Given Langley’s intolerance for whistleblowing, the
current case now in the headlines has a couple of
curious features.
By John Kiriakou
October 01, 2019 "Information
Clearing House" -The
news is dominated by “the whistleblower,” the CIA
officer who reported to the CIA Inspector General (IG)
that President Donald Trump may have committed a
crime during a conversation with the president of
Ukraine. I’ve been fascinated by the story for a
couple of reasons.
First, as a
whistleblower and a former CIA officer, I know what
must have been going through the guy’s mind as he
was coming to the decision to make a report on the
president of the United States. That is, if he
is a real whistleblower.
If he’s a
whistleblower, and not a CIA plant whose task it is
to take down the president, then his career is
probably over. Intelligence agencies only pay lip
service to whistleblowing. A potential whistleblower
is supposed to go through the chain of command as
the current whistleblower did. If an employee has
evidence of waste, fraud, abuse, illegality, or
threats to the public health or public safety, he is
supposed to go to the Inspector General. The IG,
then is supposed to go to the Office of the Director
of National Intelligence (DNI). And when the DNI
investigates and finds the complaint credible, he
then takes it to the House and Senate Intelligence
Committees. That sounds straightforward, but it’s
not.
Are You Tired Of
The Lies And
Non-Stop Propaganda?
Look at the cautionary
case of Thomas Drake, a senior NSA officer who blew
the whistle on warrantless wiretapping of American
citizens in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Drake went to the NSA inspector general, where he
got no satisfaction. He then went to the NSA
general counsel and then to the Defense Department
inspector general. The DOD IG actually
destroyed the evidence
that
Tom had brought to them. So, when nothing happened
there, he went to the House Intelligence Committee.
All of this was done through the proper channels.
For his trouble, Drake
was
rewarded
with 10 felony indictments, including five counts of
espionage. Of course, he hadn’t committed
espionage, and the case eventually fell apart, but
not until his life was ruined — personally,
professionally and financially.
So even if he is a
legitimate whistleblower, the CIA officer who
contacted the IG on Trump will never be trusted
internally again. The view in Langley will be, “If
he’s willing to rat out the president of the United
States, he’d be willing to rat out all of us.”
(In my own case, where
I blew the whistle on the CIA’s torture program, I
didn’t — and couldn’t — go through the chain of
command because my chain of command had created the
torture program. I couldn’t go to Congress because
Congress was in on the program. They had approved
it and financed it. My only alternative was to go
to the media.)
Odd Choice of
Attorneys
The
second thing that interests me is the officer’s
hiring of
Mark Zaid to
represent him, rather than one of more than a dozen
A-list national security attorneys at three or four
major law firms in Washington. Zaid is literally
the worst possible choice for any whistleblower in
national security. Zaid briefly represented CIA
whistleblower Jeffrey Sterling, who was accused of
leaking classified information to The New York
Times’ James Risen. But while the FBI was
looking at three different people as Risen’s
possible source, Zaid sent a letter to the FBI
saying,
“I think my client is guilty.” The FBI dropped the
other two investigations and focused only on
Sterling, who went to trial, consistently protested
his innocence, was convicted, and spent
three-and-a-half years in prison.
Zaid briefly
represented me in 2007, immediately after I blew the
whistle. But I fired him after two weeks because he
was impulsive, unnecessarily confrontational and
untrustworthy. Four years later, he was
representing Matthew Cole, the “journalist” who was
secretly working for the Guantanamo defense
attorneys, the man who ratted me out to the FBI,
which led to my arrest and to two years in prison.
Cole told the FBI that I was his source who told him
the name of a CIA officer involved in the torture
program.
Not only did Zaid
represent Cole, but both he and Cole testified
against me in grand jury proceedings in 2012. How
this man still has a law license is an utter mystery
to me.
But he’s thrived in
Washington. He makes most of his money representing
people who have books jammed up in the CIA’s
pre-publication review process. He handles a lot of
“insider issues” like security clearances and trying
to smooth ruffled Intelligence Community feathers.
But he’s clearly an inside man. That Zaid is
involved in this case leads me to believe that the
CIA whistleblower is either an idiot who has no idea
what he’s gotten himself into or he’s been directed
to make his “disclosure.”
Experts always say that
when you want to know what is really being discussed
in a complicated and sensitive report, you must read
the footnotes. Well, if you really want to know
what’s happening in this impeachment scandal, look
closely at the peripheral players. That’s where the
real story is.
John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism
officer and a former senior investigator with the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the
sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama
administration under the Espionage Act—a law
designed to punish spies. He served 23 months in
prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the
Bush administration’s torture program.
Host Smacks Down Democrat Defending Biden Corruption
Note To ICH Community
We ask that you assist us in
dissemination of the article published by
ICH to your social media accounts and post
links to the article from other websites.
Thank you for your support.
Peace and joy
The
views expressed in this article are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of Information Clearing House.
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)