Big - over 300 former National Security professionals endorse impeachment inquiry

[NewJeffCT]

Link to tweet

?s=19

[dalton99a]

1. Full text:

September 27, 2019

As national security professionals, many of us have long been concerned with
President Trump’s actions and their implications for our safety and security. Some of us
have spoken out, but many of us have eschewed politics throughout our careers and,
as a result, have not weighed in publicly.

The revelations of recent days, however, demand a response. Specifically, all of us
recognize the imperative of formal impeachment proceedings to ascertain additional
facts and weigh the consequences of what we have learned and what may yet still
emerge. We applaud those Members of Congress, including Speaker Pelosi, who have
now started us down that necessary path.

President Trump appears to have leveraged the authority and resources of the highest
office in the land to invite additional foreign interference into our democratic
processes. That would constitute an unconscionable abuse of power. It also would
represent an effort to subordinate America’s national interests—and those of our
closest allies and partners—to the President’s personal political interest.

Having worked across administrations of both parties to uphold and advance those
national interests, we consider the President’s actions to be a profound national
security concern. Our relations with the rest of the world and our policies on the global
stage must be based solely on what is in the national interest. The introduction of any
other considerations of the President debases our democracy, has the potential to
make us more vulnerable to threats, and sends a message to leaders around the world
that America’s foreign policy can be dangerously corrupted by catering to a single
individual. If we fail to speak up—and act—now our foreign policy and national security
will officially be on offer to those who can most effectively fulfill the President’s
personal prerogatives.

To be clear, we do not wish to prejudge the totality of the facts or Congress’
deliberative process. At the same time, there is no escaping that what we already
know is serious enough to merit impeachment proceedings. From there, the facts—and
nothing but the facts—should dictate how Congress holds the President to account
and signals to the world that our foreign policy and national security are not for sale.

(VERY LONG LIST OF SIGNATORIES)

[NewJeffCT]

2. Thanks for that

I'm in the office, so Twitter can be wonky, at best

[NewJeffCT]

3. kicking

I guess this wasn't a big deal

[Hortensis]

4. And: "the whistleblower's efforts...might reflect "a palace coup" against the president."

Extremely interesting piece from Kris Kolesnik via The Hill:

"I spent 34 years dealing intimately with whistleblowers and protecting them. I spent 19 years in the United States Senate deeply involved in writing every prominent whistleblower law from 1983 to 2000. I then spent five years as Executive Director of the National Whistleblower Center, which helped write post-Enron corporate whistleblower laws, and defended numerous national security and other whistleblowers.

I have never seen a more buttoned-up set of whistleblower allegations than these.

To me, the whistleblower appears to have taken a leadership role, sticking his neck out to protect subordinates in the intelligence community while conveying their information to appropriate authorities through appropriate channels. It’s easy to see how the ICIG steered it to the Congressional Intelligence Committees, under the cover of great credibility, through a gauntlet of resisters. ...

On Thursday, former CIA officer Bob Baer suggested on CNN that the whistleblower’s efforts, together with others cited in his complaint, might reflect “a palace coup” against the president. I believe he said that before the New York Times reported that the whistleblower was allegedly a CIA officer. Baer’s allusion was neither sinister nor fanciful. It was a well-grounded hypothesis. I not only had a long career of dealing with whistleblowers — I also had the intelligence and national security portfolios while working in the Senate. After reading the whistleblower’s complaint, I reached a similar conclusion before I heard Baer’s remarks, but with a slightly different twist.

In every major scandal I investigated in my career, there was always a common phenomenon: Whenever the scandals broke, all the good guys in government with knowledge of the issue came out of the woodwork, and we found each other. We formed an investigative network to assist each other and root out the corruption. That happened in the defense scandals of the 1980s, the Iran-Contra scandal, the John Tower investigation, the FBI scandals under Louis Freeh — like Waco and Ruby Ridge — the FBI crime lab scandal of the late 1990s, and many others. These sources and contacts became life-long collaborators. Many of us have had a major, on-going impact on fighting government corruption for decades, behind the scenes and with no recognition. We dubbed ourselves the “Shit Disturbers.” It’s a loosely-knit group of watchdogs. I view this whistleblower group as of the same ilk. Trump would refer to them as Deep Staters who ratted him out. I would call them national treasures who pulled down his knickers for, literally, all the world to see.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/463396-the-intelligence-community-strikes-back-an-impeachment-game-changer

Kolesnik is a conservative, at one time an aide to Sen. Grassley, but seemingly did not follow his deep dive into the swamp.

From Propublica about him long ago: “Construct a wall between campaigning and governing. In a campaign, you can knock yourself out playing politics. But once you’re in government, you can only go as far in successful oversight as your credibility takes you,” Kolesnik wrote. The column went on to lament how battered that notion has become. Kolesnik blamed his own party, accusing Republicans of standing in the way of the truth for political gain.

https://www.propublica.org/article/jason-foster-the-senate-staffer-behind-the-attack-on-the-trump-russia-investigation

[NewJeffCT]

5. Let's hope we see more sources

coming out of the woodwork, so to speak

[Hortensis]

6. Yes, but in the nature of things, probably few, wouldn't you think?

Kolesnik says he believes this whistleblower is acting as a protective umbrella for others so their careers won't be destroyed, they can remain in government, and they won't be driven deep into debt by legal attacks and hounded viciously the rest of their lives.

In every major scandal I investigated in my career, there was always a common phenomenon: Whenever the scandals broke, all the good guys in government with knowledge of the issue came out of the woodwork, and we found each other.

Wonderful if so, and easy for those who know there are always some good people to believe. But I wish they could have acted definitively earlier in the presidency. But no previous Republican administration ever managed to be as deeply corrupted as this one.

[smirkymonkey]

7. K&R

[NewJeffCT]

8. thanks

the news is changing so fast, it's hard to keep up