House Intel Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) on Friday subpoenaed Acting DNI Chief Joseph Maguire and accused him of illegally withholding a whistleblower complaint from Congress that could potentially be covering up the president’s misconduct.
[emphasis added to quotes]
Somehow, Schiff knows much about this whistleblower complaint, although the story doesn’t tell us how he knows and the curiously incurious reporter apparently didn’t ask how he knew.
Schiff goes on to make incendiary and speculative allegations, perhaps to further a narrative for the mainstream media:
The Committee can only conclude, based on this remarkable confluence of factors, that the serious misconduct at issue involves the President of the United States and/or other senior White House or Administration officials.
The complaint was allegedly filed last month. Another story provides more detail (if details can be trusted, which isn’t a given, considering the source):
Schiff indicated that he learned the matter involved “potentially privileged communications by persons outside the Intelligence Community,” raising the specter that it is “being withheld to protect the President or other Administration officials.”
How did Schiff learn this? Again, the reporter didn’t ask or at least didn’t bother to report the answer.
Curiously, Schiff’s letter to the acting DNI (Director of National Intelligence) specifically says that the whistleblower was inside the intelligence community (IC) and that the person came forward in order to get the information to Schiff’s committee.
Reading between the lines, it appears that someone outside the intelligence community shared privileged or classified information with someone inside the intelligence community, which caused that person to try to get the information to Schiff’s committee using the whistleblower process.
Apparently, Schiff learned about the existence of the complaint from the IC Inspector General (IC IG), who apparently wrote that the complaint is “credible” and of “urgent concern;” but did the IC IG include all the details that Schiff seems to know? Reportage doesn’t elaborate.
Might there be another explanation for how Schiff conveniently knows so much about the complaint? Might that be in the same way that Democrats seemed to know all about the so-called “Russian dossier” before its existence was leaked to a complicit media?
Is this yet another case of planting “evidence?” Is this “insurance policy” 2.0?
Who might be the whistleblower? Does that person within the intelligence community have an ax to grind?
Who might be the whistleblower’s anonymous source? The mysterious someone who is (now?) outside the intelligence community and who allegedly discussed potentially privileged communications and/or classified information with the anonymous someone within the intelligence community? What sort of ax might that person outside the intelligence community have to grind?
Why does it seem as if Schiff already knows the answers but needs some way, any way, to get all these second-hand, possibly third-hand, allegations to a complicit media?
Who might the person with classified or potentially privileged information be? Perhaps someone who was formerly in the Trump administration? Perhaps formerly in the Obama administration?
Perhaps someone who famously and openly did an about-face in his opinions about the President only last month? Perhaps someone featured in a Washington Post article on August 15, talking about his sudden epiphany? Perhaps someone who was courted and wooed by the media, treated like an old pal, once he “saw the light” about Trump?
Coats and Comey. Both were once privy to privileged and classified information. Would they now no longer be considered part of the intelligence community?
Is the State Department and its employees outside the intelligence community? Something to ponder considering a report out today about how
there was a rush by State Department officials to get classified information into the hands of anti-Trump senators before inauguration day in 2017.
Whatever the case, whoever the insider and outsider are, here we have many of the usual players who were heavily invested and similarly involved in the rollout of the Trump/Russia collusion meme, part of the “insurance policy” that was critical to the resistance to the administration of President Trump.
Now many of the same players are involved in this new mysterious controversy.
This is election season. As noted above, the FISA abuse report was just released, putting pressure on some of these usual suspects, some of whom stand to be discredited and embarrassed, if not worse, by revelations in that report and reports to come. Time is running out for the resistance.
Is it coincidence that Schiff has suddenly learned somehow the details of a mysterious complaint, made by an anonymous person in the intelligence community, concerning privileged and/or classified information that he or she obtained from another anonymous person outside the intelligence community, right now, at this point in time?
Could it be that Schiff knew all about the complaint before it was even made? If so, then how did he know?
Is this just another dirty trick designed to damage the President, once again, by innuendo, using the particulars of the whistleblower law, twisting the law into pretzels, knowing that the content would, by necessity and perhaps by law, have to be kept secret, as well as the identities of the whistleblower and his or her anonymous source? All to keep We the People from learning the truth and discerning the motives of everyone involved?
Schiff can speculate, without any evidence, about what “could be” in the complaint, who it “could be” about, and the dutifully complicit media gleefully report the story as if his speculation has foundation in fact.
Anybody who’s closely followed how the Trump/Russia collusion narrative began and played out over the past few years has to see the parallels between this new story about a “whistleblower complaint” and early stories about Trump colluding with the Russians.
At the time, many felt that the Trump/Russia collusion narrative was ridiculous, seemingly coming out of left field with no evidence whatsoever to back it up. It was ridiculous as the years-long special counsel investigation finally proved. Yet the narrative served its purpose. The damage to the President’s administration was real and is ongoing. The first suggestion of the Trump/Russia narrative was only a hint of what was to come. Is this new controversy more of the same?
President Trump’s opponents, as we have seen many times over the past few years, are not above using any trick in their dirty book or twisting any law they can in order to try to oust the President by any means necessary.
What’s behind this latest ploy? Who’s behind it and why? Why now?
In my opinion, the entire thing stinks of planted “evidence” and dirty tricks.
What say you?