike what they are trying to do to Trump.
First of all, Trump called it spying so that makes it an intelligence matter. Second, if i were to blow the whistle I would first consult an attorney. That only makes sense to me. Third, while there isn't exactly quid pro quo in the transcript, there is certainly a quid and a quo and the pro is strongly implied. I haven't supported impeachment before because most of the allegations in the Mueller report came from Trump's refusal to cooperate with the investigators not the actual intent of the investigation. Kind of like when Republicans impeached Clinton, not for getting a blow job, but for lying to Congress about it. This is a whole new crime and it's a serious one.
Remember, this whistleblower is using second and third hand hearsay information. Unless those he talked with are willing to come forward to verify, and back the story,- the whistleblower is SOL. The transcripts don't prove his accusations.
So far it is just more partisan BS. It just depends on which side of the political spectrum you fall on as to who to believe.
Frankly the Dems have shot themselves in the foot so many times with the "impeach Trump" BS- even before he took office; that I don't believe a single damn thing they put forward anymore. This whisteblower is just the latest attempt of them working the system. Pelosi is just pissed that she couldn't spring this closer to elections. Even if the Dems somehow manage to impeach Trump; the Republicans will have plenty of time to find a new candidate now.
Given how mad the center and right is now; that doesn't bode well for the Democrats chances. Even if they manage to take the WH expect full retaliation from the Republicans in Congress. Their constituents will be demanding blood for blood. Given the lax rules the Dems have created to start an investigation- getting one going showing take any effort at all.
Really? Strongly implied? Strongly implied depends on your political bent. As compared to Biden coming right out and admitting it? Seems the Dems have jumped the shark with this one. Biden needs to be questioned- along with his son- if Biden knew getting the investigation ended into the company benefited his son's work for in advance- that is all that is needed. He directly aided his son by bullying Ukraine into firing the prosecutor to end the investigation. It does matter what our "allies" wanted. They don't work under US laws.
First they need to prove there is a crime to begin with. Much like the whole Russia/Trump collusion hoax which was nothing more than an investigation in search of a crime, any crime, by anyone associated with Trump.
Kind of like when Luca Brazzi comes in to your business and says "Nice place you have here. I hope nothing bad happens to it."
Much like the whole Clinton/Benghazi hoax which was nothing more than an investigation in search of crime, any crime, by anyone associated with Obama.
He thinks he's both.
He thinks he is President.
'thinks' being the key word he cannot ever live up to, as it takes a combination of traits that he will never posses
A cat can have kitten in the oven but it does not make them biscuits.
sorry, he earned the title, the position, no matter what you think.
He earned it?
Excellent point!
Pelosi had this to say:
"For the president to say what he said about those who may have supplied information to the whistleblower seriously undermines integrity in government, but the president does that almost every day."
I think we can acknowledge that "those" means more than just the "whistleblower". There is certainly a "those" involved in this. I'm not anywhere near the President nor the White House but as distant from it as I am, one thing is clearly obvious - somebody with access to the Presidents phone conversations has been leaking sensitive conversations between the President and world leaders. What is this the third time? (There was the conversation involving the Australian & Mexican leaders and now this!)
Where did the info come from and who really got it?
The complaint has the same elements as the Steele Dossier:
1) No direct knowledge
2) No direct evidence to the claims
3) Second-hand gossip/rumors from people who might have known another person to have overheard something
4) The addition/mixing of prior media reports to narrate a story as told by the author.
As the article correctly points out this was probably a partisan leaker who has had legal help in cloaking himself with Whistleblower protections and crafting the report.
Not just kind of - That's exactly the way Schiff portrayed it. He sat right there and lied his ass off.
It was one of my father's favorite sayings.
From the looks of it filing a false whistleblower complaint is not against the law; and the whistleblower will still be protected under the law. This is what I could find on the subject. Maybe someone with a legal background knows more?
Does second or even third hand hearsay count as "reasonable belief"?
Does the fact WB's account of a phone call was so accurate, or the fact Trump has NOT denied call transcript was removed and taken to a more secure server,
not show and prove that this person IS TO BE BELIEVED
Trump threatning them, proves they are ACCURATE, so "reasonable belief" should now be a given, and thoroughly investigated.
You think the whistleblowers account of the phone call was accurate- based on what? The transcript released doesn't come close supporting the allegations.
Now if they can prove Trump had the transcripts altered, that is a different matter. Of course Mr or Mrs second or third hand hearsay is going to need all of the people they talked with to come forward.
When your footnotes reference "News Reports?" …… The red flag shoulda been raised so fast, it would zing right past the pole finial.
"News" is sooooo trustworthy these days …………..
This ain't no "Whistle Blower", this is a Leaker . "Legal" told them how to get around the "Leaker" accusation issues that would occur.
So it's 'blatant politicization of intelligence' but not an 'intelligence matter'.
Hilarious.
It's a Schiff Run Intelligence Committee matter ! They've got the "Papers".
As Maguire told Schiff...…"The Horse is already out of the Barn" ……. "You have all the information" ……" the burden now falls on your shoulders".
Will "Shifty" Schiff actually do anything …..or just give us another made up soliloquy until election time ?
Do you have anything relevant to say about the content of my comment?
I already did.
Do you understand what you posted ?
Do you understand what you posted ?
That post was Great !
You want to lead ?
I guess it got by the old wordsmith. There is a difference between providing something and using something.
Do tell. Please flesh that out in connection with the Complaint.
No problem. A complaint based on 2nd hand information & media reports is not Intelligence. End of story!
Is avoiding the topic your idea of fleshing out a comment?
"Second hand information' corroborated by the IG investigation, the Memo, Trump and Giuliani's public statements, Zelensky and the former Prosecutor General of Ukraine.
Oh and WTF does what the media reports have to do with your claim? We have the documents and the testimony of the DNI.
Yes. i.e. an intelligence officer using an intelligence statute for a political purpose
Yes. That's what makes it even worse. This conversation between two presidents was a diplomatic matter, not an intelligence matter. Furthermore, it's hard to imagine what could fall more easily under the umbrella of executive privilege.
So the whole point of the statement you find hilarious (because you didn't understand it) is that a system we put in place for a specific purpose is being inappropriately used for a political purpose. And that's not hilarious; it's corrupt.
Your evidence of that is WHERE?
Then WHY did WH Officials insist that it be filled in the ODNI server?
The whistleblower didn't divulge ANYTHING outside of the IC. The DNI stated clearly yesterday that the whistleblower followed the law.
Under pressure from the GOP, Trump waived his privilege. Trump's narcissism lead him to think that he can do anything. It backfired.
Just as those that talked to the whistleblower, most people recognize how damning the content of the call is.
Sycophants, not so much.
That's my conclusion based on the totality of circumstances as outlined in the seeded column.
Executive privilege I would guess. They didn't send me a memo. There is a lot in that conversation that I am sure both presidents would prefer to remain private, but nothing that impacts national intelligence or improperly tampers with the upcoming election. In other words, nothing the public needed to see.
What I have stated in regards to Trump also applies to other people. Sometimes you do a thing that's incorrect or inappropriate, but it doesn't mean you've broken the law. I didn't say he broke the law. I'm saying it was inappropriate and pursued in bad faith.
Yeah, so if he's wanting to cover it up, he sure isn't showing it. If you think "pressure from the GOP" matters to Trump, you haven't been paying attention to his whole presidency.
Yeah, but in this case, he can do exactly what he did. He has every right to know every detail of a former vice president's official activities.
Please. It's pretty clear from an examination of this complaint that this was planned. And as long as he's still in office, nothing has backfired.
No, people like you believe it's damning because you want so badly to believe it and your media confirms your bias for you. But when you think everything Trump does is damning, you don't have credibility to declare that anything is damning. You clearly lack the ability or willingness to distinguish between things that aren't allowed and things you simply don't like.
In this case, a candidate you like (Biden) did something while he was VP that looks kinda shady. Trump wants the details and he has a right to those details, but you're afraid of what he might expose. So this falls under the category of stuff you simply don't like.
So you're basing your claim on the machinations of a partisan hack. Got ya.
There is ALREADY a server for privileged information. They used a CODE/WORD server that is for covert actions and national security information. As you've admitted, the contents of the memo doesn't meet that standard.
The GOP leadership convinced Trump that the public DID need to see the Memo. They seem to think that they can spin it to their advantage. Their talking points, mistakenly sent to the whole Congress, proves that they decided to lie about the content of the memo and spin the hell out of it. I've heard a couple of the GOP idiots spewing the talking points verbatim.
Trump admitted as much and if you missed it, you haven't been paying attention to his recent bloviations.
What utter bullshit. Did you READ the Memo? Trump is decry how unfairly Shokin, a corrupt prosecutor was treated. Called him a 'very good prosecutor' when EVERY thinking person on the planet knows Shokin was dirty as hell and his removal was for the good of Ukraine.
You're just making shit up.
Please.
'People like you'? Really Tacos!?
The REASON I think it's damning is because I READ the shit and looked up the fucking statutes cited by the whistleblower and the IG.
Strawman. I have never said 'everything Trump does is damning.'
Here, try this:
When you say NOTHING Trump does is damning, you don't have credibility to declare that anything isn't damning.
How's that work for you?
You clearly lack the ability to debate a TOPIC without devolving to personal comments about ME.
Bullshit AGAIN.
The FACT is, if Trump REALLY wanted details, he would have made an official request to the government of Ukraine. As with most western nations, we have processes and procedures that allow cooperation between our allies to 'look into' issues that occurred oversees.
No such official request has been made. Trump wants his 'Roy Cohns' to do dirty work behind the scenes and outside of 'official channels'.
WHY would the US believe the results of an investigation done by a corrupt government?
It's hypocritical of Trump say out of one side of his mouth that he was worried about corruption in Ukraine so he withheld aide until September and out of the other side say that he trusted them to investigate American citizens in July.
Square that if you can.
Yes, and you completely avoided addressing the important point you are supposedly replying to, i.e. that the current president has a right to investigate official acts of the previous Vice President.
I didn't say you said it. It's clear to me that you believe it. That's why I said:
Basic reading comprehension. You're struggling with it, but you expect to hang your credibility and understanding of the situation on that very skill.
So as we have seem, your ability to read something may not be dispositive.
Anyway, just so we know what you actually believe, name a scandal or two about Trump that you think is/was unfair. Give us an example of a call for impeachment you thought was unreasonable.
Actually, on this very topic (but in another seed) I said it was sketchy and inappropriate to have Rudy Giuliani be the point man on the inquiry. I also said it was a problem that the Attorney General apparently was not yet involved. However, I still can't say the president doesn't have an absolute to the information he was seeking.
So you're saying you can distinguish between things you don't like and things that aren't allowed? That would be refreshing. So far, I see no evidence of it.
Or are you just mad that I pointed it out?
He literally asked the president. How much official do you need the request to be? (That's rhetorical because your claim is silly)
Procedures don't interest Trump. He's a "get shit done" or "you're fired" kind of guy. By your logic, national leaders never need to talk to each other because " we have processes and procedures."
But here's the really funny part of your comment: Right after insisting Trump should have followed "processes and procedures" you write this:
Yes, exactly! That's probably why he didn't go through the "processes and procedures" and just decided to make a personal request of the new president who wasn't part of that corrupt government. He's an outsider, like Trump. I'm sure that helps their relationship and I doubt either one has much respect for "processes and procedures."
You are completely avoiding addressing the important FACT that this issue isn't about the US investigating the previous VP. The issue is about Trump asking a foreign nation investigate the previous VP.
Really? What lead you to that unfounded conclusion Tacos!? Not even my wife is sure about what I believe.
As an expert in what I think, I can assure you that you are wrong.
Better than hanging my credibility on personal comments, as you do.
Yet instead of debating about my comments, you AGAIN make a personal comment. Bad form.
Who are this 'we' and this 'us' you pretend to speak for?
BTFW, despite your concentration on me personally, I am not the topic of this seed.
That was rhetorical.
Thank you for hammering my point home. Well done.
Seriously, your comments are becoming more juvenile with every post. If you can't imagine a more official form of request than a phone call, I can't help you.
Here's how that works for Trump:
Boy Ukraine jumped right on that 'Biden' investigation didn't they?
What shit did Trump get done?
Oh and Trump doesn't fire anyone in real life, unless you count tweets.
So you didn't think that this part of what I wrote was funny:
Wow, you really will twist yourself into a pretzel to try to excuse Trump's actions.
Trump withheld aide alleging corruption, DURING Zelensky's term.
How about you square the hypocrisy I mentioned.
Trump wants the whistle blower classified as a traitor. This from the man who kissed up to Kim J, bragging about a love letter he received from him and calls Putin a great man. If I had his nerve in a tooth, I would be at my dentist.
Yes, another political crisis hand delivered by the intelligence community. What is most troubling is that the CIA has become overtly involved in politics. The intelligence community is now openly attempting to influence politics in the United States.
At the center of the controversy is Ukraine. Why? What has been revealed indicates that mercenaries from both the political left and right have been active in Ukraine. For what purpose? Is the Ukrainian appeal only money? That seems highly unlikely due to the political nature of the people operating in Kiev (or Kyiv, as one prefers). It has become all too obvious that the US embassy in Kiev is an intelligence station with Russia as its focus.
Russia is not going to succumb to any sort of political inducement to give up Sevastopol. The intelligence community is blowing smoke up its own backside. Wrenching Sevastopol from Russia's grasp can only be accomplished by war.
Since Republicans and Democrats in Congress are cowards more concerned with their own political careers for self serving gain, an impeachment trial in the Senate has become imperative. The intelligence community has over stepped its bounds. At this point only an impeachment trial has any hope of shining light into the shadows of the intelligence community. The 'War on Terror' has allowed the intelligence community to successfully seize control over government. A coup by any other name is still a coup.
It's a setup just like all their attempts to scandalize and threaten impeachment of this president.
Trump did something he has every right to do. He inquired into the actions of the former Vice President who was acting as Vice President at the time. He's not investigating Biden's personal life. He's investigating the official actions of a Vice President. In what version of America is the President not allowed to know what a former VP did and why?
Take a look at what the democrats are risking their political lives on:
There’s no evidence of a cover-up - both the transcript and the whistleblower complaint are public
There's no evidence of quid pro quo - Iv'e even read that the Ukrainians didn’t even know military aid was being withheld.
So what exactly is the argument for impeachment?
They're not risking anything. Many of these people represent majority constituencies that really don't care at all about due process or evidence. They just want Trump gone, and don't care how it happens.
If you're a California or NY Democrat, you risk more by not going along with the impeachment.
I understand, but those are not the type that won back the House - it was about 30 moderate democrats. If they go down, Kevin McCarthy becomes your new Speaker of the House. (I assume)
If you're a California or NY Democrat, you risk more by not going along with the impeachment.
I also understand. Their constituents are not exactly informed voters
I think that's probably true. I also think Pelosi is going ahead with it because, given the timing relative to the election process, she figures it can't possibly hurt.
I fear that has become the norm across the entire American electorate.
What do we know, so far?
The involvement of the Director of National Intelligence in dealing with the whistleblower complaint suggests the source of the complaint is an active member of the intelligence community or the DNI is involved because this is a leak of guarded information at the highest level of security clearance involving the President. The whistleblower claims they did not have direct access to the material cited in the complaint; a claim that needs verification. The WB claims to have received information from a number of sources with a very high level of security clearance with direct knowledge which suggests that the WB is known and trusted by those sources. The rational conclusion is that the WB is not just a CIA analyst that had been detailed to the White House at some point.
We also know that the complaint was directly addressed to the chairmen of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The complaint was deliberately intended to be political rather than a complaint made to the chain of command within the intelligence community. The whistleblower is overtly engaged in influencing political Washington with a political document.
What the WB complaint shows is that the highest level of security clearance required for dealing with information involving the President has been breached. There is a hole or a mole. Since the whistleblower complaint, itself, provides clues that a higher level intelligence official has become involved in politically influencing Congress the conclusion is that some intelligence official has gone rogue or that one (or more) of the intelligence agencies is conducting an intelligence/counter intelligence operation against the President.
There is nothing more vital to the health of our sacred republic than protecting the integrity of our democratic elections. That is why we have reams of election laws on the books. That is also why it is our intelligence agencies vital business to get involved whenever any foreign governments are implicated in any conspiracies to illegally influence or interfer with our US elections.
It is a high crime for foreign governments to be involved in our elections in any way. It is criminal for them to offer to help an American candidate and illegal for an American candidate to ask for or to accept any election help from any foreign government.
Considering all that, the US House of Representatives must promptly impeach and the US Senate must forthwith convict Donald J Trump for high crimes. Done and done. Period.
Once Donald Trump and Mike Pence are finally removed from office then Nancy Pelosi can finish out the sad remainders of Trump's term as POTUS and the damn gop can pick another godforsaken candidate for 2020. Life will go on.