IF YOU GAIN FROM OUR RADIO PROGRAMS, NEWS LINKS, OR OTHER ITEMS PLEASE CONSIDER A SMALL DONATION TO HELP KEEP US GIVING YOU THE NEWS, RADIO ON THE AIR, AND KEEP THE MISSION CHURCH OPEN!

CLICK HERE OR ON THE LION LOGO BELOW!

Wednesday, October 02, 2019

Maginnis' analysis on "whistle-blower" in part confirmed by today's New York Times report "Schiff, House Intel Chairman, Got Early Account of Whistle-Blower's Accusations"

Maginnis' analysis on "whistle-blower" in part confirmed by today's New York Times report "Schiff, House Intel Chairman, Got Early Account of Whistle-Blower's Accusations"

Today the New York Times reports "Before going to Congress, the CIA officer had a colleague convey his accusations to the agency's top lawyer…the officer then approached a House Intelligence Committee aide, alerting him to the accusation against Mr. Trump."

"The House staff member suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff," states the Times.

The Times reports "The complaint was filed in consultation with a lawyer, officials said. 'The intelligence community whistle-blower followed the advice of legal counsel from the beginnings,' said the counsel for the whistle-blower.

My analysis of the whistle-blower was posted on Monday, 30 September suggesting the above scenario. My Monday post follows.

I wonder if the balance is true?
Who is the Trump-Ukraine telephone call "whistle-blower"?

I'm very suspicious about the seed of the latest political turmoil to strike Washington – the anonymous CIA "whistle-blower".  My books, The Deeper State and Progressive Evil, provide plenty of background about the nefarious activities within the federal bureaucracy and the rank evil that pervades this city.  Below is my take on efforts to identify the latest deep stater who is feeding the Democratic Party's frenzy to reverse the outcome of the 2016 election.

There is considerable turmoil in Washington about the identity of the "whistle-blower" better "complainant" who unleashed the current political mess regarding President Trump's July 25 2019 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Mostly Democrats claim the president presented the Ukrainian a quid pro quo –Ukraine re-opens their investigation of allegations against Democratic Party presidential candidate former VP Biden's son, Hunter and then the U.S. (read Trump administration) will move forward with promised military aid. There is a stark difference in the interpretation of the record of the Trump-Zelenksy telephone call – the Attorney General says it's all legal - but Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is moving ahead with her impeachment investigation pushed by an avalanche of progressive members and cheered on by deep staters who hate Trump.

The side-show is identifying the "complainant" who started the political firestorm and the person President Trump wants to confront in person. Evidently he/she had no firsthand knowledge about the call, only heard from others about the president's conversation with Zelensky and he/she concluded laws were broken by the commander in chief. Thus the complaint was passed to the CIA's general counsel for action.

Who files a complaint against a political figure matters in Washington's deep state environment because that person's identity and associations will say something about their motivation and trustworthiness with national secrets. Besides, law enforcement (FBI and Comey) / the intelligence community (CIA and Brennan) are already suspect given the debunked Russia fiasco. The Ukraine "quid pro quo" allegation is suspiciously similar to the Russia complaint. So it does matter whether the "complainant" is politically motivated or genuinely a patriot, albeit naïve about just what a president can do.

It shouldn't be hard to identify the "complainant" and then his/her motivation. That effort is a simple process of elimination. Assume, based on many reports, the individual works for the CIA and was assigned to the White House.  Begin by identifying the agency personnel who accessed the White House around 25 July 2019 and then match those names with the following.

1. The "analyst" is fairly junior (likely a Millennial, age 25-39) who recently left the agency's White House staff. Multiple press reports indicate he/she is a CIA employee, an "analyst" who worked in the White House until recently. He/she is likely young because most of agency the "analysts" at the White House are GS-11 or 12, which means this is their second, maybe third job with the agency. Their job is really that of a liaison, a paper pusher, not a true "analyst".

2. His/her most recent agency job was as an "analyst," not that of an operational "spy."  That means he/she has been in the area for his/her entire career.  

3. The "analyst" likely studied European history in college and might speak Russian or Ukrainian Russian. That might explain why he/she was drawn to secret files related to Eastern Europe.   Likely, he/she also was an Eastern European "analyst" at the agency before coming to the White House.  He/she has a history of traveling as part of their job to that region as well.

4. He/she is not part of the agency's White House communications team that handles calls from foreign leaders. Rather the "complainant" learned about the call "in the course of official interagency business," according to the complaint. He/she likely heard from fellow agency personnel who serve on the White House communications team. In the complaint, he/she notes that "more than half a dozen" officials relayed information. Likely he/she heard fellow agency people ("officials") talking about the president's conversation. Keep in mind agency people are typically closed lip and don't talk outside of their own circle, at least at work.

5. Complainant likely has friends who are Democratic Hill staffers. The complainant, based on the above, may have consulted with Millennial "friends" who are Democratic Hill staffers with whom he/she discussed the complaint and in turn gained help drafting a very technically correct complaint. This action, if true, suggests a spillage of classified information - presidential conversation - and could subject the complainant to prosecution. After all, the phraseology, his/her endnotes and footnotes were drafted by someone accustom to writing legal briefs, not the forte of most CIA analysts.

6. The complainant is in a hurry to gain attention for the allegation?   Why would a career "analyst" be in a hurry to expose the president's alleged quid pro quo? Evidently, according to press reports, the complainant believed the agency was not taking his allegation seriously. So he took the complaint to the DNI, the overseer of the entire intelligence community. This suggests a political motivation. He/she didn't want the complaint buried by the agency.
The complainant's identity may soon be revealed because there will be testimony albeit behind closed doors but given the Democrats' track record, the "complainant's" identity will become known.  

So who is this "whistleblower, complainant"?

• A CIA "analyst" who recently departed the White House. (There can't be more than a handful that fit that description.)
• He/she is young, a Millennial, likely a GS-11 or 12 level person in their late 20s or early 30s.  That's the grade of most White House analysts.  
• He/she is someone with an interest in European politics and perhaps speaks Ukrainian, or Russian. Likely he/she worked on Ukraine at the agency before coming to the White House and has traveled to Ukraine in the past decade.
• He/she is not on the agency's communications team and is not a "spy," a member of the agency's operations division.   He/she has lived in the DC Metro area for his/her entire agency career.
• He/she has "friends" who are either Democratic Hill staffers or he/she has friends who are Hill staffers who he/she consulted to help write the "lawyer-like" complaint.  Washington's Millennials mix and mingle a lot across the government, Hill, etc.  
• Likely his/her motivation is anti-Trump agenda or pro-Democratic Party, a bias that started long before coming to Washington. 
• A good reporter would identify this person and his/her motivations. Does it matter?   Yes, much like the fake Russia collusion fiasco, the Democrats are following a similar track and will do anything to reverse the 2016 election.  Exposing the background of the "complainant" and who assisted him/her will help understand the insanity of political Washington and the current race to occupy the White House.


Robert Lee Maginnis
Author of a 2019 book by Defender: Progressive Evil
Author of a 2018 book by Defender: Alliance of Evil