Real Clear Investigations revealed the name of the person who they believe is the “whistleblower.” Unlike the “whistleblowers” and Rep. Schiff’s “evidence”, Real Clear Investigations’ reasoning on why they believe they have properly identified him is very compelling and is supported by evidence and non-anonymous sources.
If this identity is correct, it is extremely troubling that his hearsay information and his feeling about President Trump’s actions were ever taken seriously. According to Real Clear Investigations, the individual is “a registered Democrat-held over from the Obama White House, previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan.”
Even more troubling is their assertions that he:
“[H]uddled for “guidance” with the staff of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, including former colleagues also held over from the Obama era whom Schiff’s office had recently recruited from the NSC.”
“[W]orked with a Democratic National Committee operative who dug up dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, inviting her into the White House for meetings, former White House colleagues said.”
“[W]as detailed over to the National Security Council from the agency in the summer of 2015, working under Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser. He also worked closely with the former vice president.”
“[I]nvited [him] to an October 2016 state luncheon the vice president hosted for Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. Other invited guests included Brennan, as well as then-FBI Director James Comey and then-National Intelligence Director James Clapper.”
“Several U.S. officials told Real Clear Investigations that the invitation that was extended to [him], a relatively low-level GS-13 federal employee, was unusual and signaled he was politically connected inside the Obama White House.” – Real Clear Investigations
If this information is true, it is possible that this “whistleblower” could be one of the individuals who might need a defense lawyer in the coming weeks when the findings of the FISA report are made public. The reported direct relationship with James Brennan, the “Democratic National Committee operative who dug up dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election,” and Susan Rice makes them a likely candidate to be at the very least called as a witness in the cases that are likely to start following the FISA report. In addition, his area of expertise is reportedly Russia and Ukraine; two of the reported locations where information used in the anti- Trump Russian Dossier was “gathered.” The name that Real Clear Investigations revealed is also listed as a source in one of Robert Mueller’s footnotes in his report.
This means that with the Democrats starting the impeachment inquiry the “whistleblower” may be a witness, or a defendant, in a separate case where real evidence has been produced of criminal wrongdoing. In this case, their feelings, opinions, and rumors that they heard will not be important. The facts and potentially illegal actions that took place to start the witch hunt against President Trump will be concrete evidence that the Democrats and the media will be unable to spin politically.
Regardless of the identity that Real Clear Investigations revealed is true, the “whistleblower” is not actually a whistleblower. Article II of the Constitution gives the president sweeping power to conduct foreign affairs, negotiate with leaders of other nations, and make demands or offer promises. Whoever the “whistleblower” is, his problem was not that President Trump did anything illegal, or uncommon, but rather, he simply did not like what the President was doing. Originally, the office of the Director of National Intelligence said the complaint did not meet the ICWPA definition because it involved conduct “from someone outside the intel community and did not relate to intelligence activity.”
So far Representative Schiff has not commented on the Real Clear Investigations’ report on the “whistleblower’s” identity. The lawyers for the “whistleblower” have asked for caution when speculating who his client might be, “the disclosure of the name of any person who may be suspected to be the whistleblower places that individual and their family in great physical danger. Such behavior is at the pinnacle of irresponsibility and is intentionally reckless.”
It is worth noting, however, that since the “whistleblower” does not qualify for such status under the statute, he is technically not entitled to identity protection in any government proceedings. Even if he was, the statutory protection has no application to, and is not binding on, the media revealing his identity.
If Real Clear Investigations’ revelations are correct, the “pinnacle of irresponsibility and intentionally reckless[ness]” is the fact that the United States has been thrown into an impeachment on the word of a political hack whose complaint should have been dismissed immediately.