Is the Whistleblower "Complaint" Actually an Intelligence Agency Conspiracy Plot?

Captain Adverse said:

I am posting this "theory" where it belongs at this point in time, the "Conspiracy Theories" sub-forum.

I do not know if anyone else has considered this possibility yet.

However, after reviewing media sources and actions, party political actions, and the actual whistleblower complaint, I have come to suspect that this is a new Intelligence Agency conspiracy to undermine the current Administration.

That a cabal of CIA members (perhaps Brennan loyalists?) who might also have been connected to the original Russia Collusion plot, have been working to create a "bombshell" to derail the current Administration.

I present Exhibit A, the Whistleblower Complaint:

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/09/26/20190812_-_whistleblower_complaint_unclass.pdf

Look at this report carefully. What do you see?

It is a highly professional, step by step presentation; complete with footnotes and analysis of each point.

Note also that all throughout the complaint, the author is clear that he, himself, had no direct access to the subject material. It was all passed on to him by unnamed sources "concerned" about the President's "illegal actions."

IMHO this is NOT the work of a single person, seeking protection as a whistleblower.

It looks more like something that was worked on in conjunction with various individuals. Agency(?) members who collated the information from intelligence sources (spies?); who then discussed and revised it until it was ready for "presentation" by the selected front-man?

It is not a single "smoking gun" item. It is a hatchet job designed for one thing only, give the Impeachment movement the ammunition it needed.

Now, I am not ready to say that Trump is innocent of possible attempts to undermine Biden. I'll leave that to Constitutional scholars like Alan Derschowitz and Andrew Napolitano to argue over.

But if this "Conspiracy Theory" turns out to be in any way true?

Then I think this is a deadly dangerous precedent as well as a warning of the power we have given our Intelligence community over our society. Power that can be used to undermine ANY occupant of the Oval Office, Democrat, Republican, Third Party.

What say you?

Click to expand...

This is the point:

It is a highly professional, step by step presentation; complete with footnotes and analysis of each point.

Click to expand...

only the right wing is too incompetent to read and understand it.

JasperL said:

:roll: Feigned ignorance is boring. Troll better. If you are confused, go back to the comment you quoted and ignored. If you can read, you don't need to ask. If you cannot read, I cannot help with that in this setting.

Click to expand...

I know what Biden did.
Your what-if fantasy about Biden doing something that didn't happen seemed a deflection and too unserious even for you so ignoring it was the most civil thing anyone could do.
That's why I asked "What did Biden do?" ... meaning, what did he actually do.

Thoreau72 said:

Craig Murray offers a little perspective on an answer to your question.

Opinion* -Heroes, Villains & Establishment Hypocrisy

Click to expand...

I know.
But the battle lines are drawn and as the man and his followers say “we choose truth over facts.”.

"The BBC news bulletins led on the move to impeach Donald Trump for, as they put it, his efforts to get the President of Ukraine to undermine a political opponent. To be plain, I think Trump was quite wrong to get personally involved in this, but please park the entire subject of Donald Trump to one side for the next ten minutes.

What I find deeply reprehensible in all the BBC coverage is their failure to report the facts of the case, and their utter lack of curiosity about why Joe Biden’s son Hunter was paid $60,000 a month by Burisma, Ukraine’s largest natural gas producer, as an entirely absent non-executive director, when he had no relevant experience in Ukraine or gas, and very little business experience, having just been dishonorably discharged from the Navy Reserve for use of crack cocaine? Is that question not just little bit interesting? That may be the thin end of it – in 2014-15 Hunter Biden received US $850,000 from the intermediary company channeling the payments. In reporting on Trump being potentially impeached for asking about it, might you not expect some analysis – or at least mention – of what he was asking about?

As far as I am aware, the BBC have not reported at all the other thing Trump was asking Zelensky about – Crowdstrike. Regular readers will recall that Crowdstrike are the Clinton linked “cyber-security” company which provided the “forensic data” to the FBI on the alleged Russian hack of the DNC servers – data which has been analysed by my friend Bill Binney, former Technical Director of the NSA, who characterises it as showing speeds of transfer impossible by internet and indicating a download to an attached drive. The FBI were never allowed access to the actual DNC server – and never tried, taking the DNC’s consultants word for the contents, which itself is sufficient proof of the bias of the “investigation”.

Crowdstrike also made the claim that the same Russia hackers – “Fancy Bear” – who hacked the DNC, hacked Ukrainian artillery software causing devastating losses of Ukrainian artillery. This made large headlines at the time. What did not make any MSM headlines was the subsequent discovery that all of this never happened and the artillery losses were entirely fictitious. As Crowdstrike had claimed that it was the use of the same coding in the DNC hack as in the preceding (non-existent) Ukraine artillery hack, that proved Russia hacked the DNC, this is pretty significant. Trump was questioning Zelensky about rumours the “hacked” DNC server was hidden in the Ukraine by Crowdstrike. The media has no interest in reporting any of that at all.

It is plain in that case that Trump is the media’s villain and the Bidens, father and son, are therefore heroes being protected by the Establishment media."

Thanks for that one.

bubbabgone said:

I know what Biden did.
Your what-if fantasy about Biden doing something that didn't happen seemed a deflection and too unserious even for you so ignoring it was the most civil thing anyone could do.
That's why I asked "What did Biden do?" ... meaning, what did he actually do.

Click to expand...

Like many thousands of politicians before him, Biden merely feathered his nest by exerting pressure by way of his position.