“Some may recall the apocryphal story of the Texan accused of murder who, when asked by the judge if he had anything to say in his defense, replied, “Well, your Honor, I guess he just needed killin’…” https://www.redstate.com/diary/cmndr45/2011/05/06/he-just-needed-killin/

I take no pleasure in it but that’s where the left’s path leads to…

Report: Federal Worker Who Made Complaint Is CIA Officer

The partisan federal employee who issued a complaint regarding President Donald Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is a male CIA officer who was previously “detailed to work at the White House,” reports the New York Times.

According to the Times, the officer, who has since returned to work at the CIA, appears to be an “analyst by training” and “steeped in details” of U.S. foreign policy regarding Europe. Further, he is believed to possess a “sophisticated understanding” of the politics in Ukraine.

The Department of Justice on Wednesday confirmed the Office of Intelligence Community Inspector General found that the so-called “whistleblower” not only had second-hand information regarding the call, but also possessed a “political bias” in favor of a “political rival” of President Trump.

“The complaint raises the prospect that the whistle-blower was not detailed to the White House either during the events in question or when he learned about them,” notes the newspaper.
In a statement to the Times, the officer’s legal team confirmed his previous work at the CIA, but warned the newspaper against revealing their client’s identity, claiming that doing so could potentially place him in danger.

“Any decision to report any perceived identifying information of the whistle-blower is deeply concerning and reckless, as it can place the individual in harm’s way,” said lawyer Andrew Bakaj. “The whistle-blower has a right to anonymity.”

” . . . a right to anonymity.”

Were genuine whistleblowing involved one might acquiesce to such a claim. Not so much when the “whistleblowing” is bogus, a cover for a purely political hit job. Or no?

Indeed.

Yes, I agree but under the new rules apparently established the last week my President Hypothetical could be accused of pressuring a foreign government to act in a way that would benefit him.

Just proves how ridiculous this whole thing is.

Of course not.

A president can conduct his own foreign policy, and that foreign policy is obviously conducted not only for the benefit of that politician but for the benefit of the country, in his opinion. The two are hardly mutually exclusive. There is no requirement that a president act AGAINST his own interests, and that every single interaction with a foreign government be pure.

Maybe such purity would consist in implementing the policies of that president’s opponents.

It’s an absurd idea.

That, by the way, is why it is at least possible that Joe Biden’s pressure to fire the prosecutor was a bona fide exercise of government policy. But it is highly suspicious in that case, because it serves the financial interests of his son, who already appears to be enriching himself from connections related to his father’s position rather than any skills that son may possess.

President Hypothetical runs on a campaign promise to win war with some country. Having hard time winning war which affects his re-election possibilities. Then new president elected in country whose support would greatly help in war effort. In call President Hypothetical urges country’s new president to help with war.

Is this improper?