Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Ukraine Whistleblower Attorney: 60 Minutes ‘Misinterpreted’ Letter, ‘Literally Making Stuff Up’

Ukraine Whistleblower Attorney: 60 Minutes ‘Misinterpreted’ Letter, ‘Literally Making Stuff Up’

The letter only shares concerns over the whistleblower’s safety. It does not state that the whistleblower has federal protection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFiHeio5j_c

60 Minutes reported Sunday that the whistleblower of the phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky received federal protection. The news program insisted it had a letter to prove it.

Mark Zaid, the lawyer representing the whistleblower, took 60 Minutes to the woodshed on Twitter over the report. He said the program “misinterpreted contents” of the letter.

60 Minutes retorted that it sticks by its report.

Zaid asked if 60 Minutes had a source besides the letter from the law firm because nothing has been set in stone. Zaid said that unless the program has another source then it is “literally making stuff up.”

Zaid’s law firm published the letter.

Lead Attorney for the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Andrew Bakaj wrote to DNI Director Joseph Maguire that the firm has “has serious concerns” over the whistleblower’s “personal safety.”

Bakaj thanked Maguire for the support given to the whistleblower. He did not specify the support or resources already given to the person.

He specifically mentioned one of Trump’s tweets demanding to know the identity of the whistleblower:

The events of the past week have heightened our concerns that our client’s identity will be disclosed publicly and that, as a result, our client will be put in harm’s way. On September 26, 2019, the President of the United States said the following:

I want to know who’s the person that gave the Whistleblower, who’s the person that gave the Whistleblower the information, because that’s close to a spy. You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? With spies and treason, right? We used to handle them a little differently than we do now.

The fact that the President’s statement was directed to “the person that gave the Whistleblower the information” does nothing to assuage our concerns for our client’s safety. Moreover, certain individuals have issued a $50,000 “bounty” for “any information” relating to our client’s identity. Unfortunately, we expect this situation to worsen, and to become even more dangerous for our client and any other whistleblowers, as Congress seeks to investigate this matter.

The letter does not mention the whistleblower has received any kind of federal protection. It only expresses concerns for the whistleblower’s safety.

[Featured image via YouTube]

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Whistleblowers in democrat admins don’t need gov’t protection. They commit suicide in Fort Marcy Park or are murdered in unsolved Georgetown robberies.

In the tradition of Dan Rather and other great 60 minutes reportage, their reporting met their rigorous standard of “Fake but Accurate” . In addition, it meets the more common standard of “Well, it should have been true” used daily by almost all media.

“60 Minutes ‘Misinterpreted’ Letter, ‘Literally Making Stuff Up’”

Duh!

Hillary/Romney in 2020!

The whistleblower knows how this farce was put together, and will be arkancided, eventually.

See Wag The Dog.

Our taxpayer dollars at work. I want my money back.

60 minutes didn’t misinterpret anything. They purposely concocted this story. It’s what they do.

“Media should always report the facts.” Wow, where has this guy been for the past 20 years or so?

The fact that the President’s statement was directed to “the person that gave the Whistleblower the information” does nothing to assuage our concerns for our client’s safety.

That’s funny, it should . . . if the “whistleblower” and the “spy” are different people.

So . . . it sounds like Bakaj is admitting that there is no “spy”, if a spy is someone who obtains and passes on information; in reality, the “whistleblower” didn’t obtain any real information at all, but just made all this stuff up.

    Well, that’s the easiest explanation. Occam’s Razor may fit here.

    Picture this for a moment: The Dems find three weasels in the White House Hen House, but none of them are willing to lie on record. So they find a flunky who is on temporary assignment to ‘listen’ to each of them and generate an official whistleblower complaint… Oh, darn. The form requires direct knowledge, not third person. So they get the form edited, get the flunky’s complaint all straight and legal, and let fly.

    They anticipate that Trump will not release the transcript of the phone call, which will allow them to lie and smear about it for months. The whistleblower can be slipped off to a cushy job somewhere, the investigation turns into an obstruction of justice inquiry about how Trump is blocking the ‘Truth’ from getting out… and the whole thing explodes in their face.

    That won’t keep them from lying about it, much like they continue to lie about the Mueller report.

This has deep state greasy fingerprints all over it. Trump criticized Comey. Clapper, Brennan, et al. He doesn’t play their game by their rules, and this is how they get back at him. It’s as clear as day to me. Nobody can frame you better than a dirty cop. They know how to do it. And they know how to work the system.

The “whistleblower” should be afraid. This person, working with the democrats, is attempting to take down a sitting President because their candidate lost. Everyone involved should be named.

anyone remember the Clinton whistlebrower who’s house got raided and they got restated because they said they keep evidence.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend