piercethevale
Well-known member
Regarding Eric C. the whistleblower on Ukraine:
One is usually registered to vote as a Democrat, a Republican or Independent. I've been all 3, and currently Independent.
Voted mistakenly for G.W.Bush then realized my error when he let Bin-Laden go in Tora-Bora December 2001..
Next I registered as a Democrat (as a result of Bush) and voted for John Kerry.
Still Democrat during the Obama years (8 years)
Then registered Independent which is still my choice for now, after HRC (couldn't vote for her or Trump)
This year it will be the Democrat regardless of who, as a vote against Trump.
(hopefully not Joe Biden, although likely it will be. We'll know in the summer.
Point being, there is nothing adverse about Eric C being a registered Democrat - i.e. "so what?" ..........There are tons of photos out there of trump with various crooks & Russians.
...AND... according to the New York Times on October 29, 2019 an excerpt from "Debunking 4 Viral Rumors About The Bidens and Ukraine"; "Is the whistle-blower aligned politically with Democrats?
Mr. Trump’s allies — and the president himself — have asserted that the whistle-blower is left-leaning and biased, a notion spread by the president’s supporters across social media and right-wing websites.
Little is known about the whistle-blower other than that he is a career C.I.A. analyst. One of the whistle-blower’s lawyers has rejected the claim that his client is partisan. “Our client has never worked for or advised a political candidate, campaign, or party,” the lawyer, Mark Zaid, wrote in a series of tweets. “Our client has come into contact with presidential candidates from both parties in their roles as elected officials — not as candidates.”
The whistle-blower, whose identity remains secret, was once detailed to the National Security Council at the White House. Michael Atkinson, the inspector general for the American intelligence community, found unspecified indications of “an arguable political bias,” suggesting the whistle-blower favored a rival political candidate, according to a Justice Department memo. It’s possible that the whistle-blower did interact with the vice president. Officials from the National Security Council regularly work in the White House for briefings and other meetings.
A claim that the whistle-blower colluded with Mr. Biden to file a report is baseless — as are other claims that whistle-blower rules were secretly changed to allow a complaint based on “hearsay” and that the whistle-blower’s lawyers are all left-leaning."
Going by the four photos in the post by JUPITERASC of the "Unnamed source", that you partially identify as 'Xxxx X', unless those are photo-shopped, I'd have to say that the fellow has had a lot more than routine contact that only came to be because of his performing his job duties.
He looks to me as if He is rather very "chummy" with the lot of them.
Besides, given the number of analysts that work for the C.I.A. [and there is a great number of them] wouldn't it seem odd that He has had such casual looking type of contact with each and every one of them?
As an employee of the C.I.A. his job duties are to watch for potential and real threats to the United States, the government, the citizenry, and the military not to question what his own president may be doing, saying, or thinking as that isn't his job nor should He have even considered it to be "some kind of duty" as for the reason he's a low level analyst that hasn't a clue as to what might be in the works at the executive level in a presidents' tête-à-tête with a foreign leader.
The fact of it is, that unlike the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which is a domestic security service and law enforcement agency the CIA has no law enforcement function and is mainly focused on overseas intelligence gathering, with only limited allowable domestic intelligence collection and the CIA's prime directive is to provide intelligence for the President and Cabinet of the United States. Moreover, the CIA is the only agency authorized by law to carry out and oversee covert action at the behest of the President.
SOUNDS TO ME AS IF THIS UNNAMED INFORMANT NOT ONLY WAS WAY OUTSIDE OF HIS, OR HER, BOUNDS BY REPORTING ANYTHING THAT HAD TO DO WITH AN EXECUTIVE OFFICE CONVERSATION WITH A FOREIGN LEADER TO ANYONE OTHER THAN THEIR DESIGNATED SUPERIOR IN COMMAND BUT THAT THEY MIGHT ACTUALLY BE GUILTY OF TREASON...?
Considering that with every change of presidents, and especially presidents of some other political party other than that of the previous, there is always a purging of posts within the Agency and one can protest all they care to about the CIA allegedly being of an apolitical nature...but that just doesn't wash.
Those thousands of analysts the CIA has working for them, both government employees and those that work in that position for contracted companies are required to present their reports to superior officers, whom undoubtedly have higher clearance and may truly know just WTF is actually going on.
Some unnamed analyst whom may, or may not, even be an actual government employee, that would then be considered, at least, to be bound by a code that they remain "apolitical"...which certainly isn't the case with contracted employees {Why? Because there is no way or means of assuring that.] gets a 'tip" that our president may have done something possibly unethical?....ARE YOU FREAKIN KIDDING ME?
THE CIA HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN THE MOST UNETHICAL AND REPREHENSIBLE ACTIVITIES THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN AND THAT'S ONLY WHAT HAS COME TO LIGHT SO FAR...NOT TO MENTION THE MASSIVE NUMBER OF FAILS IN INTERPRETING THEIR ACCUMULATED "INTELLIGENCE"... SUCH AS ASSURING "DUBYA" THAT THERE WERE WMD'S IN IRAQ, NOT TO MENTION THE MULTITUDE OF ANALYSIS FAILURES THROUGHOUT THE FOLLOWING YEARS OF THE MIDDLE EASTERN MILITARY OPERATIONS.
Just "google" CIA intelligence failures and you'll have a few weeks worth of reading material beginning with the building of the Berlin Wall right to the present.
THE CONTINUED FUTURE EXISTENCE OF THE CIA HAS BEEN HANGING BY A THREAD FOR SOME TIME AND TRUMP IS NO FAN OF THE AGENCY... ONE MIGHT THINK THAT THERE WAS NOT ONLY POLITICAL BIAS BEHIND THIS BUT VERY PERSONAL INTERESTS AS WELL.
MIGHT A POLITICAL CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT THAT CAN MAKE PROMISES THAT THE AGENCYS' CONTINUED SURVIVAL FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER FOUR, MAYBE EIGHT YEARS POSSIBLY BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN A MOTIVE?
THAT IS WHAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE?
gtfo here with that ... Despicable.
Last edited: