Below is an analysis of the Whistleblower’s complaint of August 12, 2019, written to the two Intelligence Committee Charimen; Senator Richard Burrr and U.S. House of Representatives Adam Schiff. The complaint addresses President Trump’s telephone call of July 25, 2019, with the newly elected President of Ukraine. Conservative Opinion is in depicted in red text.
In his preamble, the Whistleblower admitted, “I was not a direct witness” to the most of the events described”. He then proceeded to accuse Mr. Trump of 3 unlawful acts:
- Trump sought foreign interference in the 2020 election?
- Pressuring a foreign government to investigate one of his main domestic political rivals?
- Trump attempted to conceal contents of the phone call on a separate electronic system?
In Section I, he outlined the phone call contents citing “say-so” information putatively from inside sources,“White House officials”, with “direct knowledge of the call.”
Next, in Section II, he again uses “say-so” sources to accuse President Trump of preventing access to records of oval office telephone calls. He writes: “I learned from “multiple U.S. officials that senior White House officials had intervened to “lock down” all records of the phone call”. Conservative Opinion: Could the “lock down” be a consequence of repeated leaks of oval office conversations during the first 2 years of President Trump’s presidency? This author’s opinion is that the additonal “lock down” is entirely appropriate and necessary for the President to conduct the nations’s business with Foreign leaders.
Next, in Section III, the whistleblower’s comments regarding U.S. Ambasador’s actions in Ukraine the day after the Presidential telephone call. His anti-Trump bias was revealed when he used “say-so” sources to intentionally insert the derogatory word, “demands”, into the Ambasador’s meeting with the Ukranian President. “Recounted to me by various U. S. officials”, that U.S. Ambassador’s, “reportedly provided advice to the Ukrainian leadership about how to “navigate” the “demands” that the President had made of Mr. Zelenskyy.” Conservative Opinion: If one reads President Trump’s telephone transcript of July 25, 2019, the text clearly reveals that President Trump didn’t “demand” anything of anybody!
Next, in Section IV, he compiled a self-serving 5 page rendition of events leading up to the July 25, 2019, telephone call. He again quoted “say-so” sources, “multiple U.S. officials told me”, and media reports. Events he included: History of Ukranian corruption; Vice President Biden’s conflicted behavior regarding his son’s position on the Board of a Ukranian Energy Company; and Mr. Giulianai’s interceeding as President Trump’s lawyer.
Lastly, in an exhaustive footnote section, the whistleblower offers his sources to support accusations outlined in sections I-IV. It is a compilation of biased commentary spinning events into an unfavorable picture of President Trump. Items footnoted include: Commentary why oval office telephone conversations should “not” be classified; unfavorable notes of Mr. Giuliana’s activities on behalf of President Trump; summaries about rife corruption in Ukraine; and Attorney General Barr’s activities investigating the origins of the fabricated Russian dossier which initiated the Muller investigation.
Conservative Opinion: The Whistleblower is better termed a Whistlelistener because he used “say-so” sources to fabricate a webb of biased accusations about a telephone call between President Trump and the newly elected President of Ukraine. His complaint raises important questions about Oval Office that affects the lives of regular Americans. Who are the multiple “say-so” sources the whistlelistener cited? Are they the Oval Office conduit to the New York Times? These “say so” informants represent a 5th column cabal obstructing this President’s dialy work on behalf of the good people of the USA. The “say so’s” refuse to recognize President Trump’s 2016 election as legitimate and are attempting to disenfranchise Trump’s 2016 voters.
- Frank -