In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S .
Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President's main domestic political rivals. The President's personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well.

[OCS: One could make the case that the complainant was spying on the Office of the President and soliciting and/or receiving information from others who are allowing their political biases to color activities within the Office of the President.

The complainant does not appear to have “first-hand knowledge” of the substance of what they are reporting and might be construed as a “cut-out” to preserve the careers and/or continuing access to the Office of the President.

The complainant also appears to be substituting their judgement and/or the judgement of as yet unknown parties as to the characterization of the subject matter of the complaint.]

• Over the past four months, more than half a dozen U.S. officials have informed me of various facts related to this effort. The information provided herein was relayed to me in the course of official interagency business. It is routine for U.S. officials with responsibility for a particular regional or functional portfolio to share such information with one another in order to inform policymaking and analysis.

• I was not a direct witness to most of the events described. However, I found my colleagues' accounts of these events to be credible because, in almost all cases, multiple officials recounted fact patterns that were consistent with one another. In addition, a variety of information consistent with these private accounts has been reported publicly.

[OCS: The complainant reaffirms they did not have first-hand knowledge of the subject-matter. They cite multiple officials, which could be anyone from translators to analysts or simply representatives of other politicized departments. It is not the task of the complainant to cross check the information with multiple parties. And, the word for private accounts that have been reported publicly is “leak.”]

I am deeply concerned that the actions described below constitute "a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, or violation of law or Executive Order" that "does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters," consistent with the definition of an "urgent concern" in 50 U.S.C. §3033(k)(5)(G). I am therefore fulfilling my duty to report this information, through proper legal channels, to the relevant authorities.

[OCS: From the complainant’s style and use of legal references, it is likely that the complainant is an attorney or has had the assistance of an attorney to prepare the complaint. The use of an “outside” attorney or one that has known political associations with the opposition party would be extremely troubling.

Again, the complainant seems to be substituting their opinions and characterizations for the actions, context, and intent of the two parties to the conversation, namely President Trump and the President of the Ukraine.

And, since when does one’s duty compel them to forward raw, random information from unknown third-parties which may be little more that misunderstandings, errors, or speculation?]

• I am also concerned that these actions pose risks to U.S. national security and undermine the U.S. Government' s efforts to deter and counter foreign interference in U.S. elections. To the best of my knowledge, the entirety of this statement is unclassified when separated from the classified enclosure. I have endeavored to apply the classification standards outlined in Executive Order (EO) 13526 and to separate out information that I know or have reason to believe is classified for national security purposes.

[OCS: Violation of trust -- the complainant is aware of the national security risks, but seems oblivious to the damage done to the Office of the President in curtailing the President’s ability to conduct foreign affairs with the leaders of other nations. Primarily because no foreign leader may want their politically sensitive conversation leaked to Congress and then to the media. The complainant is also aware of the handling of classified information, thus is on notice that the information they are handling is classified or sensitive.]

II.  Efforts to restrict access to records related to the call

In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple U .S. officials that senior White House officials had intervened to "lock down" all records of the phone call, especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced-as is customary-by the White House Situation Room. This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.

[OCS: Considering the degree to leaking of White House actions and information, both classified and unclassified, I could see where it would be prudent to protect any and all information originating from the Office of the Presidency. The mere fact that the complainant has filed this complaint, its existence has been leaked to both Congress and the media, makes the need for this type of restrictive action painfully clear. Especially since the President is surrounded by individuals with political biases and unknown motives.]

• White House officials told me that they were "directed" by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored for coordination, finalization, and distribution to Cabinet-level officials.

• Instead, the transcript was loaded into a separate electronic system that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. One White
House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.

[OCS: Is the word “directed,” highlighted in quotes supposed to convey a “negative connotation” as are the words “White House lawyers?”

It is puzzling to me that the complainant takes extraordinary care with the handling of classified or sensitive materials, but is willing to pejoratively report on the protection of this information by others.

And to mis-characterize the above actions as a “cover-up” is an egregious and outrageous inference.]

I do not know whether similar measures were taken to restrict access to other records of the call, such as contemporaneous handwritten notes taken by those who listened in.'

[OCS: Again, we see the distance between the complainant and the event, which in my mind reinforces the idea of a “cut-out” used to protect others.The complainant goes on-and-on to cite additional external events which could be happenstance, coincidence, or even a deliberate misinterpretation of random events. Correlation is not causation.]

To read the redacted complaint in full and in context: <Source: House Intelligence Committee>

Why The Times Published Details of the Whistle-Blower’s Identity

Our executive editor, Dean Baquet, addresses readers’ concerns about the decision to publish information on a person who is central to the Trump impeachment inquiry.

[OCS: You remember Dean, the radical activist who wants to re-write the history of the United States and make it all about racism.]

Many readers, including some who work in national security and intelligence, have criticized The Times’s decision to publish the details, saying it potentially put the person’s life in danger and may have a chilling effect on would-be whistle-blowers.

[OCS: This would not be the first time that the New York Times was complicit in aiding and abetting our enemies by publishing classified information.]

We took their concerns to Dean Baquet, The Times’s executive editor, who responded to them in a discussion with the Reader Center:

The president and some of his supporters have attacked the credibility of the whistle-blower, who has presented information that has touched off a landmark impeachment proceeding. The president himself has called the whistle-blower’s account a “political hack job.”

We decided to publish limited information about the whistle-blower — including the fact that he works for a nonpolitical agency and that his complaint is based on an intimate knowledge and understanding of the White House — because we wanted to provide information to readers that allows them to make their own judgments about whether or not he is credible.

[OCS: If you believe that the CIA is a non-political agency after Obama CIA Director John Brennan, we have a bridge in New York to sell for only $1000.00

It appears that the New York Times may have been afraid that the plot to impeach Trump would go nowhere and that it appeared that this was another fake news event.]

<Source>