Image 01 Image 03

Trump Impeachment Tag

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.

Wednesday, the New York Times reported that Rep. Adam Schiff, the House Intel Committee Chairman who beclowned himself repeatedly in the Trump/Russia conspiracy mongering, had knowledge of the whistle-blower's concerns about Trump's conversation with the Ukrainian president before an official complaint was filed.

After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave her public blessing last week for House Democrats to launch a formal impeachment inquiry of President Trump, members of the GOP House leadership read her the riot act. Not only did she announce her support of an inquiry before reading the transcript of the Trump/Zelensky call (which hadn't even been released at the time), but she also didn't name the specific alleged impeachable offense Trump committed.

60 Minutes reported Sunday that the whistleblower of the phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky received federal protection. The news program insisted it had a letter to prove it. Mark Zaid, the lawyer representing the whistleblower, took 60 Minutes to the woodshed on Twitter over the report. He said the program "misinterpreted contents" of the letter.

What is happening now to President Trump was predictable. The plans were laid in plain sight, including the use of whistleblowers to disrupt the administration. It is instructive to look back and realize that there was plenty of advance warning of the various attempts to set up grounds for the impeachment of President Trump. The basic approach was clearly described, and it is difficult to avoid the notion that this was planned from the start.

Mark Levin was on a roll Sunday when faced with a claim from Fox & Friends co-host Ed Henry about Trump supposedly asking Ukraine to "dig up dirt" on Joe Biden. In a video that is quickly going viral, Henry badgers Levin about whether or not he's "okay with the president asking another president to dig up dirt on a candidate."  Levin disputed that such a request was made and called the framing of the question "not honest."

A plain reading of the so-called Whistleblower Complaint supports the reporting by the New York Times and others that the complainant is in the intelligence community, likely the CIA. It's not so much a whistleblower complaint as a closing argument crafted by lawyers based on information the complainant never witnessed in order to create a pretext for impeachment, or at a minimum to damage Trump's 2020 prospects.

One of the many admirable precepts of America's system of government has been the peaceful transfer of executive power, a transfer that hinges on the acceptance of election results and all parties working together for the good of the country. In four years, there's another election and the losing party tries again.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but this seems a little odd. Sean Davis at The Federalist reported that the intelligence community removed an important requirement when it comes to whistleblower information:
Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. This raises questions about the intelligence community’s behavior regarding the August submission of a whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no longer requires potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to Congress to have direct, first-hand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing that they are reporting.

One thing we can safely conclude at this point is that the current impeachment push is not about the content of Trump's phone conversation with Ukraine's president Zelensky or the "whistleblower" report, although the Democrats and NeverTrumpers will probably continue to pretend it is, at least for a while.