- - Monday, November 4, 2019

This column originally was submitted for publication exposing the name and details of the Trump so-called whistleblower. The Washington Times is opting to hold off on publishing his name. The points made remain valid however, so the column is going to publication without (Name Redacted) specifically being mentioned.

When a U.S. president concludes his term in office, the American media inevitably spend an enormous amount of time speculating about what his legacy will be. What will that particular president be remembered for? History has a way of sifting things down to broad basic themes with the passage of time.

Sometimes, the presidential legacy is accurate and fair, sometimes not so much. FDR is largely remembered for saving the world in WWII. Kennedy’s legacy is essentially potential cut short. Despite opening doors in China, Nixon will always be remembered for the Watergate scandal. Bill Clinton sat in the Oval Office during the prosperous 1990s, but his name is forever tied to that of Monica Lewinsky.

Which brings us to the name (Name Redacted). He is a 33-year-old CIA operative who worked in a National Security Council position at the White House, initially during the Obama administration and then continued there during the early months of the Trump administration. During his Obama years, (Name Redacted) served as the NSC director for Ukraine.

In the spirit of Shepard Smith, late of Fox News, and his commitment to differentiate fact from speculation, let’s look at the facts we know about this young man.



(Name Redacted) worked at the Obama White House as the NSC director for Ukraine.

(Name Redacted) worked regularly with Vice President Joe Biden, who was in charge of the Obama administration policy on Ukraine.

(Name Redacted) is a registered Democrat.

(Name Redacted) worked with DNC activists, including some specifically tasked with finding dirt on candidate Trump.

(Name Redacted) worked with then-CIA Director John Brennan, one of Mr. Trump’s most vocal critics and one of those who falsely claimed to have mountains of evidence of Mr. Trump’s guilt in the now-disproven Russia/Trump collusion foolishness.

(Name Redacted) was an NSC holdover employee during the early months of the Trump administration, at one point taking a West Wing job that gave him access to virtually everything the president was doing, saying and working on.

(Name Redacted) was accused of being an avid leaker from the White House of stories that were detrimental to the Trump administration.

According to the final Mueller report, (Name Redacted) ignored the regular chain of command and sent an email to another intelligence agency saying that Trump held a meeting with Russian diplomats in the Oval Office the day after firing FBI Director James Comey. You may recall that before being fired Mr. Comey had led the Trump/Russia investigation.

(Name Redacted) left his job at the White House after the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel.

(Name Redacted) went back to work at the CIA after leaving the White House.

(Name Redacted) was not present for the now-infamous call between President Trump and the president of Ukraine.

(Name Redacted) sought advice from the staff of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff on what to do with the second-hand information he had heard about the Ukraine phone call.

Mr. Schiff’s staff includes two men who worked with (Name Redacted) in NSC positions at the Obama White House. One of those appears to have been hired by Mr. Schiff at the same time (Name Redacted) came to the chairman’s office seeking direction.

As you piece those facts together, it would appear that as a whistleblower, (Name Redacted) should be recognized as having more than just a little political bias. He’s a trained intelligence operative who worked with Vice President Biden, is known to have strongly disagreed with Trump policies, worked with former CIA Director and unabashed Trump hater John Brennan, is accused of leaking info detrimental to Mr. Trump while working in the West Wing, was documented by Robert Mueller’s team as having ignored the chain of command and once a special counsel was appointed, (Name Redacted) disappeared back into the dark secrecy of the CIA.

Hardly the narrative the Trump-hating left wants surrounding the latest effort at impeachment.

No small irony that The Washington Post started using the catch phrase “Democracy Dies in Darkness” in early 2017 at about the same time (Name Redacted) is accused of beginning to leak information damaging to the Trump administration from within the walls of the White House. Yet, The Post has opted not to mention his detailed background in its coverage of the Trump/Ukraine narrative. Nor has CNN, NBC or The New York Times. Why would major outlets allegedly committed to shining light on the facts ignore essential details of the whistleblower whose actions have led to a formal impeachment inquiry?

If the simple facts in this column were shared from the outset, the impeachment effort would never have gained any traction. The GOP rightfully points out that the Democrats have spent an enormous amount of time, money and effort looking for a reason to overturn the results of the 2016 election via impeachment. While that may be true, the effort wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance (in this global warming world) of success unless an activist media was complicit in said effort.

Mr. Trump is brash and at times downright rude, but he was duly elected president by the people of the United States. The fact that the opposition party wants to selectively pick and choose some facts while completely ignoring others in an attempt to oust a sitting president should alarm every American regardless of party affiliation.

The idea that a large portion of the mainstream media is complicit in this effort, shining light only in the corners that are harmful to a president they loathe, should downright frighten you. A news media that ignores facts because they prefer a particular narrative isn’t reporting news at all.

Why does Adam Schiff want to hide the name of the whistleblower? Why does the chairman not want the whistleblower to testify before Congress? Because the more we learn about (Name Redacted), the clearer it becomes that this is the mother of all dirty tricks in yet another backdoor effort to beat a president that won at the ballot box.

Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide