Report: Trump Was Subject of Whistleblower Complaint Over Security Threat

Congress and the White House are in a standoff after the Administration refused to disclose a whistleblower complaint to the Inspector General over a national security breach — a complaint that under federal law is to be supplied to Congress. There is now a Washington Post report that the Complaint concerns a “promise” made by President Donald Trump to a foreign leader that was considered so serious that it prompted an intelligence official to file the complaint and prompted the Inspector General to declare the matter an “urgent concern.” Trump has been previously criticized for disclosing classified information, including a serious breach in a meeting with Russian officials.

Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson determined that the complaint but acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguire refused to share the complaint with Congress. This could trigger a serious legal dispute over separation of powers and the direct blocking of an oversight inquiry.

The Inspector General considered the matter sufficiently serious to notify Congress of the refusal to share the complaint.

The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) of 1998 established the whistleblower system for the intelligence community. In 2010, additional protections were added by Congress. Under 50 U.S.C. §3033:

An employee of an element of the intelligence community, an employee assigned or detailed to an element of the intelligence community, or an employee of a contractor to the intelligence community who intends to report to Congress a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern may report such complaint or information to the Inspector General. (Emphasis added.)

The IG then has 14 days after receiving a credible complaint to give it to the director of national intelligence (DNI) within 14 days. Thereafter:

Upon receipt of a transmittal from the Inspector General … the Director shall, within 7 calendar days of such receipt, forward such transmittal to the congressional intelligence committees, together with any comments the Director considers appropriate. (Emphasis added.)

That would make the duty clear under federal law. There appears to be some claim that this complaint does not fall within the statutory process. If the President is the source of the breach, it could be claimed as a matter of policy. Since the President has declassification authority, they could be claiming that he cannot be deemed responsible for such a breach.

This however is an exceptionally rare and potentially serious matter. It is clear that an intelligence official and the IG deemed this disclosure to be so serious as to be a threat to national security interests under the law.

82 thoughts on “Report: Trump Was Subject of Whistleblower Complaint Over Security Threat”

  1. Some thoughts on cowardly “whistleblowing” :

    Anonymous sources are almost always bad sources. You sort of got the courage of your convictions?
    Screaming “Orange Man Bad” from behind a curtain doesn’t make your more credible. It makes you less so.
    Believing accusers you can’t confront isn’t justice; it’s middle school.
    If you really think the POTUS undermined national security come forward publicly or be relegated to those sniveling unmanly quislings endemic to the Deep State.

  2. While a person can technically be called a whistleblower and still remain anonymous, genuine and credible whistleblowers don’t remain anonymous for long, if they make their claims anonymously at all.

    A real whistleblower is someone like Willilam Edward Binney, who was once a high ranked NSA official. Not surprisingly, Professor Turley is silent about real whistleblowers like Binney. Binney, for example, exposed the lies of Mueller’s report. Binney’s analysis, unlike Mueller’s, was based on facts and evidence.

    As Mr. Binney said:

    “The problem with the Mueller report and the Rosenstein indictment is it’s all based on lies. I mean the fact they’re still lying about the, saying the DNC was hacked by the Russians and the Russians gave it to WikiLeaks. Well, we had some of our people and our group, the VIPS, the Veteran Intelligence Professionals, look at the data that WikiLeaks posted on the DNC data. They actually posted the DNC data…that entire set of data was read to a thumb drive or a CD ROM then physically transported. Now this is what Kim Dotcom [Kim Schmitz, Internet expert] is saying. This is what Julian Assange basically was inferring. Others have been saying the same things.”

    Naturally, there are no official government investigations into Mueller’s fraud. That would take a whistleblower. That is, the real McCoy, not some ersatz “whisteleblower” like the one referred to in this article.

    1. James, if there are no investigations into “Mueller’s fraud”, as you call it, then it would seem that you’re the liar.

      The Senate is still controlled by Republicans. Why can’t they investigate “Mueller’s Fraud”?? ..Because it wasn’t a fraud..!

      1. ..Because it wasn’t a fraud..!

        Down Peter’s memory hole is Mueller’s recent appearance before the House Judiciary Committee.

      2. that the DNC files came from a “hack” over the wire was impossible. it was only technologically possible that it was a leak. that is to say, someone downloaded files from a DNC terminal onto a thumb drive or other magnetic storage media, and walked out with it, somehow got that to assange.

        that is what binney was referring to in this. this is the ongoing lie, the ongoing fraud aspect.

        https://consortiumnews.com/2019/03/13/vips-muellers-forensics-free-findings/

        keep on ignoring this truth even though I’ve presented it here about 20 times

      3. “The Senate is still controlled by Republicans.”

        The corrupted are everywhere in our world. There are many corrupt Republicans, just like they are many corrupt Democrats. We call it the Establishment- bought and paid for(on the cheap) by insanely wealthy interests. It’s a story told throughout time. Will the Establishment easily allow itself to be brought to justice? I think not!

        Will Barr do what needs to be done? Probably not. The limited hangout is standard operating procedure for any crisis that strikes at the establishment. The bureaucracy will do it’s best to limit the fallout.

        Ultimately, it’s up to Trump himself to use his sole power to declassify the relevant documents that would prove his case. If he fails to do it will be held against him by many of his supporters. Any failure to do so would be his own.

      4. non sequitur.

        The absence of an investigation – does not prove truth.

        When you call another person a liar – you go beyond disagreement over facts.

        We are not compelled to support our factual assertions.
        We are morally obligated to prove moral claims against others – such as a claim that they are lying. Otherwise the moral failure is ours.

        As to Mueller – there is a growing body of evidence of Serious misrepresentations in the Mueller report.

        As one example – Mueller asserted that Mifsud was a russian asset.

        The Mueller report is supposed to be findings – not just claims or probabilities.
        If it is proven that Mifsud was a russian asset that is extremely significant.
        If he was not – that is also very significant.
        If he was a western asset that too is significant.

        It has been repeatedly noted that if Mifsud was a russian asset – then the entirety of western intelligence was likely breached. Mifsud had high level ties to FBI, CIA, MI6, MI5 and myriads of other western intelligence agencies at fairly high levels.

        Mifsud’s attorney has claimed that he was a western agent, not a Russian agent.

        Flynn’s attorney is now claiming that she has evidence that Mifsud was an FBI/CIA asset and that he was spying on Flynn as early as Dec 2015.

        Regardless, anything less than proof that Mifsud is a russian agent casts serious doubt on the Mueller report as a whole.

        that is just one consequential error in the Mueller report.

        James notes the work of Binney.

        Thus far no evidence has been provided that either the FBI or Mueller ever actually investigated the alleged DNC hacking.

        The government has relied entirely on the “crowdstrike report” – CrowdStrike is the only security service that claims to be able to identify the source of a breach. Something the rest of the security industry understands is not possible today. Every bad actor has access to every other bad actors tools. It is rare anymore for any “hacker” – state sponsored or otherwise to use tools that did not come from some other source. CIA and NSA’s toolkits were released on the internet and are available to “script kiddies”. APT28 and APT29 – the purported Russian DNC hacks have been used in breaches accross the world by myriads of state and individual actors that are NOT russia.

        False flagging has become so sophisticated and ubiquitous that you can not even be sure that when you find what appears to be a mistake – that it was not just one bad actor trying to point the finger at another bad actor.

        Short of a credible confession by the actual bad actor’s involved it is damn near impossible to be certain of the source of any hack.

        In the instance of the DNC – we do actually know they were hacked using APT28 and APT29. But we do not know who hacked them – and we do not know what information was aquired from those hacks.

        As Binney notes – the DNC emails were removed from the DNC servers using either a Thumb Drive of a CD writer, Not over the internet.
        There is no internet connection fast enough for the data transfer rates involved.

          1. Anon1 – although the article makes a good point, how many hands did it pass though before the emails were released? Two can play that game.

              1. Anon1 – I doubt Putin would know or care. And, just as a matter of curiousity, why would he release them through Wikileaks? I would have used a document dump on a conservative paper.

      5. if there are no investigations…

        Hill,
        You’ve no doubt read this philosophical question before:

        If a tree falls in the forest, and there’s nobody around to hear, does it make a sound?

        In Hill’s right brain world, the answer is No. Someone using their left brain would argue the answer is Yes. Hill has no intellectual curiosity (left brain) to prove his answer true or false. What’s even worse, he would say if no one goes to investigate the falling tree issue, then he’s correct and the left brain thinker is a liar.

        However the left brain thinker wasn’t waiting around to be called a liar, he is already gathering the evidence to prove the truth. He will come back with audio, video and multiple witnesses. He will present this to Hill and guess what? Hill will not accept the evidence because of who gathered it, what forest it was gathered in, who the witnesses support, the type of tree, the weather, the audio/video equipment, permits to be in the forest, and on and on.

        This is how the left operates today.

  3. This is what you get when the shepherd boy in Aesop’s The Boy Who Cried Wolf is discovered not only to be a liar, but also the wolf.

    If you want to try to predict what the wolves will try next, take a look at Adam Schiff’s statement:

    if the director of national intelligence is going to undermine the whistleblower protections, it means that people are going to end up taking the law into their own hands and going directly to the press instead of the mechanism that Congress set to protect classified information.

    So the reports that will be made public regarding FISA abuses, Russian collusion investigation, etc. will reflect what high-level Intel/FBI/DOJ members (wolves) have already done. So Schiff is preempting those reports by warning that only loyal people to our country, our democracy and our constitution would ‘naturally” take the law into their own hands.

    It will be no surprise if more of this shite doesn’t come out by leaks to the press.

    1. Or, what is more likely, the gullible rubes, dupes, klan wannabees, pocket-traitors, and grifters on the make (I’ll let you pick your own category, but it’s pretty clear to rational observers where you fall on that sordid continuum), are going to be pulling hair and knashing teeth when all the indictments cascade down upon the day glo bozo on January 21, 2021. So sorry for your loss, maybe you can visit the buffoon in chief; the Bureau of Prisons will prove to be hospitable hosts, I’m sure.

      this is to “ya, being a traitor is sorta a negative, but he was mean to the darkies, so I’m cool wid it” ollie

      1. he’s baaaaack

        oh we missed you so much

        it’s great to hear your cute litany again: day glo bozo, rubes, pubes, grifters and kluckers

        surely there’s some content in there somewhere!

        have a great day

  4. Whenever a WaPo article states: “former officials speaking on condition of anonymity” I stop reading. Stormy didn’t work. Collusion didn’t work. Obstruction didn’t work. Racist White Supremacist didn’t work. This apple has had so many bites taken out of it it must be the size of Turley’s ego.

    Has it occurred to anyone at the WaPo that a president can promise a foreign leader anything to advance a position. You know, like, “Tell Vladimir I will have more flexibility after the election.” I guess I missed JT’s outrage on than one.

    1. Haha. “Stormy didn’t work.” You’ll want a reboot on that one, I’ll reckon. Pro tip: hannity doesn’t even play a lawyer on TV.

      this is to “I have a ‘hannity was here’ tattoo across my lower back” rsa

  5. I find it best to hold off on comments for a couple of days when these things “come to light”. Too many times the details left out in the first few days make people look foolish.

  6. If this b.s. doesn’t work I’m sure some left wing bimbo will step forward and claim Trump or Kavanaugh abused her back in grade school.

  7. The 2010 amendment is troubling. Our culture seems to have accepted leaks to the press as a normal entitlement of journalism. And once congress is informed of classified information, the risk is greater because of the pledge of anonymity. It seems the Obama-approved law acknowledges this, but halfway. While the IG can decide to send the complaint to congress, the DNI must get it first. But why? Does congress really need the DNI’s “comments” before it can see it? More likely, the DNI is considered a necessary extra layer of security. If so, why stop with “comments”? There’s a real issue of the president’s ability to negotiate with a foreign leader if the leader knows that some eavesdropping “whistleblower” can have it blasted out in the press. Can we really expect congress to restrain itself ? Especially THIS one?

  8. (music)
    The government tells me Sonny, if you stay in school…
    Drive to court on Monday morning and take a tool.
    Call me Wapo, call me Wapo!
    Wapo, Wapo!

  9. From “Jimmy’s World” to the “Covington Catholic High School students” with stops at “PropOrNot” and the anti-Semitic “Al-Houthi Op-Ed,” the WaPo has demonstrated exactly what kind of propagandist journalism it practices. You wanna believe ’em, that’s all well and good but you really oughta get this guy’s fan club t-shirt:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkYNBwCEeH4

    “The survey of 1,010 American adults found that more than 95% are troubled by the current state of media, with 53% citing “reports on fake news,” 49% citing “reporting gossip,” and 48% citing “lying spokespeople,” as the key causes.”

    Apparently many of Trump’s detractors are optimists.

    1. Mespo, the WaPo – as did other news sources – reported on a private video on the web which had reached national attention on the Covington kids. It did not editorialize on what was actual footage. It followed immediately as it became available with another private video which exonerated the accusations against the Covington kids, and reported on that. In both cases they reported on real footage already in the public eye. That’s something newspapers do. Were the Covington kids wrongly slandered? Absolutely. Did the WaPo report on that slander? Absolutely? Did they cause or generate that slander? No. Was the suit against them on this event thrown out by the judge? Absolutely.

      Now tell me some mistakes they have made and not retracted? How many out of the hundreds of events they cover in a month? Something tells me you’ll quote them if it’s news you like and pretend to ignore them when you don’t like it.

      In the meantime, do you challenge anything they reported on regarding this event involving a Trump appointed IG who has ruled the incident was both serious and an urgent violations of our national security?

      Or do you prefer to hiding?

      1. “Something tells me you’ll quote them if it’s news you like and pretend to ignore them when you don’t like it.”

        Maybe not Mespo, but I do that with the NYT. I quote them occasionally, like i just did in another thread, but mostly ignore them. LOL

        Wapo is different for me. I ALWAYS ignore it.

      2. Anon1:

        “[WaPo] did not editorialize on what was actual footage. ”

        (and)

        “In the meantime, do you challenge anything they reported on regarding this event involving a Trump appointed IG who has ruled the incident was both serious and an urgent violations of our national security?”
        *********************
        Here’s the Complaint:
        http://www.ka-electronics.com/images/pdf/Sandmann_v_Washington_Post_Complaint.pdf

        I challenge everything a proven prevaricator says. Don’t you? They can prove it to me with real sources.

      1. Hill:

        “The survey of 1,010 American adults found that more than 95% are troubled by the current state of media, with 53% citing “reports on fake news,” 49% citing “reporting gossip,” and 48% citing “lying spokespeople,” as the key causes.”

        https://bospar.com/resources/bospar-study-nearly-all-americans-are-troubled-by-the-current-state-of-the-media/

        Let me know where to send the bill for your research. It took me .07 seconds to find this with the quote in the search bar.

  10. Deep State is alive and well. But when Obama whispered “a promise” to a Russian and it got caught on a hot mic, that was okay. I get it.

    The left is desperate now as they know they’ll lose in 2020. It will be full court press from now to election day. Two days ago it was slanderous lies about Kavanaugh. Two days from now it will be another accusation from God knows who. I hope they’re getting paid well by Hillary and Soros, at least. We get it.

    Fool us once, shame on you; fool us again and again, shame on us for being so stupid to believe it.

    1. better,

      “Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson determined that the complaint was credible and troubling enough to be considered a matter of “urgent concern,” a legal threshold that requires notification of congressional oversight committees.”

      Atkinson is a Trump appointee, confirmed by the GOP Senate in 2018.

        1. Then the incident is a matter of urgent concern regarding our national security, right better?

          You get that it doesn’t matter who the whistle blower is once the IG rules…… right?

        2. Awesome. This “deep state” which you have uncovered appears ominous. It seems that through you indefatigable efforts, you have uncovered a nefarious conspiracy of ne’er-do-wells, hell-bent on eradicating our ‘Merican way of life, fluoridating our water, while sapping and impurifying our precious bodily fluids. Well done, detective, well done indeed.

          this is to “inspector clouseau at your service” better

      1. We have no idea what it’s about, but let the IG do its job before you leap to conclusions.

        Probably we will never know what this one was all about. If the Intel Tsar blocked it, it will stay blocked.

    1. “mespo, what is false in the WaPo story?”
      *********************
      Who knows but it’s a sure bet it’s the usual shoddy journalism practiced by our propagandists. How many times do you have to be burned to feel singed?

      Can I put you down for a Verrazzano?

      1. mespo, I know your eyes are closed, but I think a guy who’s now eagerly paying for a supposedly free wall is the one who’s been burned.

        Given that both the IG and DNI are appearing before Congress, and the DNI in his response to Congress – yes, all that is covered in the article, the basic facts of which have been known about for at least 4 days – you can rest assured – or sweat bullets – that the event reported on occurred, and just like the Trump tower meeting and Trump’s lie about it, the public who keeps up with our better news sources know about it.

        1. If DNI is blocking it, it will stay blocked.

          Who knows. Maybe Donald tripped up and said something bad about one of the Deep State’s cherished “assets” abroad.

          There’s a long list of former CIA cooperators. Off the top of my head, Noriega, Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein… you get the idea. A very deep well of mischief and prolly not one POTUS has a full picture of all the bad things happening down below deck.

          “Need to know” applies up the chain, not just sideways

          1. The Donald made a promise to a head of a foreign state. Read the article. That promise was so far out of line and concerning to the interests of national security that it prompted a career intelligence official to put his/her career on the line to make a whistleblower complaint. Of course, Trump’s DOJ is trying to block Congress from obtaining the information, despite the fact that the law provides no exceptions, just like it does everything else it can to run interference with Congress’s oversight responsibilities, including procuring disobedience of subpoenas, refusing to turn over records, and Trump associates lying under oath.

            See, The Donald does not understand the tripartite system of government we have with checks and balances. He has never been accountable to a board of directors to answer for his multiple business failures, so he arrogantly believes he answers to no one. Faux News tells him he’s the victim of the “deep state” and dishonest media, and because he’s no patriot, he thinks he can “fight back” against investigations. He also thinks the DOJ, the CIA and other intelligence exist to support and defend him. That’s the charitable explanation. Then there’s the simple fact that he’s always been a cheater and liar. Near as people can tell from records, the last call with the head of a foreign state prior to the date of the report was with Vladimir Putin on July 31st.

            1. The Donald made a promise to a head of a foreign state. Read the article.”

              *******************

              As usual, Nuttyacha is way ahead of the story. Even ahead of Pencil-neck Adam Schiff who wasn’t quite as certain:

              “We do not know because we cannot get an answer to the question about whether the White House is also involved in preventing this information from coming to Congress. 𝐖𝐞 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭. 𝐖𝐞 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭. But what I do know is this, if in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Director of National Intelligence an employee or contractor who follows the law and makes a complaint and it is possible for the subject of that complaint to essentially quash the complaint or keep it from Congress, then this system is badly broken.” [emphasis mine]

              Silly Adam. Tricks are for Nuttyacha!

            2. Natch knows the classified issues which are secret to all of the rest of us, apparently. Oh thank you Natch!

              Thank you for showing up to correct me on my modest suggestion to let the IG do its job and not speculate. Silly me!

          2. Thanks for checking in with today’s irrelevant and nonsensical stance by Pravda Faux News.

            this is to “ya, but hannity talks to me through the tube, I’ll reckon” kurtzie

            1. i never watch hannity and limit myself to one hour a week of zombies on tv

              but that doesnt stop you from your schtick

              try and work on your comedy routine, the lame old insults are so tired they fall asleep as soon as they roll off your keyboard

            2. say whatever happened to pravda? oh, it’s still in existence and has the kinds of articles you wont see in the American fake news. see, the fake news would have us think that “Pyootin” spends most of his day thinking of how to buy more ads on facebook. When, actually, they can do a lot more than buy a handful of stupid ads in an election

              Our Great Leader Trump has carefully deconflicted tensions with Russia through his patient response to Iranian provocations in the gulf. Admirable restraint; let’s be glad the people elected a leader focused more on trade than war! Do you join me in hopes for peace, Tovarish Mark?

              http://www.pravdareport.com/russia/142762-kaliningrad/

              If NATO strikes Kaliningrad, Russia will seize Baltic in 48 hours
              20.09.2019 16:19

              If NATO strikes Kaliningrad, Russia will seize Baltic in 48 hours
              Russia will not wait for the United States to launch an attack on the Kaliningrad enclave. The General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation have preventive measures not to let this happen, military expert Mikhail Alexandrov believes.

              US Air Force Operations Commander in Europe, General Jeffrey Harrigian, said that the United States had a plan to break through air defense of Russia’s Kaliningrad enclave in Europe. According to The National Interest, a B-52 bomber of the US Air Force practiced an attack on the Kaliningrad region in March of this year. Does Russia have similar plans?

              Mikhail Alexandrov, a leading expert at the Center for Military-Political Studies at MGIMO, Doctor of Political Sciences, told Pravda.Ru that “Russia is not going to sit and wait for them to break though Russia’s air defenses.” “The General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia do not think with such notions. One can break through air defenses only as a result of a massive attack operation. This can be done by concentrating aviation into massive fire support.

              “As soon as we can see the concentration of American aircraft on airfields in Europe – they cannot reach us in any other way – we will simply destroy those airfields by launching our medium-range ballistic missiles at those targets. Afterwards, our troops will go on offensive in the Baltic direction and take control of the entire Baltic territory within 48 hours. NATO won’t even have time to come to its senses – they will see a very powerful military buildup on the borders with Poland. Then they will have to think whether they should continue the war. As a result, all this will end with NATO losing the Baltic States,” Mikhail Alexandrov told Pravda.Ru describing one of the scenarios for a possible development of events in case of Russia’s response to NATO aggression.

              Another variant for the breakthrough of the missile defense system in Kaliningrad provides for a massive cruise missile attack on the Russian territory. According to the expert, Russia has cruise and ballistic missiles that it can launch on the territory of the United States.

              “If the Americans launch a missile attack on Kaliningrad, then we will strike, say, Seattle, where largest US aircraft factories are located. Having destroyed those factories we will deprive the Americans of the possibility to build their aircraft. They will no longer be able to build up their fleet of military aircraft,” said Mikhail Alexandrov.

              Russia has efficient air defense systems to intercept cruise missiles. If it goes about a ballistic missile strike, the expert reminded that Russia has a missile defense area in Moscow that can intercept at least 100 missiles and maybe even more, since there are no restrictions associated with the ABM Treaty.

              Dmitry Sudakov
              Copyright © 1999-2019, «PRAVDA.Ru».

    2. What is the lie from the Washington Post? That is proven with fact that generally enters the picture after the Washington Post does its smear.

      An example of such smears is the NYTimes recent smear of Kavanaugh.

      New York Times Commits Journalistic Malpractice with Kavanaugh Story
      The New York Times is taking heat from all sides after completely botching the roll out of a new book by two of their reporters on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. This weekend, the newspaper published a new allegation of sexual assault by Kavanaugh while he was in college, but conveniently omitted a key piece of information: the alleged victim of the incident didn’t remember it. It wasn’t until The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway, who got a copy of the unreleased book, pointed out this grotesque misstep that the Times published an editor’s note with the correction. (Read her piece at The Federalist)

      1. Since Fido will immediately request a citation I will do better and post the entire article that the semi private blurb was pointing to including the http.

        Is that good enough Fido? [AKA The Brainless Wonder]

        New Book: Christine Blasey Ford’s Friend Leland Keyser Doesn’t Believe Her

        Mollie Hemingway
        New Book: Christine Blasey Ford’s Friend Leland Keyser Doesn’t Believe Her
        “It just didn’t make any sense,” lifelong friend Leland Keyser told New York Times reporters about Ford’s allegations, adding “I don’t have any confidence in the story.”
        Buried at the end of their new book “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation,” reporters Robin Pogebrin and Kate Kelly quietly admit that Christine Blasey Ford’s lifelong friend Leland Keyser did not believe her friend’s tale of a sexual assault at a party they both supposedly attended. Keyser was named by Ford as a witness, one of four who denied any knowledge of the event in question.

        The book offers no evidence in support of the allegations made by Christine Blasey Ford, but, they write, their “gut reaction” was that her allegations “rang true.”

        Their “gut” instinct was based on the fact that Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh grew up in the same rough area and she had dated one of his friends. Further, Leland Keyser had gone out on a date — maybe even two dates, they’re not sure — with a friend of Kavanaugh’s. “None of that means that Ford was, in fact, assaulted by Kavanaugh,” they write, “But it does mean that she has a baseline level of credibility as an accuser.” It is unclear what they mean.

        The authors go on to say they have seen no evidence of Ford fabricating stories. They ignore the dramatic inconsistency between her claimed fear of flying that necessitated a lengthy delay of the reopened confirmation hearings and her stated love of global “surf travel” to remote islands across vast stretches of ocean and other distant destinations, such as Hawaii, Costa Rica, the South Pacific islands and French Polynesia. A sworn affidavit from an ex about her tendency to fly frequently and in small planes is waved away by the authors.

        While acknowledging the outpouring of support from some of the world’s wealthiest and powerful people in Silicon Valley, accolades from corporate media, participation in far-left political causes, and nearly a million dollars raised in GoFundMe accounts, the authors say the only reason to come forward with an uncorroborated 35-year-old account of sexual misconduct would be because she believed it to be true.

        And then, just before the book ends, the reporters drop a bombshell:

        We spoke multiple times to Keyser, who also said that she didn’t recall that get-together or any others like it. In fact, she challenged Ford’s accuracy. “I don’t have any confidence in the story.”

        This on-the-record quote is the first time that Keyser has spoken publicly about what was previously reported in detail in the new bestseller “Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court” (of which this writer is co-author).

        The New York Times authors dismiss Keyser’s statement as the product of a bad memory, before noting that their unsuccessful efforts to corroborate Blasey Ford’s claims including desperately searching for a house that matched the description she gave. Nevertheless, their “gut” told them to believe her in the absence of facts.

        The authors also acknowledge what had previously been reported in “Justice on Trial,” about the efforts of mutual friends to get her to change her testimony to be more supportive of Blasey Ford. The reporters say that some of Blasey Ford’s friends “had grown frustrated with Keyser. Her comments about the alleged Kavanaugh incident had been too limited, some of them felt, and did not help their friend’s case. Surely, given what a close friend Keyser had been, she could say more to substantiate Ford’s testimony and general veracity, even if she could not corroborate Ford’s more specific memories.”

        A group text was formed in which friends such as Cheryl Amitay and Lulu Gonella discussed how to get her to say something more helpful to the cause. An unnamed man on the text suggested that they defame her as an addict. Keyser has been in recovery for some time, as her friends know and as has previously been reported.

        Amitay answered, “Leland is a major stumbling block.” While asserting she didn’t want her to make anything up out of whole cloth, she offered ideas for things that could sound supportive of Ford’s story, such as that she’d been in similar situations with Blasey Ford that summer.

        “I was told behind the scenes that certain things could be spread about me if I didn’t comply,” Keyser told the reporters, a stunning admission of the pressure to which she was subjected to by Blasey Ford’s allies.

        As previously reported in “Justice on Trial,” Keyser continues to think about the story in which she was supposed to have played a part. She has both “logistical and character-driven” problems with it. Focusing on one of the angles that many women had trouble believing, she says, “It would be impossible for me to be the only girl at a get-together with three guys, have her leave, and then not figure out how she’s going to get home.”

        The authors previously note that Blasey Ford suggested that Keyser might have driven her home, which they do not note is a change from her claim that she does not know how she got home. Keyser also reflects that the get-togethers of their youth were not like the one Ford described. She adds, “I just really didn’t have confidence in the story.”

        Standing up to the pressure campaign to tell the truth was difficult, the reporters acknowledge. They note she had a framed copy of a magazine that bore the headline, “Was Leland Keyser the Hero of the Kavanaugh Controversy?” A GoFundMe account set up by her son says, “Despite her lifelong friendship with Christine Blasey Ford and her opposition to Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, Keyser resisted immense personal pressure and courageously came forward with the truth, putting everything in her life at risk. As a result, she faces great personal hardship. The harsh glare of the public eye has taken a tremendous physical, emotional, and financial toll on her.”

        Despite this new reporting that supports what was first reported in “Justice on Trial,” the authors downplay it as unimportant, and not something that affects their shared “gut.”

        https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/15/new-book-christine-blasey-fords-friend-leland-keyser-doesnt-believe/

      2. But what the cretins fail to comprehend (understandable because Pravda didn’t tell them) is that the Times corrected the error in print; as all reputable and ethical journalist do. I see you’re confused because Pravda Faux News never does so…..

        this is to “ya, he’s prolly a traitor, and clearly a buffoon, but at least he’s an old white guy whose mean to the dusky types” allen / allan

        1. Mark, the word cretin is better addressed to you. The people of Russia know that Pravda is fake news. Unfortunately the cretins here that you represent think the NYTImes is actually a real news source. The NYT fooled you with the correction, right?

            1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me thirty-seven citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-four weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – the NYT? The paper that keeps having to correct itself? It is a “really real source of news”?

              1. Yes, it is carefully vetted.

                Try learning to read. I know with some geriatric assistance you will be able to still.

        2. Faux News, better known as FOX, never needs to correct itself as they don’t report fake news. FYI Biden is just another corrupt politician like Hillary. Crooked Biden. And The Deep State wasn’t uncovered by me. Everyone knows that.

  11. “Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson determined that the complaint was credible and troubling enough to be considered a matter of “urgent concern,” a legal threshold that requires notification of congressional oversight committees.”

    Atkinson is a Trump appointee confirmed by the Senate in 2018.

  12. Another instance of Trump putting himself above the law and being backed up by his (supposed to be our) co-opted attorney general

  13. So, we have someone in the permanent government who elects to second-guess her boss’s judgment and set the investigative machinery in motion. The Professor pretends there isn’t something quite irregular about that.

    1. I agree with you DSS. It appears Turley has already drawn a solid conclusion before getting the facts. Did he forget Comey’s actions as the head of the FBI? Has he forgotten how the Washington Post has spun other stories?

      If this is what he is writing today I might as well be corresponding with Dr. Death.

  14. Since the President is the final authority on classification and declassification, I think this is the intelligence agency trying to get back at Trump.

      1. Anon1 – the IG may be concerned but has no plenary power. Little Jerry Nadler concerns me, but there is not a damn thing I can do about him.

      2. Paul purposefully dodges the fact that who the IG is refutes his and TIA’s claim that this another of their fantasy “Deep State” acts.

        1. I doubt we will ever know. I would lay 100:1 odds that unless the subject material is leaked, the actual facts will not be made public.

          I would probably also lay odds of 100:1 that some Deep State volunteer will leak some of the details. But not all of them.

          as for TIA he consistently mocks the term “Deep State” and so it’s rather unfair to attribute that to him. but he can speak for himself

Leave a Reply