Whistleblower had ‘professional’ tie to 2020 Democratic candidate

In an Aug. 26 letter, the Intelligence Community’s inspector general, Michael Atkinson, wrote that the anonymous whistleblower who set off the Trump-Ukraine impeachment fight showed “some indicia of an arguable political bias … in favor of a rival political candidate.”A few weeks later, news reports said the whistleblower’s possible bias was that he is a registered Democrat. That was all. Incredulous commentary suggested that Republicans who were pushing the bias talking point were so blinded by their own partisanship that they saw simple registration with the Democratic Party as evidence of wrongdoing.”Give me a break!” tweeted whistleblower lawyer Mark Zaid. “Bias? Seriously?”Now, however, there is word of more evidence of possible bias on the whistleblower’s part. Under questioning from Republicans during last Friday’s impeachment inquiry interview with Atkinson, the inspector general revealed that the whistleblower’s possible bias was not that he was simply a registered Democrat. It was that he had a significant tie to one of the Democratic presidential candidates currently vying to challenge President Trump in next year’s election.”The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship with one of the Democratic candidates,” said one person with knowledge of what was said.”The IG said the whistleblower had a professional relationship with one of the 2020 candidates,” said another person with knowledge of what was said.”What [Atkinson] said was that the whistleblower self-disclosed that he was a registered Democrat and that he had a prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic presidential candidate,” said a third person with knowledge of what was said.All three sources said Atkinson did not identify the Democratic candidate with whom the whistleblower had a connection. It is unclear what the working or professional relationship between the two was.In the Aug. 26 letter, Atkinson said that even though there was evidence of possible bias on the whistleblower’s part, “such evidence did not change my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern ‘appears credible,’ particularly given the other information the ICIG obtained during its preliminary review.”Democrats are certain to take that position when Republicans allege that the whistleblower acted out of bias. Indeed, the transcript of Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is a public document, for all to see. One can read it regardless of the whistleblower’s purported bias.Nevertheless, Republicans will want to know more about the origins of the whistleblower complaint, especially given the unorthodox use of whistleblower law involved. There is more to learn — like who the Democratic candidate is — before Republicans will say they know enough about what happened.

Source: Whistleblower had ‘professional’ tie to 2020 Democratic candidate

DNI Declassifies FISA Judge James Boasberg 2018 Ruling – FBI Conducted “Tens of Thousands” of Unauthorized NSA Database Queries… | The Last Refuge

There is a lot to unpack in a decision today by the Director of National Intelligence to declassify (with redactions) a 2018 FISA court ruling about ongoing unauthorized database search queries by FBI agents/”contractors” in the period covering 2017/2018.BACKGROUND: In April 2017 the DNI released a FISA report written by Presiding Judge Rosemary Collery that showed massive abuse, via unauthorized searches of the NSA database, in the period of November 2015 through May 2016. Judge Collyer’s report specifically identified search query increases tied to the 2016 presidential primary.  Two years of research identified this process as the DOJ/FBI and IC using the NSA database to query information related to political candidates, specifically Donald Trump.

Source: DNI Declassifies FISA Judge James Boasberg 2018 Ruling – FBI Conducted “Tens of Thousands” of Unauthorized NSA Database Queries… | The Last Refuge

BIG PICTURE – White House Responds to Speaker Pelosi Unconstitutional Impeachment Effort – (Full pdf and background)… | The Last Refuge

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Lawfare allies can change House rules (they did). Pelosi and Lawfare can also change House impeachment rules (they did). Pelosi/Lawfare can change committee rules (they did); and in doing so they can remove House republicans from the entire process… Which They Did.  However, what Lawfare and Pelosi cannot change is The U.S. Constitution, which they are desperate to confront.Speaker Pelosi’s ‘Lawfare House rules‘ and/or ‘Lawfare impeachment rules‘ cannot supersede the constitutional separation of powers.Nancy Pelosi cannot decree an “official impeachment inquiry”, and as a consequence nullify a constitutional firewall between the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch.

Source: BIG PICTURE – White House Responds to Speaker Pelosi Unconstitutional Impeachment Effort – (Full pdf and background)… | The Last Refuge

Rod Rosenstein “Unindicted Co-Conspirator”? – Durham Expands Timeline for Probe… | The Last Refuge

One aspect heavily monitored by CTH surrounds frequent redactions to ongoing DOJ releases that touch upon former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. An additionally annoying thorn would be the continued holding-back of Rosenstein’s expanded scope memos authorizing the expansion of Mueller’s special investigation. [They remain hidden]The reason Rosenstein’s behavior remains a high-priority is simply because without his ongoing participation and authorization in 2017 and 2018 the Weissmann/Mueller probe would not have been able to continue.Rosenstein is a central character to all events, and at the end of the Mueller investigation -through today- the DOJ continued to black out any information that evidenced Rosenstein’s duplicitous activity.

Source: Rod Rosenstein “Unindicted Co-Conspirator”? – Durham Expands Timeline for Probe… | The Last Refuge

RODENTSTEIN & MUELLER

 Rat-PNG-Clipart.png