Proxy wars are always a mess. With an added layer of command, orders lose original intent, and while the bodies of soldiers are in the fight, their hearts are not. So it is in Washington currently, where antagonist Democrats are sacrificing themselves to serve their globalist masters.
Democrats' desperation gives them away as disingenuous. Yesterday, Adam Schiff was called out for mischaracterizing the call between President Trump and Ukrainian president Zelensky. Schiff's antics were not in keeping with his many prior Trump-bashing episodes. He knew what he was told to do was wrong. Trump knows which way the Beltway wind blows, and he called Schiff out, saying, "...when you see little Adam Schiff go out and lie and lie and stand at the mic — smart guy, by the way — stand at the mic and act like he’s so serious. And then he goes into a room with Nadler, and they must laugh their asses off."
In similar fashion one day earlier, we were treated to the spectacle Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who was forced to go against her better instincts and called for a formal impeachment inquiry. These are acts of desperation, not political cunning. Trump again called it out, saying of Pelosi, "As far as I'm concerned, she's no longer Speaker of the House."
Indeed. Based on her abrupt change of stance on impeachment, it appears that Nancy is carrying water. So who are the greater forces controlling the Democrats? For starters, George Soros and the CIA.
Yesterday, the New York Times broke the story that the whistleblower is a CIA agent. It's difficult to trust the Times these days, with relentless bias against Trump, and confirmed fake news stories (more lies about Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh being the latest). But it is fair to trust them when it comes to "exposing" the CIA, as they are a mouthpiece for that organization, along with other mass media.
Yes, spooks and media go together like ham and eggs, so the revelation that the whistleblower is a CIA agent (still anonymous, of course) should surprise no one. The Times sure does know a lot about him, though:
The man has since returned to the C.I.A., the people said. Little else is known about him. His complaint made public Thursday suggested he was an analyst by training and made clear he was steeped in details of American foreign policy toward Europe, demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of Ukrainian politics and at least some knowledge of the law.
In other words, he was a plant with instructions to bring down Trump. The timing is purposeful: just as Trump prepared to shine at the UN, the story washed over the media, obscuring all else.
As this Breitbart article patiently points out, the complainant footnotes one of his claims, citing the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP). This is problematic. The complainant stated that “multiple U.S. officials told me” about the contents of the document, but here he cites a report? Which is it, a firsthand account or something he read?
But that's not even the meat of it. The official-sounding OCCRP is really just a cheap propaganda rag. Check it out here. The real problem is in who funds the OCCRP. Yes, George Soros' Open Society Foundation:
Every page of the OCCRP website features the same bottom section listing the icons of four of the organization’s top funders, including Soros’s Open Society Foundations and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Indeed, OCCRP provides a hyperlink to the webpage for Soros’s Open Society at the bottom left corner of every page on OCCRP’s own website.
Soros’s Open Society was listed as the number two donor in most of the annual financial records posted on OCCRP’s website starting in 2012. Some years list Soros as the organization’s top donor.
What's even worse, the complainant's footnoted source is a "report" produced dually, by both the trashy OCCRP and...BuzzFeed News. The same folks who brought you the fake Steele dossier. So to those reporters who noted that the whistleblower's full complaint looked an awful lot like Steele dossier 2.0, such as the NY Post, there's a reason for that. It appears to have been produced by the same hands.
Rep. Steve Scalise correctly pointed out that the document in question doesn't even meet the standard of a "whistleblower" complaint, that the whistleblower himself is demostrably partisan, and has hired a lawyer who consulted with...Joe Biden.
As for the definition of a whistleblower, you can't very well go to police and report a crime that five people told you has happened. To have any credibility as a whistleblower, it must be a firsthand account, or it's just hearsay.
Perhaps that's the point. The complaint isn't about being valid, it's a mirage of a beachhead, appearing to be real long enough to slow the Trump agenda again, just plausible enough to give Dems talking points. It isn't a fire, it's fuel for dying embers of the "resistance."
Subscribe to our evening newsletter to stay informed during these challenging times!!
You know what this reminds me of? The 2004 presidential election, when the media chose to believe the exit polls over the actual election results. In this case, we have the call. We have the transcript. That's the closest we're going to get to "forensic" evidence in this situation. But the Democrats and the media would rather believe a second-or-third-hand, hearsay account from... someone.
It really is a strange thing to witness.
soros:
A pox on The USA.