Report: Ukraine Whistleblower Worked With Biden When He was Vice President
“From everything we know about the whistleblower and his work in the executive branch then, there is absolutely no doubt he would have been working with Biden when he was vice president.”
The Washington Examiner has learned from intelligence officers and former White House officials the identity of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate who worked with the Ukraine whistleblower.
Former Vice President Joe Biden.
This news comes a few days after the publication learned that Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson discovered the whistleblower behind the phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky worked for a 2020 Democratic candidate.
Atkinson wrote the whistleblower “showed ‘some indicia of an arguable political bias…in favor of a rival political candidate.’”
The whistleblower claimed through hearsay that Trump threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine if Zelensky did not investigate Vice President Joe Biden.
Supposedly Biden forced then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to fire the prosecutor general Viktor Shokin for not stopping an investigation into Burisma Holdings. Biden’s son Hunter sat on the company’s board.
Biden has bragged he helped get Shokin fired by threatening to withhold aid from Ukraine. He has always claimed he did it because of the corruption around Shokin. Shokin himself said otherwise.
It looks like Biden, out of all the 2020 candidates, is the one who worked with the whistleblower.
From The Washington Examiner:
Lawyers for the whistleblower said he had worked only “in the executive branch.” The Washington Examiner has established that he is a career CIA analyst who was detailed to the National Security Council at the White House and has since left. On Sept. 26, the New York Times reported that he was a CIA officer. On Oct. 4, the newspaper added that he “was detailed to the National Security Council at one point.”
—
A retired CIA officer told the Washington Examiner, “From everything we know about the whistleblower and his work in the executive branch then, there is absolutely no doubt he would have been working with Biden when he was vice president.”
As an experienced CIA official on the NSC with the deep knowledge of Ukraine that he demonstrated in his complaint, it is probable that the whistleblower briefed Biden and likely that he accompanied him on Air Force Two during at least one of the six visits the 2020 candidate made to the country.
A former Trump administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters, said Biden’s work on foreign affairs brought him into close proximity with the whistleblower either at the CIA or when he was detailed to the White House.
“This person, after working with Biden, may feel defensive towards him because he feels [Biden] is being falsely attacked. Maybe he is even talking to Biden’s staff,” the former official said. “Maybe it is innocent, maybe not.”
The Democrats and the left have latched onto this phone call between Trump and Zelensky to impeach the president.
They still insist they have a case even though the transcript showed no threats. Zelensky has denied blackmail or pressure from Trump numerous times. New Neo wrote that the investigation into Biden may have started before Trump spoke to Zelensky.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I think the most shocking thing is that his whistleblower has managed to make every reveal a big ‘meh’. This is the longest string of non-reveals I’ve seen treated as scandals in a while. A permanant bureaucrat in close proximity to the white house would have a professional contact with members of any administration in office during their tenure. But this one heard that the current president had a phone call with a foreign leader!
*shakes head*
I am very surprised if the leaker (not whistleblower) worked for Biden. For a CIA analyst, this guy or gal has got to be very, very stupid. Irrespective of the damage the complaint was supposed to inflict on President Trump, didn’t the leaker take into account the damage it would do to Biden?
Exit question: What was the (insidious) role of the ICIG insofar as he changed the rules after the fact about first hand vs. hearsay evidence?
He didn’t change the rules. He changed the form, to make it better fit what the rules always were.
The damn rules were changed. Period.
No, they weren’t. This is not a question of opinion, it’s one of fact. There’s an objective truth to this, which is readily determinable, and that is that there was never any requirement for first-hand information.
Yes there was. You find one whistle blower prior to this that did not have first had knowledge. One.
You can’t.
Because there were rules. The rules were written on the very form one must fill out.
Your opinion is wrong. The facts are there was a rule, written on the very document a true WB had to sign.
The timing of the change is far too convenient, no matter what your opinion on the rule might be. In fact, the previous version of the form seems a far more rational interpretation of the intent of the rule. The revised form only serves a cabal trying to use hearsay, rumor, gossip and innuendo to damage their target.
You can always count on milhouse to stand up for the progs.
“Exit question: What was the (insidious) role of the ICIG insofar as he changed the rules after the fact about first hand vs. hearsay evidence?”
Does the ICIG even have the power to do that, absent a period o public advice and comment?
I’ve also read in the Wall Street Journal that they want the whistleblower to testify in writing so he/she doesn’t have to appear.
This is getting absurd.
The Democrats are really pushing the country into a place they are going to regret.
They are called “hearings” for a reason. Live testimony with live cross examination is the heart of arriving at the “ring of truth”. Computers can structure perfectly structured responses. Ferreting out justice isn’t a mathematical calculation. Nor is it founded in one’s ability to structure sentences. It’s about the humanity on display during the course of a public trial where live human beings make their cases and are subject to live cross examination by other human beings.
There is nothing you need to see or hear citizen. The State will inform you of what transpired in the hearings against Comrade Trump when it is time for the proletariat to know.
The Last Refuge (CTH) has opined that that the so-called Whistleblower is Michael Barry. They also have an interesting article on Michael Atkinson who was allegedly involved in the FISA abuse. He is worthy of being described as Deep State. I am curious as to who recommend his appointment as IC IG as he appears to be on the other team.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/10/04/sketchy-inspector-general-michael-atkinson-admits-whistle-blower-never-informed-him-of-contact-with-schiff-committee/
Wow!
Has anyone thought to ask if the whistleblower was involved in the blackmail of the Ukraine instigated by Biden to protect his son?
“…didn’t the leaker take into account the damage it would do to Biden?”
Wouldn’t be surprised if the damage to Biden was seen as a feature, not a bug.
What I find curious are the differences between the Biden effort to influence Ukrainian politics and the Trump phone call.
>
In order to make the Trump phone call an impeachment worthy sin one must assume that the quid pro quo was on the table because of a number of previous actions. One must also make the assumption that these quid pro quos are unheard of, patently illegal, new to lawful politics, etc. Additionally, one must assume the whistle blower is being accurate in his second or third hand knowledge, that the transcript from the phone call was not an accurate representation, and that other incriminatory actions were being carried out. All together, that’s a lot of assuming.
>
The Biden argument is simpler – kinda sorta. For the argument that Biden was manipulating the Ukrainians, by demanding the investigation into his son’s company or else money would be withheld, comes straight from Biden’s mouth and preserved on a video tape where he was bragging. No assumptions are needed unless you want to get into the tar baby of how Biden’s statements were really something else and there were other things going on that we are not privy to, yada, yada, yada. Once again, to believe Biden’s argument that he is innocent requires a lot of assumptions.
>
Despite the knowledge of Occam’s Razor, the obvious, and the need for or absence of assumptions, it is clear the easy story is how Biden is dirty and Trump is again being set up. The world sees this (the rational world that is) and yet the Democrats keep over reaching, digging the hole they are in deeper and deeper, and making their candidates and allies all look worse and worse. This now begs the question of whether or not they are really serious about winning in 2020 or are they just that incredibly stupid?
Not true. He bragged about getting Shokin fired; he said nothing about any connection to Hunter or Burisma, and he denies that this was even on his mind. To indict him we must make these assumptions: that Shokin was in fact investigating Burisma at the time, that Biden knew this, and that this was secretly the real reason he wanted Shokin fired. This is less of a stretch than the assumptions one must make to indict Trump, but it is still assumption, not proven fact. Biden denies it, just as Trump denies the assumptions against him, and actually proving either set of assumptions would be difficult. We can only go with common sense, which is that the Biden assumptions seem very likely, while the Trump ones seem less so. And we can condemn the hypocrisy that puts an implausibly pure construction on Biden’s motives while at the same time putting the worst possible construction on Trump’s.
I’m so glad no one made assumptions about Trump with the firings of Comey and McCabe.
Plenty of people did, and look where that got them.
Actually, you just wish away all the facts that are known, like the fired prosecutor STATING he was investigating Burisma at the time.
How convenient. When you wish to help the progs with their coup you seem blind to facts.
When did Joe deliver his message? Everything I’ve see reported says January of 2016.
The New York Times published an article regarding the issue about Hunter, Burisma, and the prosecutor on December 15th, 2015. To accept Biden’s innocence, we also have to accept that Joe didn’t read the article, and that none of his family, friends, or staff brought it to his attention.
It is not proven that he knew about the article, but it is pretty hard to trust that he didn’t.
None of this makes a difference. The MSM/DNC axis made the decision to impeach Trump before he was elected. In their eyes facts have nothing to do with it.
The only “known” in all this hoopla is the ‘verdict’.
Correct. This is a story about a search for a rope.
The elephant in the room is that the whistleblower(s) is/are operatives of the CIA — an agency infamous for overthrowing foreign governments. How outrageous, then, that the hearsay evidence of anonymous CIA agents is even being discussed seriously as grounds for opening an impeachment investigation.
I wonder if the supposed ‘first party contact’ is an interpreter. It would fit the facts, since I doubt that any of the interpreters *don’t* work outside of the CIA, and the last thing they would want is to be in whistleblower status, because protections or not, that ends their career. And when Slow Joe went to the Ukraine in 2016, taking along a trusted interpreter would be like taking a suitcase: nobody would even look twice.
the other elephant in the room is the dems/leftists’ intent–they’re obviously willing to dismiss due process–what ELSE are they prepared to do in order to seize power?–do not believe that their persistent mantra of ” by any means necessary ” is some idle taunt–it’s for real–should their transparent ” impeachment ” show fail (and believe it will), what else should we be expecting?–that they will contest any result of an ” election ” not in their favor is a given but would they really entertain/dare to remove a duly elected president by force (a la 1963)?–can reasonably expect that rational americans would never pursue such a thing but given all the activities/tells of the dems/leftists, cannot say the same of them
It’s looking more and more like this “whistleblower”, was who Chuck Schumer was talking about on January 3d, 2017 before Trump was even inaugurated when he said: “Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”
Funny how the military is apolitical but it seems as if the FBI, NSC and CIA under the Obama administration became very, very partisan.