The “Whistleblower Complaint” regarding Trump’s conversation with the Ukrainian President is a very suspect document in many respects.

It does not read like a whistleblower complaint.

It reads like a closing statement or legal brief written by a person who had no direct knowledge of the facts, but was relying on what others told him or her. It added almost nothing that the memo of the conversation doesn’t reveal, except the discredited claim that there was a cover up of the memo (it was put in the same secure system as other such memos to try to prevent leaks).

According to the NY Times, the whistleblower is a CIA intelligence officer once assigned to the White House. Even so, the complaint is a very sophisticated document beyond the capability of even a sophisticated intelligence community professional. It looks like a document drafted by lawyers.

Today we learned that prior to the filing of the complaint, the whistleblower sought advice from Adam Schiff’s staff on the House Intelligence Committee as to how to pursue the complaint. Schiff denies talking with the whistleblower himself, but committee staff admit that they communicated with the whistleblower as to how to proceed, and shared some details with Schiff:

The C.I.A. officer approached a House Intelligence Committee aide with his concerns about Mr. Trump only after he had had a colleague first convey them to the C.I.A.’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the C.I.A. was unfolding, the officer then approached the House aide. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and meet with an inspector general, with whom he could file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. The aide did not share the whistle-blower’s identity with Mr. Schiff, an official said.

Schiff tweeted on August 28 allegations similar to what the whistleblower claimed, before the complaint was delivered to Congress:

Trump is withholding vital military aid to Ukraine, while his personal lawyer seeks help from the Ukraine government to investigate his political opponent.

It doesn’t take a stable genius to see the magnitude of this conflict.

Or how destructive it is to our national security.

Despite attempts by Schiff’s staff to downplay their role, this makes a lot clear, and calls out for more information.

If the whistleblower was so sophisticated, how is it he or she didn’t know the procedures to follow? To which lawyers was the whistleblower referred? This last point is important because the Inspector General letter on the complaint noted:

“the ICIG’s preliminary review identified some indicia of an arguable political bias on the part of the Complainant in favor of a rival political candidate.”

Did Democrat lawyers draft the complaint for the whistleblower?

What did Schiff and staff know and what were they told? The whistleblower may have forfeited statutory whistleblower protections by going outside the system and directly to congressional staff.

Why did Schiff lie about contact with the whistleblower, when he claimed neither he nor staff had contact with the whistleblower prior to the filing of the complaint?

“We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower.”

Why did Schiff’s staff then lie about Schiff’s lie?

“The Chairman could have been more clear – he was referring to the Committee officially interviewing the whistleblower, and himself personally.”

This has all the appearances of a politically biased complainant colluding with Democrat politicians and staffers to create a pretext for impeachment.

Given that impeachment is an inherently political process, public opinion will matter. The public is entitled to know all the facts as to how this “whistleblower complaint” was manufactured.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.