Friday, November 8, 2019

The Real Reason the Name of the Trump Phone Call Whistleblower Needs to Be Revealed

Important update below

By Robert Wenzel

Most of the focus on the whistleblower who first raised concerns about President Trump's phone call to the president of Ukraine centers around the idea of whether or not the whistleblower has a "right" to remain anonymous.

The Whistleblower Protection Act says nothing about the anonymity of a whistleblower. It only says federal agencies can not retaliate against a whistleblower.

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which investigates federal whistleblower complaints, however, says:
 Inspectors General are prohibited from disclosing an employee’s identity unless the IG determines that disclosure is unavoidable or is compelled by a court order.
In other words, a court order can overrule OSC anonymity protection.

The Democrats pushing the impeachment hearing argue that the whistleblower's testimony is not necessary because there are other better witnesses and, therefore his identity does not need to be revealed. In a very narrow sense, there is some truth to this perspective.

If I see a shooting from my office window and call the police but can't identify the shooter because I was too far away at the time of the shooting, but at the same time the police find someone at street level who can identify the shooter, then I may not be called during a trial even though I am the person who started the police response.

But this isn't the relevant applicable scenario in the case of the anonymous Ukraine phone call whistleblower. The Democrats are misdirecting the reason not to identify the whistleblower.

It is not because he would be a witness concerning the Ukraine call and is unnecessary because there are better witnesses but rather because he may be at the epicenter of a plot to take down the president. That is, he may be the most important witness to a possible soft coup attempt.

Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that a soft coup is ongoing.

Mark Zaid, one of the attorneys representing the whistleblower tweeted in January 2017 that a "coup has started" and that "impeachment will follow ultimately."

Only by understanding who the whistleblower is and asking him questions under oath will we be able to understand the nature of the circumstances under which he decided to become a whistleblower.

That is, It needs to be determined whether there is an active plot to take down the duly elected president of the United States by federal employees who are supposed to be taking orders but have gone rogue because they don't like some of the president's policies.

The Secret Service investigates far less serious physical threats on the president all the time.

Here we have an anonymous whistleblower who was the spark that got an impeachment inquiry going who didn't even have first-hand knowledge of what he was claiming. And he has a lawyer who on the eve of Trump assuming the presidency tweeted about impeaching Trump.

There are also indications that the whistleblower had met in advance of his whistleblowing with an aide of the Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff.

From the New York Times:
[Schiff] learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a  whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials.
The early account by the future whistle-blower shows how determined he was to make known his allegations that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s government to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election.

But here is the thing, the whistleblower never reported the contact on his official whistleblower declaration, which he was required to do.

And Schiff did not disclose the contact the whistleblower made with his aide until it was already public.

What are they hiding? What is going on?

Here is another indication of possible plotting and lying about the plotting:
Bottom line: There are a lot of curious things going on here and we are talking about taking down the president. One would think this is something the Justice Department would want to investigate.

A court order should be delivered to the OSC demanding the name of the whistleblower so that a proper investigation can be conducted to determine if the Deep State is willing to go to extraordinary means to take down the president and to see what laws they may have broken, if any, in such an operation.


A controversial whistleblower who allegedly reported second-hand on President Donald Trump’s private conversation with the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky visited the Obama White House on numerous occasions, according to Obama era visitor logs obtained by Judicial Watch...

There is so much information and evidence that reveals that this was no ordinary whistleblower complaint but one that may have been based on highly partisan actions targeting Trump...

Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of EconomicPolicyJournal.comand Target Liberty. He also writes EPJ Daily Alert and is author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank and most recently Foundations of Private Property Society Theory: Anarchism for the Civilized Person Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics and on LinkedIn. His youtube series is here: Robert Wenzel Talks Economics. More about Wenzel here.

1 comment:

  1. You are right. The DOJ should be investigating it. But since Barr is a Deep State critter himself, I don't see that happening.