Asking the Right Questions

A man named Fred Fleitz has some interesting points to make about the whistleblower’s report as does Sean Davis following:

/ 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. . . https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20190812_-
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 to inform, but not make policy.

8/ This is such a greivous 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.

Sean Davis has similar thoughts:

And which media propagandist did Schiff use as a prop to hide the true source of his allegations? One of Fusion GPS’s favorite stenographers of discredited Steele-esque innuendo: Natasha Bertrand.

The whole thing has been a Fusion GPS-style info op from the very beginning.

Schiff and his allies even stovepiped information in the same manner as during the collusion hoax: they leak claims to compliant media, media runs with claims, then leakers point to the media reports they seeded as proof of their allegations. They started back in May.

And surprise! The anti-Trump leaker cited as proof of corruption in his complaint the very same articles that Schiff and his allies quite obviously seeded to form the narrative they desired.

This raises the troubling question of whether Schiff orchestrated the complaint.

This pattern of behavior from Schiff, his “whistleblower,” and their media allies makes it all the more necessary for the anti-Trump complainant to publicly testify under oath and answer questions about his team’s interactions with media and Democrat lawmakers about his complaint.

And lest anyone forget, Adam Schiff and Fusion GPS head Glenn Simpson have a long history of working together in this fashion. Recall that Schiff and Simpson, who perjured himself in congressional testimony, secretly met together in Aspen.

It all falls into place. They are using the same playbook and the same people from the Russia Hoax. How many more times will Americans put up with this deception?

... Leave a Reply