Trump 2019 impeachment exposed: Gabbard provides damning insights into deep-state stitch-up



The House of Representatives passed articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump in December 2019 over a phone call he had months earlier with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, alleging abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

While the U.S. Senate ultimately acquitted Trump by a vote of 57-43 in early 2020, the stitch-up had by that stage sufficiently muddied the waters and buoyed Democrats' false narrative in an especially heated election year.

'It is always worse than we thought.'

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released documents on Monday revealing that hearsay and erroneous claims from a few politicized bad actors who lacked any firsthand knowledge of the phone call were used as the basis to impeach Trump and that elements of the intelligence community were not only aware but happy to advance the false narrative.

The documents — investigative materials used by former Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, who got the ball rolling on impeachment, and transcripts of his testimony released as the result of a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence vote last month — show that Atkinson skirted standard IG procedures and, embracing a kind of strategic myopia, leaned entirely on what the ODNI described as "politicized, manufactured narratives" without ever once bothering to access the transcript of Trump's call.

A self-declared "Democrat" whistleblower who worked for the CIA filed a complaint in August 2019 alleging Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. elections. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country — Ukraine — to investigate one of the President's main domestic political rivals, former Vice President Biden."

On the call, Trump reportedly made reference to how Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in aid to Ukraine unless the prosecutor investigating the corrupt and now-defunct Ukrainian company Burisma, where Hunter Biden was appointed director in 2014, was fired.

The ODNI noted on the basis of the newly released documents that Atkinson — who spun the complaint as "credible" and rushed it to the congressional intelligence committees — had bothered to interview only four individuals whose credibility and political motives were clearly suspect.

RELATED: Democrat says he's filed articles of impeachment against Trump over social media post

House Judiciary Committee hearing on Dec. 12, 2019. Alex Edelman/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Besides the whistleblower — credibly identified as Eric Ciaramella, the Obama holdover and CIA analyst who reportedly partook in Obama White House discussions regarding Hunter Biden and Burisma — Atkinson interviewed the whistleblower's friend, "who was a co-author of the January 2017 Russia Hoax Intelligence Community Assessment and close colleague of former FBI Agent Peter Strzok," and two character references.

Not only did Atkinson rely upon the testimonies of politicized actors, he determined that the complaint must be reported to Congress despite the Justice Department determining there was "no urgent concern" and the whistleblower confirming he had no "direct knowledge of private comments or communications by the President."

It appears the hearsay-dependent allegations were buttressed by wild speculation.

One of the "witnesses" had admitted after reading a transcript of the call that they "would not have been able to get from 'point A to Z' the way the Whistleblower did" and that they had to "read between the lines" in order to conclude Trump was discussing quid pro quo.

The ODNI noted that the newly released "witness" interviews demonstrate that Atkinson's public assertion that "other information obtained during [his] preliminary review ... supports the complainant's allegation" was false and obfuscated the fact that there was no firsthand evidence of what was being alleged.

The newly declassified documents confirm not only that the whistleblower lied to Atkinson about leaking to congressional Democrats prior to submitting his allegations to the inspector general but that he was, contrary to Atkinson's characterization, politically biased.

Atkinson testified to Congress that he "never considered the whistleblower to be politically biased."

He drew this conclusion despite the whistleblower stating in his interviews that he is a "registered Democrat"; had "worked closely with Vice President Biden" and had traveled with Biden to Ukraine; and was the "target of right-wing bloggers ... and conspiracy theorists."

"Deep state actors within the Intelligence Community concocted a false narrative that was used by Congress to usurp the will of the American people and impeach the duly-elected President of the United States," stated Gabbard.

"Inspector General Atkinson failed to uphold his responsibility to the American people, putting political motivations over the truth. And this, along with the politicization of the whistleblower process by a former CIA employee who was working hand in glove with Democrats in Congress, are egregious examples of the deep state playbook on how to weaponize the Intelligence Community," continued Gabbard.

In 2019, Gabbard was a Democratic congresswoman representing Hawaii and cast the only "present" vote on both articles of impeachment.

"It was a sham from the start," tweeted Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). "The only thing we got wrong is that it is always worse than we thought."

Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz, who worked to defend Trump at his impeachment trial, told Just the News that Trump could have grounds to expunge his impeachment in the House in light of the new revelations.

"It's never been done. I don't see any reason why it couldn't be done," said Dershowitz.

"These government officials will probably have to pay a political price, if not a legal price, for violating the Constitution, because that's what they've done. They violated the Constitution," said Dershowitz, adding that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to confront witnesses.

In terms of seeking remedy, Dershowitz suggested Trump could always bring a civil lawsuit.

Trump evidently liked Dershowitz's suggestions and said on Truth Social, "Alan, one of the greats, should do it!"

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Tomahawks look tough. Grid disruption actually wins.



As President Trump proposes a ceasefire-in-place to stop the meat grinder in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin appears to be doing what he does best: stalling. With the U.S. busy juggling Iran, Venezuela, and even Greenland, Putin likely figures he can drag this war out long enough to wear Ukraine down and force a surrender through attrition.

Meanwhile Volodymyr Zelenskyy is brooding over not getting Tomahawk cruise missiles — weapons that could strike deep inside Russia.

The goal is irritation, disruption, and humiliation — repeated so often that people start cursing the Kremlin for creating this mess.

But instead of fixating on Tomahawks, Zelenskyy should look at the position Putin is now in. It has a historical parallel worth taking seriously.

Putin resembles Czar Nicholas II in 1917.

In both cases, Russian treasure has poured into a black hole while generals kept ordering “meat attacks” that chewed through manpower by the hundreds of thousands. In 1917, the loss of blood and money turned the nobility against the czar and set the stage for the Kerensky Revolution.

Putin’s oligarchs now sit where the czar’s nobility once sat: close enough to power to profit and close enough to disaster to panic.

Ukraine should exploit that.

A weapon of mass disruption

The goal shouldn’t be a dramatic strike that makes Russians rally around “Mother Russia.” A Tomahawk barrage would do exactly that. It would unify the country behind Putin and hand him the cleanest propaganda gift imaginable.

Ukraine needs something else: a way to transfer the misery and frustration of war to the Russian public — especially in Moscow and other major cities — without creating a patriotic surge.

Russia’s population is insulated by propaganda. Ukraine should attack the insulation, not the borders.

Winter brings slower movement and fewer offensives. That gives Ukraine an opening to run a low-cost, high-annoyance campaign modeled on a little-remembered British operation from World War II.

RELATED: Pressed on Greenland, Trump tells Davos the US has weapons he ‘can’t even talk about’

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The British Royal Navy called it Operation Outward. Today strategists would call it a “cost-imposing” campaign: something cheap to launch that forces the enemy to spend far more to stop it.

The Royal Navy released nearly 100,000 weather balloons. About half carried incendiary bomblets. The rest dragged long wire strands designed to short out power lines and cause disruption across the German electrical grid. German forces had to waste time and resources trying to counter a swarm of cheap devices drifting across their territory.

Because winds in the northern hemisphere generally move west to east, the Germans couldn’t retaliate in kind.

(The Japanese later tried something similar against the United States with the Fu-Go balloons, launching roughly 9,300 of them toward the U.S. and Canada. They forced America to divert resources even though the overall damage remained limited.)

Ukraine’s geography makes this concept even more attractive. Ukraine sits southwest of Russia. That means a balloon campaign drifting into western Russia would give Moscow no easy, low-cost way to respond with the same trick.

And unlike the World War II version, Ukraine wouldn’t need incendiaries. The point isn’t to burn Russian cities or kill civilians. The last thing Ukraine needs is to create martyrs and rally Russians around Putin.

The goal is irritation, disruption, and humiliation — repeated so often that people start cursing the Kremlin for creating this mess.

The cost math

Peter Rosato of Kaymont Consolidated Industries, a major weather balloon manufacturer, estimates that an eight-foot diameter balloon costs about $5 to $7. A hydrogen generator could inflate them for only pennies more.

Using the British model, the balloon could carry a simple ballast mechanism that slowly lowers it while trailing a long tether: roughly 700 feet of hemp cord, tied to a thinner steel wire around 300 feet long. That wire drags across power infrastructure and can short out lines, forcing repairs and outages.

The British saw real success disrupting the German electrical grid. They also forced the Nazis to waste valuable fighter flight hours trying to shoot down balloons — an expensive response to a cheap threat.

Ukraine could buy 100,000 balloons at roughly $5 each and — even after adding wire and other components — build a unit for under $1 million.

Unlike the British, Ukraine also wouldn’t need the same complex altitude-control system used to guide balloons across the English Channel, France, and the Low Countries into Germany. A long, contiguous border allows Ukrainian launches to drift into Russian territory without the same navigation demands.

To improve the results, Ukraine could tweak the design. A better unreeling mechanism might outperform a simple trailing wire. A Ukrainian electrical grid specialist and a meteorologist familiar with conditions in the northeastern border region near Shostka could help optimize launch times for maximum impact.

Make it a war Russians can’t ignore

This isn’t just disruption. It’s information warfare.

The point is not only to knock out power lines but to make the disruption visible — balloons everywhere across western Russia, especially near Moscow — as proof that Putin cannot protect his own people from the consequences of his war.

Modern realities require modern execution. Ukraine couldn’t run this from fixed-launch sites. Russian reconnaissance drones would find them, and artillery or kamikaze drones would destroy them.

The operation would need to move.

A vehicle-borne launch system makes the most sense: military trucks large enough to carry inflated eight-foot balloons, gas tanks, uninflated balloons, payloads, communications gear, a generator, and basic workshop tools.

And for safety, Ukraine would likely need to use helium instead of hydrogen. Hydrogen is cheaper, but the risk of accidental detonation inside a truck is too high.

RELATED: The fastest way to stop Iran’s killers ... without firing a single shot

Antonina Satrevica / Getty Images

Night launches would also matter. To avoid detection, the trucks and equipment would need to be compatible with night-vision operations.

Now picture the outcome.

Imagine 1,000 yellow-and-blue balloons drifting into Russia every day, dragging wires across electrical lines.

Imagine the manpower, equipment, and aircraft Russia would have to divert from the front to hunt them down — at night — every night — for the next hundred nights.

And for the final touch, imagine the optics when Russian crews find one of these balloons in daylight, wires draped across a shorted power line, with a huge portrait of Vladimir Putin half-naked on a horse and the Russian phrase for “I did that!”

That kind of mockery lands differently when you’re freezing in the dark because of Putin’s war.

Ukraine doesn’t need Tomahawks to hit Russia where it hurts. It needs a cheap, persistent campaign that turns irritation into anger — and turns anger into political pressure on the regime that started this catastrophe.

Trump Wants His ‘Ukraine Impeachment’ Investigated

'The Ukraine Impeachment (of me!) Scam was a far bigger Illegal Hoax than Watergate'

Melania Trump partners with Putin to lead humanitarian effort in war-torn region



First lady Melania Trump has joined forces with an unexpected foreign leader to lead a crucial humanitarian effort in a war-torn region.

During a press conference Friday, Mrs. Trump announced her partnership with Russian President Vladimir Putin to reunite Ukrainian children with their families. So far, eight children who were displaced by the war were reunited with their families in just the last day or so, she indicated. The first lady also confirmed that she remains in communication with Putin to continue the effort.

'I hope peace will come soon. It can begin with our children.'

"A child's soul knows no borders, no flags," Trump said.

"We must foster a future for our children which is rich with potential, security, and complete with free will," she added. "A world where dreams will be realized rather than faded by war."

RELATED: Trump teases shutdown consequences for Democrats: 'A little taste of their own medicine'

Photo by Contributor/Getty Images

During her address, the first lady recounted the initial letter she wrote to Putin in August 2024, raising concerns about the children who were separated from their families due to the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine.

"Since then, President Putin and I have had an open channel of communication regarding the welfare of these children," Trump said.

Over the last three months, both Ukraine and Russia have participated in several "back-channel meetings" that Trump says have all been "in good faith."

"Each child has lived in turmoil because of the war in Ukraine," she said, speaking about the eight children who were reunited this week. "Three were separated from their parents and displaced to the Russian Federation because of frontline fighting. The other five were separated from family members across borders because of the conflict."

RELATED: Drones shut down airports in NATO countries as suspicion falls on Russia

Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Mrs. Trump also said that Russia has agreed to work alongside officials to return children who have turned 18 since their displacement.

"Again, this remains an ongoing effort," Trump said. "Plans are already under way to reunify more children in the immediate future. I hope peace will come soon. It can begin with our children."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Putin Official Calls Russia ‘A Real Bear’ After Trump Mocked Country’s Power

A Russian official fired back at President Donald Trump with a bizarre comparison after Trump mocked the country’s military in a social media post on Tuesday. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov disputed Trump’s characterization that Russia is a “paper tiger” during an interview with Russian-state media, insisting the country should be referred to as a “real bear.” […]

Stephanopoulos Suggests Trump DOJ Could Tamper With Epstein Evidence (And Other ABC’s This Week Questions)

Here are all the questions asked during the Sept. 7 edition of 'This Week.'

Trump defends Zelenskyy against Russian official: 'It's all bulls**t'



President Donald Trump dismissed the claim of a Russian official as the commander in chief continues to negotiate peace talks with Ukraine.

Sergey Lavrov, Russia's minister of foreign affairs, recently said that Russian President Vladimir Putin would not sign a peace deal with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy because he is viewed as an "illegitimate" leader. Trump shot down Lavrov's comments during Tuesday's Cabinet meeting, saying, "Everybody is posturing."

'The issue of who is going to sign the deal on Ukrainian side is a very serious issue.'

"It doesn't matter what they say," Trump told reporters. "Everybody is posturing. It's all bullsh**t."

Trump also offered United States Special Envoy Steve Witkoff the opportunity to chime in, to which he simply said, "I agree with you, sir." The room filled with reporters and government officials promptly erupted with laughter.

Notably, Zelenskyy's five-year presidential term was set to end in May 2024, but no elections have been called due to the ongoing conflict with Russia.

RELATED: Trump demands death penalty for DC murderers

Reporter: "This weekend Sergey Lavrov was saying Putin will not sign a peace deal with Zelenskyy because Russia views him as illegitimate..."

President Trump: "It doesn't matter what they say. Everybody is posturing. It's all bullshit." pic.twitter.com/8H8AeKNqAC
— TheBlaze (@theblaze) August 26, 2025

Although the Trump administration has held separate summits with both Zelenskyy and Putin in recent weeks, Lavrov said there is "no planned meeting" between the two leaders.

In addition to challenging Zelenskyy's leadership, Lavrov reiterated the slew of preconditions Russia is demanding from Ukraine. Some of these preconditions include Ukraine agreeing not to join NATO, "the discussion of territorial issues," and for Zelenskyy to cancel any legislation "prohibiting the Russian language."

RELATED: Trump makes a bold push for global competitors to abandon nukes: 'The power is too great'

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

"Irrespective of when this meeting might take place, and that must be very well prepared, the issue of who is going to sign the deal on Ukrainian side is a very serious issue," Lavrov said over the weekend.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Survival over pride: The true test for Ukraine and Russia



When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border.

RELATED: Trump says he knows exactly why Putin wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine if he was president

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.