RUMORBLOWER NOT WHISTLEBLOWER by Larry C Johnson

Now that we have seen the whistleblower complaint filed by a CIA officer against President Trump, there should be little doubt that it is a fraud and represents an abuse of the whistleblower process. I know genuine whistleblowers (e.g., Bill Binney, Kirk Wiebe, Ed Loomis, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, etc.) and have been one myself. I am familiar with the kind of information one must possess (or should possess) in order to initiate a complaint. This complaint does not even meet the stupid standard. It is a trumped up complaint.

This CIA officer who filed the complaint has no direct evidence or knowledge. He heard things from other people. He was not party to the phone conversation and did not have access to the transcript. Instead, he cited public media as “corroboration” for his allegations, including reports by John Solomon.

The whistleblower is supposedly an analyst. Pray to God he is not. If this is an example of this clown's analytical chops then we now know why the CIA has been on the downward slide. Rather than focus on evidence and facts, this guy relied on rumor.

The egregious conduct of the whistleblower is exceeded by the incompetence of the Intelligence Community Inspector General. When the complaint was filed a competent professional IG would have dismissed it immediately because it was based on hearsay. If we follow his logic, every single Presidential conversation with a foreign leader that involves discussion of a policy or issue an analyst does not support could/should become an IG investigation. That is not an intelligence function no matter how sincerely or fiercely the complainant believes their beef merits attention.

It would appear that the Democrats who plotted with this CIA officer were counting on Donald Trump to claim executive privilege on his conversation with Ukrainian President Zelensky and, based on the same privilege, withhold the whistleblower complaint.

Whoops!! Trump did not play ball. He preempted the Democrat Kabuki theater by releasing the relevant documents and transcripts.  President Trump pre-empted the ability of the Democrats to accuse him of illegal acts by citing his refusal to turnover documents.

How can anyone claiming whistleblower status be allowed to file a complaint on something about which they have no direct knowledge? The entire premise of the intelligence community is the access to reliable sources, i.e., people who have direct knowledge of what they are reporting on. The Dems are in a state of flacid erectus.

To appreciate the lies of the so-called Whistleblower, let us compare his claims with what actually transpired:

The Whistleblower Claims:

The President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President's main domestic political rivals.

What President Trump Actually Said:

I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible. . . .

The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.

COMMENT--At no time did President Trump say anything about the 2020 election or the need to do something to Biden to preempt his ability to run for the Democrat nomination. Trump's request was specifically about what happened in light of Joe Biden's public claim--I REPEAT, PUBLIC CLAIM--that he used the threat of withholding aid from Ukraine unless they fired the Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating the company that hired Joe's cocaine head son, Hunter.

The Whistleblower Claims:

Multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an initial exchange of pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests. Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President's 2020 reelection bid:

• initiate or continue an investigation2 into the activities of former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son, Hunter Biden;

• assist in purportedly uncovering that allegations of Russian interference in the 20 I 6 U.S. presidential election originated in Ukraine, with a specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cyber security firm Crowdstrike,3 which initially reported that Russian hackers had penetrated the DNC's networks in 2016; and

• meet or speak with two people the President named explicitly as his personal envoys on these matters, Mr. Giuliani and Attorney General Barr, to whom the President referred multiple times in tandem.

What Zelensky Actually Said about Hunter and Joe Biden:

President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation. . . He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far I as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough. . . .

I also want to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation. As to the economy, there is much potential for our two countries and one of the issues that is very important for Ukraine is energy independence. I believe we can be very successful and cooperating on energy independence with United States. We are already working on cooperation.

President Zelensky is asking President Trump for more help and strongly agreeing with Trump that the U.S. Ambassador was acting as a foe of Ukraine. To reiterate--the issue of corruption by Joe Biden and his spawn was already in public and was an issue for Ukraine, not just Trump. Again, not one word about the 2020 election or the Democrat scramble to find a candidate. No threat by Trump to withhold aid. No quid pro quo of any type. Joe Biden is on the record in public demanding Ukraine do what Biden wants or else the U.S. would withhold $1 Billion dollars in aid.

The Whistleblower lied. Not a single mention was made of "locating and turning over DNC servers." This is a complete fabrication by the so-called Whistleblower.

President Zelensky noted that his people had already spoken with Rudy Giuliani and voiced not one single concern about that. And Zelensky said that his Government would fully cooperate with a U.S. law enforcement investigation.

Worth noting that John Solomon of the Hill is out tonight with documents that expose Joe Biden as a liar in this matter.

The heart of the Whistleblower complaint is a lie. The analyst reported hearsay but, as you can read for yourself, was not what was said on that call.

This is an outrageous abuse by the intelligence community. The CIA cannot and should not be trusted. This analyst is an incompetent who does not know how to distinguish between fact and suspicion.

Comments

[luke8929]

It is starting to appear that foreign policy under Obama and the Democrats was simply a government sponsored money laundering operation. The gig being that a certain percentage of the money the US and other governments gave to Ukraine was then sent back to Democratic/Liberal supporters in the form of salaries or contracts. I would imagine most NGO's who support Democratic or Liberal governments are in part funded this way, they then in turn use the money to support their re election efforts. I would imagine the reason the Democrats are holding up many of Trump's nominations for embassy positions is that much of this was run through those offices.

I suppose this is how AIPAC has become such a force in American politics, money sent to support Isreal is sent back through contracts and salaries and other assorted shenanigans. This has been going on for over 50 years, no wonder they are so entrenched in the US government policy machine.

I could not figure out why Canada's current PM Trudeau, given his fathers penchant not to involve Canada in any foreign disputes, especially those the US was involved with, was so eager to get involved in the Ukraine. Of course its obvious now why he appointed Freeland who is of Ukranian background to the position of Minister of foreign affairs. They both have ties to the Atlantic Council and other NGO's who are associated with Ukraine in some fashion. The allegation being that the Liberal party has in part been funding its re-election bid with some of the money sent to Ukraine and funneled back the Biden way. Of course it will never be investigated properly up here as both the senior management of the RCMP, the judicial system and the media are full of liberal appointed or promoted hacks.

I would imagine that it goes further than the Ukraine as well, in fact any country that the US provides aid to has to be under suspicion. I always wondered why the Dutch and the Australian's were so interested in the Ukraine and the airliner that was shot down, bet this goes much deeper than we have been allowed to see so far.

[a lurker]

You should post this under Dreher`s "Trump Is The Deep State" dribble he posted yesterday.

[Factotum]

Time for the classic Ronald Reagan face down of the Democrat politics of personal destruction smear machine .......".aw shucks, there you go again".

And with that, Reagan ended and closed down the assaults. Time to get our of the weeds the Democrats keep planting that are keeping far too many of us on the defensive. Just tell them ...aw shucks, there you go again.

Their modus operandi is established, their intent is confirmed, they just switch out body parts now hoping there is an Achillies heel in there somewhere.

[Factotum]

Why isn't Schiff getting called as an Italian-hating racist after his malignant use of an outdated cultural stereotype.

[K]

Swalwell and at least half the squad are too stupid to even be Marxists. Nevertheless they are a serious threat.

And though far from perfect, Trump still deserves support. The opposition is grinding not only him but the public down, day by day. They make people long for "normal" politics to return. It is almost unbearable. But we must stay in the game, or they win.

[K]

I am in awe. It will take weeks for anyone in the press to catch up to you. Well done!

[artemesia]

Now that's an interesting re-direction of focus, TTG.

But "Hunter accepting money = embarrassment, but far from crime?"
Is the whole mess, beginning with Nuland Kagan, which had to have been directed by H Clinton which had to have been directed by Obama -- embarrassments or crimes?

By what right, based on rule of law and principles of UN Charter that proscribe a nation's involvement in the domestic affairs of another nation, does the US presume to " root out some of the corruption rampant in the Ukrainian government?"

[K]

It doesn't have to be a crime to be relevant in the context of the 2016 and 2020 elections. If we are so easily confused as to what has actually been going on Ukraine, that both parties are hopelessly smeared in the scent of corruption and failure, what exactly are we doing there? Why are we giving them billions?

And if you are not convinced that $50k a month in pay off for a do-nothing connected American board member is actually a crime, what do you make about the $1.5B from the Bank of China? Is that also excusable?

You are free to loathe Trump, but right now the very fabric of our Constitution is at stake and Trump is not the only pouring kerosene on it.

[K]

There's an interesting piece in Frontpage this morning about this very issue. https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/09/trump-urging-ukrainian-probe-biden-breaks-no-laws-matthew-vadum/

Matthew Vadum points out (totally news to me) that a Clinton era treaty with Ukraine signed in 2000 actually OBLIGATES the US to interfere in Ukraine's system of justice (and vice versa, which should give us all pause).

I'd be interested in what others make of this.

[K]

Thank you. This really is the most fascinating thread I've seen in recent memory.

[artemesia]

I'd like to see a serious conversation between Tim Ryan & Tulsi Gabbard.
It's apparent the PTB do not like him -- he gets 0 airtime or mention, which suggests to me that he might have some things to say that are meaningful to the Great Unwashed.

He is from RustBelt Ohio and is more interested in jobs & redevelopment of communities than in Culture Wars.

Sure would like to see Ryan either come from behind -- while, um, recalibrating his tune on FP, or,
with the knowledge that he can't win, out-Tulsi Tulsi in criticism of USA's Israel first policy.
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

[Fourth and Long]

That's accurate - 100%. I see this move of Pelosi's as furtherance of the "Ukraine coup" movement, probably triggered more than by constitutional concerns by fears of cutting of military aid to Ukraine and fears of Zelensky's potential for making peace with the Russians. She comes across in this episode as a US intelligence stand-in. But I have grown cynical. This Wednesday night article in the NY Times strengthened my outlook in such regard, especially the passage I quote below:

Quote:
Long before she was speaker, Ms. Pelosi served as the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, overseeing the secretive workings of America’s national security apparatus and helping to draft the law that governs how intelligence officials file whistle-blower complaints, and how that information is shared with Congress.
EndQuote.

-from:
Pelosi Tells Trump: ‘You Have Come Into My Wheelhouse’
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/us/politics/pelosi-intelligence-impeachment.html

[K]

I believe this was a running joke for a season on "Veep." It was a pretty funny one, but if you are right it was all too true (hence as funny as Schiff's "parody").

[LA Sox Fan]

Hearsay is any statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It can be confusing. For example. Assume I was in an automobile accident. Moments after the accident, I said to the other driver “You ran the red light.” In court, a witness who heard my statement cannot testify about it if that testimony is being used to prove the other party ran the red light. The matter being asserted is the other driver ran the red light. The witness is testifying to prove the light was red. It is a hearsay statement.

However, if I were claiming to have been knocked unconscious for a week by the accident, my “You ran the red light” statement would not be hearsay if the same witness was testifying to prove I was conscious after the accident. Here, the statement is not being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted (The other driver ran a red light) but to show I wasn’t knocked unconscious by the accident.

There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule which would takes about 3-weeks of a law school evidence class to explain. I don’t have the time..

Here, the so-called whistleblower is claiming that others told him what was said during the call. That is hearsay, (a statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted, aka-what was said is true.) If he heard to call himself, it wouldn’t be hearsay as to what he heard. If he read the transcript, then him testifying about what he read would not be hearsay either.

[b]

You may want to read this, including the linked documents, and rethink your comment
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story

[Keith Harbaugh]

Here are links to six John Solomon columns dealing with the Bidens and Ukraine:
2019-09-26 https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story
2019-09-23 https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/462658-lets-get-real-democrats-were-first-to-enlist-ukraine-in-us-elections
2019-05-16 https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/444167-ukrainian-who-meddled-against-trump-in-2016-is-now-under-russia
2019-04-25 https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/440730-how-the-obama-white-house-engaged-ukraine-to-give-russia-collusion
2019-04-07 https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/437719-ukrainian-to-us-prosecutors-why-dont-you-want-our-evidence-on-democrats
2019-04-01 https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/436816-joe-bidens-2020-ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-probe-is-revived

Let me also add some thoughts of my own:

0) I have carefully read the 2019-08-25 "urgent concern" of the Complainant.
It is a carefully-written, very-well-documented account of what its author believes are, essentially, impeachable offenses.
It is in fact quite useful, giving such a good account of one view of things.
It is a big, big mistake to attack it merely on the grounds that it is reporting things other people have said, i.e., "hearsay".
Such attacks, while true, do not detract from its argument.
There are, however, several other ways to attack its argument.

1) First, he is clearly giving only one side of things.
It is crucial to obtain a balanced, more accurate, view of things by giving the other side of the argument, as John Solomon does in what is linked to above.
Hopefully other countervailing views can be expressed.

2) Point out flaws in his reporting, as LJ has done so well above.

3) Ask the question "So what?"
The writer, and practically all of the media I have read, essentially assumes the equation:
"US national security" = "Preventing Russian domination of Ukraine".
My view: This is not merely wrong, but insane.
What on earth does US national security have to do with the territorial boundaries or geopolitical orientation of Ukraine?
Look, in the 1970s I was very involved with supporting US national security.
What did that mean back then?
It meant, for example, preventing West Germany, with its vast industrial and scientific capabilities, from becoming part of the Communist block.
That would really have changed the geopolitical balance between "The First World" and "The Second World", to use terminology in use back then.
Does anyone really believe that Russian domination of the Ukraine would have the same effect on geopolitics as the USSR controlling the FRG (i.e., West Germany).
Ukraine is not West Germany.
As I said, that is really insane.
Yet we see both reporters and columnists in, for example, the Washington Post claiming the Ukraine is vital to the U.S. national interest.
See, for example this ludicrously overwrought recent David Ignatius column:
"Trump compromised our security for his gain.".
"Compromised our security"? Please, David.

4) On the corruption issue:
Think about it. If Hunter Biden's last name had been Smith, and he, even with the work and educational background that he did have,
(see this article for an extremely detailed, 27-page, examination of that)
had been just the son of some nondescript middle-manager in America. would he EVER have been have been put on the Board of Directors of Burisma?
Never in a million years.
So the only reason he was put there was because of the position of his father, Joe Biden.
Now ask another question:
Assume that the Obama administration had valid reasons for wanting the dismissal of the Ukrainian prosecutor Shokin.
Why was Joe Biden given the job of pressuring for that dismissal?
Why not, say, SecState John Kerry?
Or some other member of the administration.
Maybe even Obama himself.
Why was Joe given that job? Especially considering the connection between his son and Burisma, which was generally considered part of the Ukraine corruption mess.
So why on earth didn't Joe say,
"Sorry, I have a family connection there. Better have someone else put the pressure on."?
Evidently WaPo and most of the rest of the media doesn't see a problem there, but it is very strange that they do not see the problem.

5) One final point: The "dirty" point.
The media is playing a word game, by consistently, and I mean really consistently, describing any effort to examine and publicize the issues Solomon raised above as
"Dirt", as in "digging up dirt".
Why prejudice the effort to shed some sunlight on such issues as "digging for dirt".
After all WaPo's motto is "Democracy dies in darkness".
So why call the effort to shine some light on the Biden/Ukraine connection as "digging for dirt"?
The hypocrisy is plain for me to see, if not for the people at WaPo.

6) And one afterthought:
On the identity of the "Whistle-blower", sundance makes a guess here:
"“Gossip-blower” is Male CIA Operative Formerly Part of White House NSC…",
namely Michael Barry.
I have no idea if that is true, merely passing on sundance's thoughts.

[blue peacock]

All

My question is why this Ukraine brouhaha NOW? The timing of why the media wurlitzer is spun is always interesting to me.

Trump's call with Zelensky took place in July just after Mueller published his report. Trump suspects that folks in Ukraine may have information regarding Crowdstrike and the DNC server "hacking". So it is a legitimate request IMO considering attacks on him, his kids and his administration around Russia Collusion. The whistleblower made his complaint now. Why? Who actually wrote the complaint as Robert Willmann notes in an earlier thread it was likely a lawyer. It seems it was coordinated with the House Democrats and the MSM as they both latched on to it with similar talking points immediately in a highly coordinated manner.

My speculation is that they didn't count on Trump immediately declassifying and releasing it to the public and further going on the attack along with Rudy to paint Biden and his son in the vortex of potential corruption.

Now we are back to he said, she said and the usual confusion. It would be good to read opinions on what was the goal here as the bar to an impeachment conviction is very high. No President in the history of our country has been convicted by the Senate. What were the political motives for the Russia Collusion redux with this Ukraine "quid pro quo"?

[blue peacock]

TTG

Maybe we should have all the Obama & Biden conversations with Poroshenko also released to the public? And while we're at it what about releasing all the conversations that Hillary, Ms. Nuland, John McCain and all those involved with Ukraine had with various parties.

Are there any conflict of interest laws in DC? We don't know what the REAL deal between Hunter and Burisma was. On paper what we've seen was he got paid for being a board member at Burisma. That doesn't even pass the laugh test as Hunter's most recent experience was being discharged from the Navy reserve for being a coke head. He had no experience in the natural gas business or corporate strategy or even corporate governance in the US let alone in Ukraine. What was the real quid pro quo here?

Then there is the deal with the Chinese who invested $1.5 billion in a private equity fund launched by Hunter and John Kerry's stepson. That too smells since neither of them had any experience running any pool of capital nor having worked at a PE firm before. I work in the investment management business and I know the near impossibility for a first time manager to raise $100 million let alone $1.5 billion and from all people the Chinese government. What was the real quid pro quo here? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Diana C]

That is a very good question. The Italians have a right to claim they are also victims of racism.

[Factotum]

Why now? The Kavanaugh smear fell apart. This was the next Trump "scandal" on the Democrat's Roladex. There will be more until Nov 2020, and there after. We know this now, so no cause for alarm. Even Saul Alinksy warned about over-playing your hand. Democrats have over-played their hand.

[Factotum]

K, you might want to stick with the actual language, instead of your odd interpretation stating the US is "required to interfere in Ukraine's system of justice".

Here is the treaty language from your link:
Article 1 that “[t]he Contracting States shall provide mutual assistance, in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, in connection with the investigation, prosecution, and prevention of offenses, and in proceedings related to criminal matters.”

[blue peacock]

Since the public have access to the transcript now the questions then becomes was Trump's request inappropriate during the call, was there a quid pro quo, are any of the assertions by the whistleblower accurate, was this a legitimate complaint or was it a political statement to gin up controversy?

[walrus]

Australia is interested because 27 nationals were killed on MH17.

[walrus]

This is creating an opening for Hilary to run again.

[akaPatience]

I absolutely agree Factotum! This is just the latest chapter in the continuing saga, Impeachment Zombies.