Axios: Whistleblower in federal protection over safety fears, letter shows
The intelligence whistleblower whose complaint on the Trump administration's dealings with Ukraine triggered an impeachment inquiry into the president is under federal protection because they fear for their safety, "60 Minutes" first reported.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: Timed with its coverage of the impeachment inquiry, "60 Minutes" has obtained a letter that indicates the Ukraine whistle-blower who set off the impeachment inquiry of President Trump is under federal protection .... The impeachment inquiry: "We could not ignore what the president did." (60 Minutes).
The New York Times already knows who this CIA official is, and I am sure that they are not the only one. IMHO it is only a matter of time before his name becomes public. As to this whistle-blower's demand to remain anonymous, I just do not see how this is possible. His actions have resulted in an impeachment inquiry with a Democrat Congress that has been determined to impeach President Trump since he was inaugurated. This CIA officer's complaint also has errors, so he has to address it when he testifies, and he has to implicate others for giving him the information that he used in his complaint. Something that I am sure these people are not going to be happy with. Bottom line, his career is over, and everything about him .... from his personal history to his political leanings .... is going to be in the public domain very soon. Being under Federal Protection is going to be the least of his worries. On a side note .... I am sure this CIA official expected all of this. Everything has been presented in a thoughtful and timely manner, even his request for federal protection. He had a plan, and he is executing it right now.
Update: There two former whistle-blowers also believe that this CIA official's complaint was done in a deliberate and thoughtful manner with a plan in place (What Past Whistle-Blowers Think of the Trump-Ukraine Complaint, Wired). ....
.... Both Kiriakou and Drake stressed that whistle-blowers are rare, and that whoever filed the complaint against Trump likely took what they were doing incredibly seriously—including the possibility that they would become a political target. Drake points to how the whistle-blower took care to note that their complaint was unclassified, and that if it were to be classified retroactively, "it is incumbent on the classifying authority to explain why such a marking was applied." In other words, the person who wrote the complaint knew the White House or another authority might try to keep it secret. "That complaint is stunning in its detail," says Drake. "[The whistle-blower] would be well aware of what the risks were, there is no question he or she knew what the risks were."
"Do you remain silent or do you risk it all?” asks Kiriakou. “If you believe in your heart you’re right, you risk it all.”
5 comments:
The so called whistle blower does not need protection? None
Why threaten his person with violence?
He may never get a job again unless it is from a liberal group, but that is not physical violence and that is nothing but what liberals big and small have been doing and advocating for the last few years. Fight Fire with fire. The analogy is not strained. We do it in real life. We set backfires to help stop forest fires.
Of course you could not blackball the partisan hack from a federal or corporate job. But I will note that quotas at universities are illegal since Bakke and yet admissions still find one way after another to have quotas.
Liberals have been advocating boycotts, actually boycotting, and passing laws to destroy businesses (like Chik-fil-a) or people.
Now Susan Rice need physical protection because she gave the game away.
PS: The guy who got into school instead of Bakke killed one of his patients. So quotas was a success and the patient died. LIBerals
Liberals delenda est.
Russia delenda est.
Dear WNU Editor:
This impeachment may in particular be difficult for someone born and educated in the former Soviet Bloc. Where what occurred was\is no big deal. It's just everyday political business reality; "You" badly need something to prevent your possible demise... "You" know I look rather fondly on your, er, adversary. "Though" I might consider... I want dirt on a family you have been... acquainted with. I don't care if it's real or not as long as it's plausible. I've been soooo good to you. Right? Yes?"
You see, WNU, you see no harm in that. Many don't. But the point was that Russian tanks would have become far less vulnerable to Russian or Russian-backed assault should Trump have held the aid. I'm not at all sure Trump would have objected to Russia moving to the Western Ukraine border. NATO would. Would Trump support NATO in a counter-attack against superior Russian forces?
It's unlikely Trump will be removed, true. But Trump must face consequences. Or government of the people, by the people, and for the people is doomed to fail.
Consequences for exactly what, DAR?
Consequences for being a trapped rat goombah.
So 2:04
You cannot actually point to anything at all.
Post a Comment