A former State Department official, who is also a whistleblower, Peter Van Buren told Tucker Carlson on Monday that the second whistleblower is simply using a “CIA trick,” providing a feedback loop for the first. Van Buren believes the second whistleblower is a conspirator with the first.
The first whistleblower bombed, partly because he was only spreading rumors and had no first-hand information. Therefore, the biased law firm had to bring out a second whistleblower to make it seem as if there is new information.
We have the final product, the transcript. There is no more to be said.
Prior to the interview between Van Buren and Tucker, information leaked out that the first whistleblower wrote a melodramatic memo, saying the White House official who fed him the information characterized the Trump-Zelensky call as ‘crazy’ and ‘frightening,’” according to a Fox News report.
WHISTLEBLOWER’S HYSTERICAL MEMO
According to Fox News, the day after the Trump-Zelensky phone call, the whistleblower wrote a memo after learning about the call from a White House official.
“The following is a record of a conversation I had this afternoon with a White House official about the telephone call yesterday morning between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky,” the memo began.
The conversation lasted a few minutes, the whistleblower said, claiming the unknown official “described the call as “crazy,” “frightening,” and “completely lacking in substance related to national security.”
That doesn’t jive with the transcript. This sounds like it’s meant to stir up trouble.
NOTHING TO SEE HERE
Carlson asked Van Buren if he thought there was a real story here. [Van Buren had been on Tucker’s show recently and said the whistleblower is hardly a real whistleblower and he’s setting the cause of whistleblowing back].
“No, it’s not,” Van Buren responded. “Essentially, the first complaint surfaced the phone call –- the full transcript is available online. Anyone can read it and it’s clearly not crazy or frightening, it clearly doesn’t represent any kind of demand for political quid pro quo or anything along those lines.”
“What we’ve seen however is some very clever teeing up of information and kind of a three-way pitch and toss between the Democrats, the media, and what’s going on with this so-called whistleblower,” continued Van Buren.
“There is a second whistleblower that we are led to believe is somehow adding to the narrative, but I think what is emerging is that the second whistleblower is actually the source for the first whistleblower, which means it’s all the same thing.”
THE FEEDBACK LOOP IS NEW
The former State Department official made note of the differences with the Kavanaugh case.
“This is different than in the Kavanaugh case where they sent Michael Avenatti out to find additional victims wherever he could,” said Van Buren. “In his case, there are other lawyers who took time off from chasing ambulances to go on Twitter and play out their second whistleblower.”
“But in fact, he [the second Ukraine whistleblower] is simply the source for the first whistleblower. The CIA–this is an old trick. It’s called a feedback loop. What you do is you set up one of your sources to back up another source and you make it appear that your initial source is more credible by feeding information into the loop. That’s what seems to be going on here. They are repurposing a witness as a second whistleblower.”