The Swamp is flushed and draining ....
And the new Major News Media, World Champion of Truth and Courage is ….
The New York Post
which has now put the pressure on the N.Y. Times, Washington Post, and all the rest of the corrupt Media.
New York Post Headline...
Here’s the likely whistleblower — and the questions he should answer
In the middle of Russia fever, the liberal press took a hectoring tone to any outlet that showed a glimmer of doubt. How dare any journalist not believe that President Trump is an agent of Vladimir Putin! Who would question the upstanding virtues of the FBI?
Of course, we now know that the conspiracy
theories were wrong. There was no Russian
collusion with the Trump campaign.
And, moreover, the inspector general report
proves that the FBI trampled over civil
liberties and common sense in pursuit of
the case. While idle conversation during a
meeting with George Papadopoulos and
an Australian official may have sparked
the inquiry, Crossfire Hurricane, it was only
because of outlandish gossip in a Democrat
-funded opposition report, the Steele dossier,
that the FBI was able to land a surveillance
warrant for Trump campaign adviser Carter
Page. Even as the agency found that Steele’s
sources did not back up the dossier, that
facts did not back up the dossier, they
continued the red scare. When it came out
that Page was an informant for the CIA, an
FBI lawyer lied about it.
Every suspicion of FBI agents was leaked
to the press and printed without skepticism.
Few questioned their methods.
It is only now that the New York Times
begrudgingly publishes an “analysis” that,
oops, maybe this was “A Disturbing Peek at U.S. Surveillance.”
Forgive us, then, for the sense of déjà vu
when it comes to the impeachment hearings.
This time, the press is near united in
arguing
that you shall not question the narrative of how
this whole thing got started. Don’t you dare
name the whistleblower. Don’t ask how Rep.
Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) might have helped him
write his complaint. Or even that Schiff is lying
when he says he doesn’t know who the whistle-
blower is. Or why Schiff is subpoenaing the
phone records of his colleagues.
This is the same Schiff, by the way, who in 2018
said that the Department of Justice’s warrants
for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or
FISAs, met “the rigor, transparency and
evidentiary basis needed.”
Schiff had the same information as Inspector
General Michael Horowitz, who found the exact
opposite. So we know Schiff is a liar.
Two years from now, will we find out the real
story? It may not change either side’s view of
impeachment, but isn’t that what the press
does — try to find the truth?
The whistleblower is most likely CIA analyst
Eric Ciaramella.
Journalist Paul Sperry reported his name in
late October, saying that sources inside the
closed-door impeachment hearings identified
him. Ciaramella has put out no statement
denying these reports. Whistleblower lawyers
refuse to confirm or deny Ciaramella is their
man. His identity is apparently the worst-kept
secret of the Washington press corps. In a
sign of how farcical this has become, Rep.
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said his name as
part of a series of names during a live hearing
Wednesday night aired on television. He never
called him the whistleblower, just said he was
someone Republicans thought should testify,
yet Democrats angrily denounced the “outing.”
If you don’t know the man’s name, how do
you know the man’s name?
Politico’s Jack Shafer has
eloquently argued that the
press should name the
whistleblower. It is not against the law —
whistleblower protections are to prevent
retaliation in the workplace and apply to his
superiors, not the media. Yet while the press
eagerly tried to out Deep Throat or the
anonymous author of “A Warning,” they
suddenly lack curiosity.
They’ve also been hypocritical. In September,
the Times reported the whistleblower was a
male CIA officer who worked at the White
House and was now back at the CIA. Why?
Executive editor Dean Baquet said, “We wanted
to provide information to readers that allows
them to make their own judgments about
whether or not he is credible.” A cynic might
say they were trying to argue that the
whistleblower was credible.
But if that’s the argument, and if Ciaramella
is the whistleblower, isn’t it also relevant that
he, according to Sperry, previously worked
with CIA Director John Brennan, a fierce
critic of Trump, and Vice President Joe Biden,
Trump’s political opponent and the crux of the
impeachment inquiry? That he’s a registered
Democrat and that he was — again, according
to Sperry — accused of leaking negative
information about the Trump administration
and that’s why he was transferred back to
Langley?
What, if anything, did he leak? Did he work
with Biden on Ukraine, apparently
Ciaramella’s area of expertise? Did he know
about Burisma and Hunter Biden? Who told
him about the call, and why did that person
not complain instead of him? How did
Schiff’s staff help him tailor the complaint?
This is only the fourth time in our history that a
president has faced impeachment. Shouldn’t we
know the answers to these questions now, and
not in two or three years when the inevitable
official reports and tell-all books come out? Why
must we wait for the truth?
No comments:
Post a Comment