Rand Paul’s Question Rejected… Again

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul’s whistleblower question blocked in Senate impeachment trial by Chief Justice John Roberts. (Watch that moment HERE)

LEGAL INSURRECTION adds some thoughts to this:

So do people know the whistleblower’s identification? If not then let Paul ask his question.

Chief Justice John Roberts once again rejected a question from Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) since it supposedly names the impeachment whistleblowereven though supposedly NOBODY knows the identification of the whistleblower.

He asked: “Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings.”

POWERLINE continues with Rand Paul’s question rephrased (<< video at link):

  • I believe that Senator Ron Johnson rephrased the question Senator Paul submitted to Chief Justice Roberts as set forth in the adjacent post. Chief Justice Robert having declined to read the question, Senator Johnson gave it another go. The question alludes to the RCP columm by Paul Sperry that we also published last week in “Whistleblower overheard.” Not surprisingly, Chief House impeachment manager and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff declines to answer the question.

 

Whistleblower and Schiff Staffer In 2017 Coup Talks (UPDATE)

(UPDATE: I had to edit out the name of Eric Ciaramella in the description in order for YouTube to publish this audio. The monolithic thought is amazing to me, and the 1984 beginnings are unmistakable. Obviously no Federal or State law says a person’s name cannot be used… and, in fact, the “whistleblower” statute merely protects the person from on the job harassment by superiors. Not to nix his name from the public. Weird.)

Real Clear Investigations and Red State (linked below respectively) have great stories on these two colleagues (comrades?) discussing how to remove Trump from office 2-weeks after he was inaugurated — insurance policy 2.0 two-weeks after Trump was inaugurated (!):

RED STATE:

……Source 1 said, “Just days after he [Trump] was sworn in, they [Ciaramella and Misko] were already talking about trying to get rid of him. They weren’t just bent on subverting his agenda. They were plotting to actually have him removed from office.”

Sources told Sperry that Misko had been the Schiff staff member whom Ciaramella had “reached out to” for “guidance” before submitting his complaint with the Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson.

Sperry writes:

The coordination between the official believed to be the whistleblower and a key Democratic staffer, details of which are disclosed here for the first time, undercuts the narrative that impeachment developed spontaneously out of the “patriotism” of an “apolitical civil servant.”

Two former co-workers said they overheard Ciaramella and Misko, close friends and Democrats held over from the Obama administration, discussing how to “take out,” or remove, the new president from office within days of Trump’s inauguration. These co-workers said the president’s controversial Ukraine phone call in July 2019 provided the pretext they and their Democratic allies had been looking for.

[….]

Source 1 said, “They were popping off about how they were going to remove Trump from office. No joke.”

[….]

He had also heard Ciaramella tell Misko, “‘We can’t let him enact this foreign policy.’“

Source 2 said he reported what he’d overheard to his superiors. “It was so shocking that they were so blatant and outspoken about their opinion,” he recalled. “They weren’t shouting it, but they didn’t seem to feel the need to hide it.”

The co-workers, [sources 1 and 2] didn’t think much more about the incident…..

Whistelblower Fabrications (Larry Elder Update)

UPDATE:

With the Trump impeachment inquiry underway and the Democrats defending and vowing to protect the whistleblower who leaked information about the President’s phone call, Larry decides to look into the significant amount of whistleblowers during the Obama era who were targeted by the former President’s administration for similar behavior. What changed, and why are the Democrats all of a sudden supportive of whistleblowers with Trump in office?

Dem Rep Green: “The Genesis Of Impeachment…Was When The President Was Running For Office”

The partisan CIA whistleblower said in his report that State Department official Ulrich Brechbuhl was on the call with the Ukrainian president.

He wasn’t. (Via GATEWAY PUNDIT)

  • Rep. Mark Meadows:  “Here’s what we do know.  There’s reports out just minutes ago that on page three where the whistleblower said that he heard a counselor for the State Department was actually on the call, well the State Department says, no that didn’t happen. Well, we’re going to find out a whole more of what didn’t happen.”

Some More Commentary On IG Related Stuff

(Hat-Tip to OK BOOMER) Trey Gowdy shares his biggest takeaways from the DOJ Inspector General’s FISA abuse report on ‘The Story with Martha MacCallum.’

The next article is thanks to AMERICAN GREATNESS: “Ratcliffe: Dems Withholding Transcript That Reveals How ‘Whistleblower Got Caught With Chairman Schiff’”

Ratcliffe pointed out that Democrats keep using the word “demand” do describe Trump’s suggestion to the Ukraine president that corruption involving former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden should be looked into.

“Guess which word isn’t anywhere in the transcript?” Ratcliffe asked before informing the committee that the word is “demand.”

“Nowhere in that transcript does the president make a ‘demand,’” he declared. “Do you know where the word ‘demand’ came from? It came from the whistleblower.  That’s the first time we heard the word demand,” Ratcliffe explained.

When he notified the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community, he said President Trump made a demand! He thought he could do that because he thought no one would ever be able to prove that because what president would take the unprecedented step of releasing a transcript with a foreign leader. This president did! Something that the whistleblower never expected.

President Trump, we keep hearing, got caught. President Trump, we keep hearing, is obstructing justice. The president that took the unprecedented step of releasing a transcript so that everyone could see the truth is not obstructing congress. The president didn’t get caught. The whistleblower got caught. The whistleblower made false statements. The whistleblower got caught with Chairman Schiff!

Ratcliffe noted that rather than run the impeachment inquiry out of the House Judiciary where it belonged, Democrats put the highly conflicted chairman of the Intelligence Committee in charge of the case.

“The person who got caught with the whistleblower!” Ratcliffe exclaimed.

The Texas Republican recalled how Schiff had initially denied having any contact with the anti-Trump complainant identified online as Eric Ciaramella (seen below shaking hands with former president Barack Obama).

[….]

When questioned by Ratcliffe during his closed door testimony on October 4, Atkinson revealed information about a potential link between Schiff or his staff and the whistleblower.

Responding to a question about the transcript on Twitter last month, Ratcliffe said: “It’s because I asked IG Atkinson about his ‘investigation’ into the contacts between Schiff’s staff and the person who later became the whistleblower. The transcript is classified ‘secret’ so Schiff can prevent you from seeing the answers to my questions.”

This article excerpt comes by way of RED STATE: “Kimberley Strassel: ‘Buried in the IG Report is a Line that Poses an Enormous Question, Central to Everything’”

On Wednesday evening, the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel noticed something peculiar in the IG report and posed a question via a twitter thread:

Buried in the IG report is a line that poses an enormous question, one that is central to everything, and really must be answered. Remember: According to all relevant players, prior to July of 2016, nobody had a Trump-Russia collusion narrative on their minds.

Indeed, the FBI says it was only the Downer tip-off at end-July that spurred the investigation. Downer for his part says it was public revelation in July of the DNC hack that caused him to finally wonder about collusion and connect his spring conversation with Papadopoulos.

Fusion GPS’s Glenn Simpson, meanwhile, in Senate testimony, “stress[ed]” he hired Steele in May to look at Trump’s “business activities” in Russia….By Simpson’s telling (under penalty of perjury), Steele just sort of stumbled on this much “broader” “political conspiracy.”

But here is what Steele told the IG: That in May 2016, Simpson approached Steele to “assist in determining Russia’s actions related to the 2016 election”; “whether Russia was trying to achieve a particular election outcome”; and…

“whether there were any ties between the Russian government and Trump and his campaign.” (Page 93) Seems Simpson had a pretty good bead on the “narrative” long before the govt. claims to have had it and before even his own source had reported it to him. Huh.

Let’s hope Attorney John Durham provides some answers on who exactly knew what in the spring of 2016.

The answer could be that Glenn Simpson and his wife, Mary Jacoby, wrote the script a long time ago.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) appeared on Fox News’  “Hannity” in the spring to discuss the origins of the Steele dossier. He said it should really be called the “Simpson” dossier. Although Christopher Steele likely contributed “stories” to the dossier, and his years of experience in British intelligence lent credence to the document, Nunes said he believed that Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson may actually have written the majority of it.

[….]

Simpson hired Christopher Steele in June 2016. According to Smith, Steele had been “identified as a British spy in 1999.” He had been chief of the “Russia desk when Russian assassins killed FSB defector Alexander Litvinenko in London and was hardly in a position to make discreet inquiries. Still, Simpson must have thought Steele’s name at a minimum would be useful in marketing whatever his firm pulled together. Reportedly, Steele had a good relationship with the FBI, and journalists love spies who spill secrets.”

Dems Had Their Asses Handed To Them (Day 3)

In the fight between left vs right, Democrats vs Republicans, progressives vs conservatives, the sides are clear. The motives are clear. One side will say what they believe helps them the most and hurts their opponents at the same time. It may be ugly, but it’s honest (at least in their intentions if not in substance).

On Tuesday, Representative Devin Nunes (R-CA) laid out the Republican case against impeachment in his opening statement as the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. In his statement, he did as most expected and attacked the Democrats’ case, but the real meat and potatoes from his statement came in the form of attacks against mainstream media. (NOQ REPORT)

Rep. John Ratcliffe, notes that Democrats have called Trump’s conduct “bribery” and then pulls out a mountain of papers of deposition transcripts. He says at no point have witnesses described his conduct as “bribery” in the last six weeks. He says the word appears only once — and that’s in relation to former Vice President Joe Biden’s alleged conduct.

LEGAL INSURRECTIONRep Elise Stefanik!


OTHER VIDEOS


RIGHT SCOOP:

Here’s a few notable clips from this evening’s hearing, the first of which is both Tim Morrison and Kurt Volker agreeing that Zelensky had no idea that the Ukraine ad was being held up at the time of the July 25th phone call…

Volker also testified that there was no quid pro quo or ‘bribery’, as they are now calling it:

And finally, Morrison, who was listening in on the July 25th phone call between Trump and Zelensky says nothing concerned him about the call:

RIGHT SCOOP:

 

Impeachment Efforts Harm Intel Community/Whistleblower Laws

Amidst the latest attempt to remove President Trump, Larry discusses the circumstances of the whistleblower’s report to Congress over President Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky—in what was claimed to be diplomatic pressure to investigate Joe Biden and his son’s business dealings in the country. Larry further delves into all the other failed attempts to unseat a duly elected president.

I have to think this is all choreographed… that the full script was written and the MSM is following it to the “T.” This second “whistle blower” was set to come out at this time and the media was suppose to run with it because they all thought Trump would still be obfuscating the details. EXCEPT, Trump fast-lined the call transcript and complaint to be released…. hence the responses to George Stephanopoulos on his Twitter:

TWITCHY notes Legal Insurrections take down of the latest revelation of a 2nd whistle blower:

LEGAL INSURRECTION continues it’s cogent thinking by noting that the “[w]eaponization of whistleblower laws is yet another breach of norms in an effort to unwind the 2016 election and manipulate the 2020 election.” Continuing LI notes failure after failure of the Left to oust Trump:

Circulating claims of Trump-Russian collusion prior to the 2016 election didn’t work.

Using foreign-supplied fake intelligence, from a British spy who utilized Russian sources, to obtain surveillance of the Trump campaign and transition team didn’t work.

Intimidating Electoral College Electors to change their votes after the election didn’t work.

Having the Director of the FBI lie to, set up and try to entrap the president didn’t work.

Having that same FBI Director leak memos to the media to manufacture grounds for a Special Counsel didn’t work.

Trying to invoke the 25th Amendment to declare the president unable to perform the job didn’t work.

Two years of the Mueller Investigation didn’t work.

Three years of a permanent crisis news cycle meant to paralyze the administration didn’t work.

After all these failures to unwind the 2016 election, Democrats and the mainstream media are trying a new tactic: Create a Star Chamber “impeachment” process fueled by anonymous whistleblowers and selective leaks that is not so much designed to remove the president, though they would if they could, but to manipulate the 2020 election.

The first intelligence community whistleblower is not so much a whistleblower as a politically biased operative (according to the Inspector General) who gathered information from various sources, went to Adam Schiff’s office for guidance, then filed a so-called Whistleblower Complaint that almost certainly was drafted by a team of lawyers. WhistleBlower No. 1, because he or she filed the claim as a whistleblower, is entitled to anonymity, there will not be the type of cross-examination and investigation of the whistleblower’s background and information that was so critical when Democrats rolled out a series of accusers against Brett Kavanaugh.

With Whistleblower No. 1 failing to fulfill the mission, there was a leak to the NY Times of a potential Whistleblower No. 2. That’s how this is going to work, there will be leaks to the media to frame the public narrative just like regarding supposed Russian-collusion.

That potential Whistleblower No. 2 is not actually a whistleblower, he or she is reportedly a witness already interviewed as part of the first Whistleblower Complaint. Whistleblower No. 2 is not blowing the whistle on anything.

[….]

At the same time that evidence is being funneled through whistleblower secrecy, Democrats are intent on shutting Republican’s out of the investigative process by conducting a non-impeachment impeachment investigation……

(Video added by RPT)

…..There has been no formal vote authorizing an impeachment investigation, so Republicans are without procedural mechanisms to fully participate in the process and to use congressional powers to conduct their own investigation.

Expect Schiff and team to leak like sieves, but only the information they gather in secret that they think helps them.

This has all the makings of a congressional Star Chamber of secret “whistleblowers” and Democrat leaks meant to manipulate both the public perception of the need for impeachment and the 2020 election.

And to end, this is a great “Tweet Storm” by Fred Fleitz:

1/ As a former CIA analyst and former NSC official who edited transcripts of POTUS phone calls with foreign leaders, here are my thoughts on the whistleblower complaint which was just released… (Complaint PDF)

2/ This is not an intelligence matter. It is a policy matter and a complaint about differences over policy. Presidential phone calls are not an intelligence concern. The fact that IC officers transcribe these calls does not give the IC IG jusrisdiction over these calls.

3/ It appears that rules restricting access and knowledge of these sensitive calls was breached. This official was not on this call, not on the approved dissem list and should not have been briefed on the call.

4/ The way this complaint was written suggested the author had a lot of help. I know from my work on the House Intel Commitee staff that many whistleblowers go directly to the intel oversight committees. Did this whistleblower first meet with House Intel committee members?

5/ It is therefore important that Congress find out where this complaint came from. What did House and Senate intel committee dem members and staff know about it and when? Did they help orchestrate this complaint?

6/ My view is that this whistleblower complaint is too convenient and too perfect to come from a typical whistleblower. Were other IC officers involved? Where outside groups opposed to the president involved?

7/ This complaint will further damage IC relations with the White House for many years to come because IC officers appear to be politicizing presidential phone calls with foreign officials and their access to the president and his activities in the White House.

8/ Worst of all, this IC officer — and probably others — have blatantly crossed the line into policy. This violates a core responsibility of IC officers is to inform, but not make policy.

9/ This is such a grevious violation of trust between the IC and the White House that it would not surprise me if IC officers are barred from all access to POTUS phone calls with foreign officials.

Whistleblower Had Help From Schiff Staff (Former CIA Analyst Says)

An op-ed in The New York Post says the Ukraine call whistleblower may have been driven by political motives and possibly even had help from Congress members while writing it. The op-ed’s author, former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz, joined FOX Business to discuss it further. Former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz has extensive knowledge of the whistleblower process. Fleitz says the Ukraine call whistleblower is likely driven by political motives, and his sources indicate he had help from Congress members while writing it. (Hat-Tip CONSERVATIVE TREE HOUSE)

The Whistleblower Status Critique – Critiqued (UPDATED)

JUMP to update

Sean Hannity had Sean Davis on his show and in two short answers responds to critics of his article over at the Federalist: “Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge“.

See also:

You can also view the document change here (Twitter):

Here are a few follow up articles discussing the admitted changes to the form…


UPDATE


The first article show that the DAILY BEAST article notes the change (EMPHASIS added):

Late yesterday the IC IG finally provided a public explanation in a news release, where they acknowledged the changes to the form instructions were made in part “in response to recent press inquiries regarding the [Ukraine] whistleblower complaint.”  Clearly the IC IG understood the potential for a public outcry if he certified a complaint as “credible” where the whistleblower stated “I was not a direct witness to most of the events described” while the instructions for his own intake form still listed a warning that “[t]he IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.”

[….]

Ironically, the Daily Beast article inadvertently destroys its own claim that this is a “false story.” In their zeal to dismiss the importance of the altered requirement for first-hand knowledge, the article explains that first-hand evidence is the threshold to determine what is “credible” under the statute: “Though the text is confusingly drafted—which may be why the entire preamble was canned—A CAREFUL READING SHOWS IT’S NOT ERECTING A NEW HURDLE FOR FILING A WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT, BUT RATHER DESCRIBING THE TYPE OF EVIDENCE THE IC IG HAS TO GATHER TO JUDGE THE COMPLAINT ‘CREDIBLE’ AT THE END OF ITS 14-DAY INVESTIGATION.”

(FEDERALIST)

In another article, the changes are noted from the September 30th letter from the IC IG’s office:

The Intelligence Community Inspector General released a statement admitting the office changed its forms for whistleblowers between May 2018 and August 2019, as The Federalist first reported. As The Federalist’s Sean Davis noted, “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.”

The timing of the change is important, as it bookends the period when an anonymous person filed a whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump for a phone call with the president of Ukraine. In the call, the president asked the Ukrainians to continue investigating political corruption that may implicate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.

In a statement on processing whistleblower complaints, the IG admitted they changed the forms:

In June 2019, the newly hired Director for the Center for Protected Disclosures entered on duty. Thus, the Center for Protected Disclosures has been reviewing the forms provided to whistleblowers who wish to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees. In the process of reviewing and clarifying those forms, and in response to recent press inquiries regarding the instant whistleblower complaint, the ICIG understood that certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read – incorrectly – as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees.

The ICIG’s Center for Protected Disclosures has developed three new forms entitled, ‘Report of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse UNCLASSIFIED Intake Form’; ‘Disclosure of Urgent Concern Form-UNCLASSIFIED’; and ‘External Review Panel (ERP) Request Form – UNCLASSIFIED.’ These three new forms are now available on the ICIG’s open website and are in the process of being added to the ICIG’s classified system. The ICIG will continue to update and clarify its forms and its websites to ensure its guidance to whistleblowers is clear and strictly complies with statutory requirements. Consistent with the law, the new forms do not require whistleblowers to possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern”

While law does not require those who file whistleblower claims to offer first-hand information of an urgent concern, federal regulations laid out in the “Background Information on ICWPA Process” state the ICIG must possess reliable, first-hand information in order to find the whistleblower credible.

Despite the form changes and the requirement for possession of first-hand information, the ICIG statement admits the Ukraine whistleblower filed an outdated report and checked that he or she had first-hand knowledge of the experience, which the complaint itself contradicts…..

(FEDERALIST)

The third article is Sean Davis explaining what the IC IG admitted to Monday, and explains again what the audio at the beginning of the post notes:

On Monday, the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) admitted that it did alter its forms and policies governing whistleblower complaints, and that it did so in response to the anti-Trump complaint filed on Aug. 12, 2019. The Federalist first reported the sudden changes last Friday. While many in the media falsely claimed the ICIG’s stunning admission debunked The Federalist’s report, the admission from the ICIG completely affirmed the reporting on the secretive change to whistleblower rules following the filing of an anti-Trump complaint in August.

[….]

In its press release, the ICIG also explicitly admitted it changed its policies because of the anti-Trump complaint, raising significant questions about whether the watchdog cooked its own books to justify its treatment of the anti-Trump complaint:

In the process of reviewing and clarifying those forms, and in response to recent press inquiries regarding the instant whistleblower complaint, the ICIG understood that certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read — incorrectly — as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees.

[….]

Because the complaint did not allege wrongdoing against a member of the intelligence community (the president of the United States is an elected constitutional officer, not an employee of a statutory agency), did not allege wrongdoing with regard to an intelligence activity (a phone call between two elected world leaders is basic diplomacy, not the execution of a statutorily required intelligence activity), and relied primarily on hearsay rather than firsthand evidence, both the director of national intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel determined that the anti-Trump complaint was not an “urgent concern” under the law and was therefore not required to be transmitted to the relevant congressional committees. In spite of those determinations, the ICIG on its own and after revising its internal guidance and policies regarding firsthand evidence decided the complaint did qualify as an “urgent concern” and forwarded the anti-Trump complaint to Congress.

(FEDERALIST)

Dr. John Eastman Discusses The “Whistleblower”

Larry Elder had John Eastman call into the radio show (from vacation) to discuss the “whistleblower” and what I see as the continued propensity to weaponize government to harass and criminalize countering points of views. The latest example of this is the secret change JUST BEFORE the release of this choreographed release of the whistleblower [so-called] to the law regarding it: “Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge“.

PAST EXAMPLES:

  • Obama’s Weaponization of Government (FORBES);
  • President Obama Weaponized Government – Phase Two Was Positioned to Monetize Government… (CONSERVATIVE TREE HOUSE);
  • Judicial Watch: New Documents Reveal DOJ, IRS, And FBI Plan To Seek Criminal Charges Of Obama Opponents (JUDICIAL WATCH)

Fred Fleitz (Longtime CIA) Discusses the “Whistleblower”

Mark Levin had Fred Fleitz (WIKI) on his show to discuss the latest issues with the leaker. Insightful discussion.

The story from the beginning has utterly fallen apart BTW:

  • Quid Pro Quo and Cover-Up Allegations Against Trump are Falling Apart (PJ-MEDIA)
  • Mark Levin DEBUNKS insane allegations made by “leftwing kooks” in the media (RIGHT SCOOP)
  • Media Ukraine Conspiracy Theories Shot Down (RPT)
  • Whistelblower Fabrications (RPT)

Media Ukraine Conspiracy Theories Shot Down

I was told by #NeverTrumpers that this soo shocked the DNI (internal watchdog, inspector general’s office) that the whistle-blowers complaint was raised to immediate “dealing with.” I was told this was done by a Trump appointee, Joseph Maguire. In other words, he is unbiased and committed to the truth. Come to find out that,

  • the DNI general counsel said days later that, after consulting with the DOJ, the matter did not meet the legal definition of an ‘urgent concern,’ and was not subject to mandatory disclosure to Congress(NEWSBUSTERS)

I asked a friend if the Facebook post he relayed by a friend would change:

  • So your friends FB post has been wrong in almost every point made…. NOW I wonder if this statement (“The Inspector General who determined that the whistleblower complaint was “credible” and “urgent” is himself not just a Republican but a Trump appointee”) will be used derisively rather than supportively of the conspiracy theory: “well, the IG is a Trump appointee. What else did you expect!?”

Maybe he was pressured! This story was the latest debunked conspiracy theory, and shows the amount of vitriol towards the President. “Acting director of national intelligence threatened to resign if he couldn’t speak freely before Congress on whistleblower complaint,” the Washington Post headline ran. Also this from MSN

  • The acting director of national intelligence threatened to resign over concerns that the White House might attempt to force him to stonewall Congress when he testifies Thursday about an explosive whistle-blower complaint about the president, according to current and former U.S. officials familiar with the matter. (MSN)

PJ-MEDIA notes how the DNI himself debunked the story:

Yet Maguire denied the report less than an hour after the Post published it. “At no time have I considered resigning my position since assuming this role,” he told Fox News congressional reporter Chad Pergram. “I have never quit anything in my life and I am not going to start now. I am committed to leading the Intelligence Community to address the diverse and complex threats facing our nation.”

Maguire is set to testify about a whistleblower complaint that the inspector general for the intelligence community said was of “urgent concern.” Controversially, the acting DNI prevented the whistleblower complaint from being released to Congress in a move some experts have condemned as illegal.

Maguire defended his actions in a statement Tuesday. “I want to make clear that I have upheld my responsibility to follow the law every step of the way,” he said. He also praised the whistleblower, adding, “the men and women of the Intelligence Community have a solemn responsibility to do what is right, which includes reporting wrongdoing.”

The Washington Post report seemed to contradict the basic claims against Maguire. If the acting DNI refused to release the whistleblower complaint to congressional committees, why would he threaten to resign in order to be more forthcoming to Congress?

It seems the sources behind the false story may have been attempting to gin up more controversy over the whistleblower complaint to add some legitimacy to the impeachment inquiry

I was told by Facebook peeps the whistle-blower was in on the information personally and needed “whistle-blower status, protection.” But the problem was, he did not have first-hand knowledge, but heard it from someone. Brit Hume notes this in a Tweet:

The DAILY CALLER notes further:

The CNN story cited by Hume suggests, “It is hard to see how any of this ends well” but doesn’t mention the whistleblower’s precarious grip on his inside information until the reader is deep within the report.

“The whistleblower didn’t have direct knowledge of the communications, an official briefed on the matter told CNN. Instead, the whistleblower’s concerns came in part from learning information that was not obtained during the course of their work, and those details have played a role in the administration’s determination that the complaint didn’t fit the reporting requirements under the intelligence whistleblower law, the official said.”

Representative Mark Meadows is noted as joining the fray with this:

Rep. Mark Meadows, North Carolina Republican, tweeted that “amazingly Democrats now say the whistleblower complaint is more important” than the transcript of the phone call.

“Folks, the ‘whistleblower’ wasn’t on the call,” Mr. Meadows tweeted. “They think a secondhand account of the call will tell you more than the *actual call*.”… (WASHINGTON TIMES)

After noting the second-hand-hearsay — which I am convinced was dropped on purpose to get the Biden controversy front-n-center. The Trump admin KNOW how the #NeverTrumpers, the Leftist media, and Democrats will react… and the bonus? The Biden’s corruption are now the talk of the town. What did Rep. Matt Gaetz call it? Catfishing! But I digress.

Okay, again… After noting the second-hand-hearsay, the DOJ’s criminal division investigated Trump’s phone call to the Ukrainian president and found nothing wrong (RIGHT SCOOP). In fact, what came out later is the whistle-blower is intimately intwined with an org that pays people to come out against the Trump admin and is represented by Clintonistas… and is themself BIASED against Trump:

  • It was a fact completely omitted from the cascade of Trump impeachment coverage found on ABC’s World News Tonight and NBC Nightly News. “The Dependent of Justice warned the whistleblower’s information was ‘secondhand’ and that there are indications, quote, ‘of an arguable political bias on the part of the complainant,’” reported CBS chief congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes. (NEWSBUSTERS)
  • Democrat Nancy Pelosi announced an impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump on Tuesday based on second-hand information from a confirmed anti-Trump leftist operative of a July phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky. The alleged “whistle-blower” is being represented by a former Schumer and Hillary Clinton operative. (GATEWAY PUNDIT)

I was also told there was criminal QUID PRO QUO. This too was debunked… first by the Wall Street Journal (NATIONAL REVIEW) — which was a cause of derisiveness on a friends Facebook. And later confirmed by BOTH CNN and FOX NEWS!!

What was the best moment however? I was told Trump was the initiator of the topic about corruption and the Biden’s. Bwahahaha… the President of the Ukraine initiated the discussion:

In the transcript released today President Zelensky brought up Rudy Giuliani and his investigations of the Biden Crime Family with President Trump….. (GATEWAY PUNDIT)

To say Democrats and #NeverTrumpers jumped the gun on this is understated. Where is Mitt Romney on this??? He came out saying how aweful it was? Why is he all of a sudden silent? Behind closed doors the Dems know they effed up. Funny.

To Whistle-Blow Or Not To

(Video Description) Thanks to a “whistleblower,” Joe Biden says attention should be placed on President Trump for “threatening” the Ukraine president for dirt. But…what’s the dirt on what Biden did? Because the media isn’t talking about it. Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, partnered with John Kerry’s stepson, Christopher Hines, and an old roommate Devon Archer to create their own private equity firm, Rosemont Seneca. Obama made VP Biden the point person for Ukraine foreign policy, and before you know it, the company Hunter, Hines, and Archer developed is in a direct partnership with the Ukraine’s largest oil company, Burisma. Smell fishy to you?

Most important article wise comes from PJ-MEDIA… here are some excerpts:

The so-called whistleblower “scandal” that the media is hyping up every which way has Democrats once again falling all over each other to declare another “impeachable offense,” despite having virtually no details about the conversation between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky. But, like everything else that’s been thrown at Trump, this appears to be another phony scandal. The Daily Wire’s Ashe Schow reported Saturday that the whistleblower complaint “is nothing more than a rumor reported by someone in the intelligence community.” In fact, CNN reported this fact, but buried it in an article:

The whistleblower didn’t have direct knowledge of the communications, an official briefed on the matter told CNN. Instead, the whistleblower’s concerns came in part from learning information that was not obtained during the course of their work, and those details have played a role in the administration’s determination that the complaint didn’t fit the reporting requirements under the intelligence whistleblower law, the official said.

Schow noted, “this is yet another anonymous source giving more context on what another anonymous source told a different outlet, but it still calls the entire story into question.” The original Washington Post story, despite being on the front page, was vague, relying on “two former U.S. officials familiar with the matter” who were “speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.” They alleged that Trump had made a “promise” to a world leader—which, based on what we know right now, is incorrect.

The Post filled out its story with information about a “standoff” between Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire and Congress.

The Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson – who was appointed by Trump – determined the whistleblower complaint to be of “urgent concern,” according to the Post. But Maguire argued he was not required by law to turn the complaint over to congressional Democrats seeking to impeach Trump.

The reason Maguire didn’t turn the complaint over is because of what CNN reported – that the person who made the complaint had no direct knowledge of what was said and was merely reporting a rumor. Why the inspector general determined it “urgent and credible” remains to be seen.

All the reactions to the story since have been based on speculation as to what occurred on the call. Trump is alleged to have pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and offered a quid pro quo… which, according to the Wall Street Journal, there wasn’t:

President Trump in a July phone call repeatedly pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden ’s son, urging Volodymyr Zelensky about eight times to work with Rudy Giuliani, his personal lawyer, on a probe, according to people familiar with the matter.

“He told him that he should work with [Mr. Giuliani] on Biden, and that people in Washington wanted to know” whether allegations were true or not, one of the people said. Mr. Trump didn’t mention a provision of foreign aid to Ukraine on the call, said this person, who didn’t believe Mr. Trump offered the Ukrainian president any quid-pro-quo for his cooperation on an investigation…

[….]

So far, all we know is that the whistleblower at the heart of this situation didn’t actually overhear anything. The one thing we do know is that in 2016, Joe Biden successfully pressured then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to ax the country’s top prosecutor, who was investigating his son’s company, by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees. Biden even bragged about it.