Triangulating our 'whistleblower'

So now we learn that the "whistleblower" (more of a pied piper, you ask me) has "professional ties" with a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate.  What does this tell us about this individual?

There's a process in navigation called "triangulation."  If you work out the location of two separate points from where you are (with a compass, say), you can calculate your position by drawing straight lines to each point.  Where the lines intersect is your approximate position.

Now, it's nowhere near as simple with human beings, but the process can be viewed as analogous.  If you continue stacking information concerning an unknown individual, after a certain number of speculative but finite "points," you are going to have enough to draw lines that will intersect at one particular individual.  And that will be your man.

Let's go over what we know about the "whistleblower":

  • He was/is in the CIA.
  • He worked in the White House.
  • He had access to people close to the president.
  • He had access to Congress — close enough that he felt comfortable contacting and working directly with Adam Schiff's staff.
  • He has legal training — he clearly felt comfortable with all the legalese (including footnotes) contained in his "complaint."  In fact, he felt too much at ease — he evidently raised no objection to releasing a completely professional, and thus inevitably bogus, document.  This is a mistake no one but a lawyer would make.
  • He has/had a "professional relationship" — that is, he was hired by, was consulted by, or worked with a Democratic presidential candidate.

It seems to me, playmates, that we're getting awful close to triangulating our little weasel here.  It won't take much more.  One more item, two at the most, and we'll know exactly who he is.  It's possible that people in the Washington milieu have already put this together.  I predict that it won't be long until the spotlights swing in his direction.

The Democrats are now talking about having him (and we'll go with "him" for now — though the sneakiness of this suggests "female," Beta males usually act the same way — particularly bureaucrats) testify from behind curtains and use some kind of vocoder to disguise his voice — think of the comic aspects there.  But it's all comedy.  We're likely to know the answer before another week passes.

I have to say that Mark Felt did a far better job of covering his tracks.

So now we learn that the "whistleblower" (more of a pied piper, you ask me) has "professional ties" with a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate.  What does this tell us about this individual?

There's a process in navigation called "triangulation."  If you work out the location of two separate points from where you are (with a compass, say), you can calculate your position by drawing straight lines to each point.  Where the lines intersect is your approximate position.

Now, it's nowhere near as simple with human beings, but the process can be viewed as analogous.  If you continue stacking information concerning an unknown individual, after a certain number of speculative but finite "points," you are going to have enough to draw lines that will intersect at one particular individual.  And that will be your man.

Let's go over what we know about the "whistleblower":

  • He was/is in the CIA.
  • He worked in the White House.
  • He had access to people close to the president.
  • He had access to Congress — close enough that he felt comfortable contacting and working directly with Adam Schiff's staff.
  • He has legal training — he clearly felt comfortable with all the legalese (including footnotes) contained in his "complaint."  In fact, he felt too much at ease — he evidently raised no objection to releasing a completely professional, and thus inevitably bogus, document.  This is a mistake no one but a lawyer would make.
  • He has/had a "professional relationship" — that is, he was hired by, was consulted by, or worked with a Democratic presidential candidate.

It seems to me, playmates, that we're getting awful close to triangulating our little weasel here.  It won't take much more.  One more item, two at the most, and we'll know exactly who he is.  It's possible that people in the Washington milieu have already put this together.  I predict that it won't be long until the spotlights swing in his direction.

The Democrats are now talking about having him (and we'll go with "him" for now — though the sneakiness of this suggests "female," Beta males usually act the same way — particularly bureaucrats) testify from behind curtains and use some kind of vocoder to disguise his voice — think of the comic aspects there.  But it's all comedy.  We're likely to know the answer before another week passes.

I have to say that Mark Felt did a far better job of covering his tracks.