What We Know about the Whistleblower is (Like his Report) Mostly Hearsay

What we know about the whistleblower who compromised President Trump’s private conversation with a world leader at his point (and ironically) is mostly hearsay. Actually, the entire whistleblower report was hearsay, with a dash of mind-reading.

The New York Times reported that the whistleblower is a CIA agent attached to the White House. This begs the question, aren’t CIA people supposed to stay clear of politics? Judging from the Inspector General’s first reaction, the whistleblower displayed a political bias against President Trump.

Which leads to another question: Was the CIA whistleblower a John O. Brennan plant? Remember? Brennan was the former CIA head who lost his security clearance because of his loose-lipped disloyal partisanship.

Details on the Whistleblower’s identity and background are still not known. Whatever else is known about the whistleblower can only be surmised from the content of his report. The report is carefully worded, and the whistleblower undoubtedly had lots of lawerly wordsmithing help and coaching from Adam Schiff’s staffers, who admit they were contacted by whistleblower’s lawyer ahead of filing the formal complaint.

What we know for certain is that besides being total hearsay, the report contains several glaring contradictions with the record of the telephone call:

First, the whistleblower says his White House sources told him that President Trump devoted most of the call to “advance his personal interests.” The transcript shows the opposite of that to be true. It shows that the two leaders discussed future meetings in Poland and Washington and other mutual business.

Next, the whistleblower claims “his sources” told him that both leaders discussed no other cases besides those dealing with the Biden family and the 2016. Again, the transcript contradicts that claim. Presidents Trump and Zelensky also talked about a pending inquiry into Marie Yovanovich, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.

Finally, the whistleblower says that, again, one of his White House sources considered that storing the call transcript in a more secure system was an abuse of that system. The whistleblower claimed that “the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.”

In the latter instance, the whistleblower probably allowed his bias to overcome his professional expertise. Before the report was declassified, it was properly labeled SECRET/ORCON/NOFORN.” Matters discussed in the conversation included the President’s views on Germany. Unauthorized leaks of that information could harm national security.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) whose memorable scolding of Democrats during Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings shamed a few of his fellow senators, sounded off on the current impeachment witch hunt, “This thing stinks. It’s all hearsay. You can’t get a parking ticket conviction based on hearsay. The whistleblower didn’t hear the phone call.”

Senator Graham stated the obvious when he described the Schiff scam as “a political setup.”

The legal definition of hearsay is “an out-of-court statement offered to prove the matter asserted.” It is, with only a few exceptions, excluded from court testimony because neither side can cross-examine or apply a truth-testing technique, much less put the third party under oath.

Another problem with hearsay is known as absence of demeanor evidence. That means that people judging the veracity of someone must be able to gather clues and impressions—body language, tone of voice, etc.

In the whistleblower’s report he noted that someone he spoke with was “very concerned” about a potential coverup. “Very concerned” is a judgment on the part of the whistleblower, who can’t get into someone’s head. It is more likely that the whistleblower included the impression to bolster the assertion that President Trump should be impeached.

Then there is another troubling and weird coincidence that adds credence to Senator Graham’s observation. Sean Davis writing in the Federalist points out that sometime between May 2018 and August 2019 the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings.

The previous whistleblower form stated in bold and all caps, underlined: FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED. The explanatory paragraph advised that if the whistleblower can provide nothing more than second-hand assertions, the IG could not process the complaint.

The new form deletes the above caveat and replaces it with the banal statement, “I know about the information I am disclosing here and: (check one) I have direct and personal knowledge (or) I heard about it from others.”

The revised version of the form is dated August 2019 and coincides neatly with the instant investigation.

This whole thing stinks of a set up.

There you have it…First it was Comey, McCabe and Strzok at the FBI. Next came John Brennan and his CIA surrogates. What can we look forward to when this one fails?

Maybe an eco-evangelist whistleblower in the Environmental Protection Agency connecting the President to a plot to poison Maxine Waters’ constituents. The sources: Maxine Waters and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.


Most Popular

These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.

To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at info@content.ad.

Family-Friendly Content

Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More



Most Popular

These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.

To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at info@content.ad.

Family-Friendly Content

Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More