Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Quatro
vienna! The whistleblower didn't see anything either. He wasn't even there. He heard it through a third party, plus the whistleblower is ex-cia with ties to Chuck Schummer.
This is a circus with out and out hatred on both sides. 
Now they will drag this out as long as they can to support the leading democrats choice for POTUS |
Mr. Quatro!! So excitable! Careful, ya might pop your Pampers...
The first paragraph of your post is dead wrong and that was immediately obvious from your use of the term "ex-cia": the whistleblower has been acknowledged as a current CIA officer who was once attached to the Trump WH; another clue to his current status is further reinforced by the fact he filed a whistleblower claim as a means to protect himself from workplace retaliation and/or harassment, something that would be unnecessary if he was an "ex-" anything...
Since you didn't supply a cite to back up your claims, I am puzzled where you got your information. As of this posting, the actual identity of the whistleblower (WB) is unknown, except to probably less than a handful of people, which is part of the intent of The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989: protective anonymity to those in the Federal employ who wish to report government waste, corruption, fraud, misuse of powers, etc., etc.; with out any knowledge of the person's actual identity, I don't know where the claim of a connection to Schumer comes from and it would appear either to be fake news of fraud for the purpose of muddying the waters...
As far as the claims of 'hearsay' and the WB not actually being present during the call, these claims are straw man/red herring intended to deflect from Trump's own illegalities and misconducts. The WB openly acknowledges he wasn't present in his complaint, so its not in any sense a shocking 'bombshell' of any import; the same with the so-called 'hearsay', acknowledged, detailed, and fully described without any 'bombshell' value. The comparing of notes and discussion of meetings is common practice in the Intelligence and Diplomatic circles and is intended to foster an open exchange of views so as to encourage looking at issues from many viewpoints to seek out possibly previously unforeseen problems and/or solutions...
In actuality, the identities of some of the officials cited by the WB in his complaint are known to the Senior level investigating officials who have been validating the WB's cliams; this link is to a NYT article describing how the WB's claims have been handled; it also points out the WB tried to make known his, and other officials' concerns through another means, but in fear his report(s) would just be buried and/or his job put in jeopardy, so he then filed a formal complaint as 'insurance':
White House Knew of Whistle-Blower’s Allegations Soon After Trump’s Call With Ukraine Leader --
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/u...?module=inline
I think you may have confused the WB with one of his attorneys, Andrew Bakaj, and it appears you may have gotten that "deocratic operative" appellation from this
Federalist website posting:
Attorney For Anti-Trump ‘Whistleblower’ Worked For Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer --
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/24...chuck-schumer/
The article use the term "Democratic operative" with very, very little substation of that claim. Here is a link with a bit more info on Bakaj:
Who is the Ukraine Whistleblower's Attorney? Andrew Bakaj Represents Group Dedicated to Helping Whistleblowers --
https://www.newsweek.com/who-ukraine...-bakaj-1461400
So, the donation to the Biden campaign was a whopping US$100.00 (that ought to buy him a heap of influence
). As for the glaring headline of one of the articles, "
Attorney For Anti-Trump ‘Whistleblower’ Worked For Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer", is concerned, I guess the Federalist author was kind of hoping none of his readers would actually click on the link in the second paragraph of his article (oddly, the link is on the word "according" rather than "LinkedIn page" as might have been expected and logical; intentional misdirection?):
Andrew Bakaj's LinkedIn Page:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewba...ard_full-click
It is true Bakaj worked for Schumer and Clinton --
18 Years ago!; and he worked for both for a period of five (5) months each as an office intern; my guess is it was part of Law School intern rotation where students spend a short time with a series of 'mentors'; I seriously doubt either Schumer or Clinton have much of a memory of Bakaj (just another student intern passing through, one of many over the years) nor is there any evidence of any substantial continued connection between the three of them.
Bakaj comes to the area of whistleblower defense via the school of hard knocks; in 2014, while working at the CIA's Office of Inspector General, Bakaj took up the cause of some fellow investigators who had concerns about the activities of some Senior CIA officials; Bakaj filed a complaint and the CIA's IG office started an investigation until it was halted by the same complained-about Senior officials who demanded to know the names of the employees who had made the complaints; Bakaj refused and was placed on administrative leave and, later had his security clearance revoked; after a period of time Bkaj chose to just retire from the CIA. Because of the gross misuse of power by the Senior officials, the Obama Administration revamped the whistleblower prcess and put some ral teeth into protecting whistleblowers; Bakaj's case was subsequently reviewed bt the Dept. of Homeland Security and they made a finding of misuse of executive power and gross retaliation bt the CIA senior officials, vindicating Bakaj, (I'd say Bakaj could rightly claim "total exoneration"
) who had, by then opted to go into the private sector...
So, Bkaj's passion for defending whistleblowers comes honestly...
BTW, aside from the fact Joe Biden was acting as the representative of the Obama WH and under the President's orders when he withheld those funds for Ukraine back then, and that more than a few other nations and entities were equally pissed off at the Ukranian Special Prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, (whom Trump, his minions and Trumpettes are trying to paint as a victim of Joe biden's alleged corruption), the depth of corruption of Shokin's own prosecutorial office is stunning:
Viktor Shokin --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Shokin
Among the many, many offenses Shokin was reported to have committed, he was using information gather in his investigation not to prosecute criminality, but rather, using the info as a basis for extorting money from suspects in return for not publicly exposing their crimes...
...and his successor, Yuriy Lutsenko, was seemingly no better, having been a convicted felon and who, with no law degree or education, got himself appointed as Chief Prosecutor of Ukraine, a post he held until the new Ukranian President took office a month or so back and who had stated he would fire the Chief Prosecutor, Lutsenko. Lutsenko has spent the period between the election of the new President and his inauguration feverishly trying to peddle, for the highest bidders, highly suspect intel he'd gather during his reign as Chief Persecutor; among his prospective buyers has been Giuliani, who is seeking any 'dirt' on Biden, regardless of the source....
Well, this exercise appears to have cured my insomnia...
<O>