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!

WaPo gives Schiff three-Pinocchio fact-check rating for claims about the whistleblower's anonymity

Does federal law guarantee the anonymity of the CIA employee whose whistleblower complaint is behind Congress' current impeachment conflagration? The Washington Post says it doesn't and is calling out House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff, D-Calif., for saying so.

On Wednesday, the newspaper gave Schiff a rating of "three Pinocchios" for his claim that the federal employee in question has a right to anonymity under federal laws regarding the protection of whistleblowers.

To begin, the Post cites multiple quotes from Schiff alleging that the employee has a "statutory right" to keep his identity shielded from public scrutiny. Then, the article looks at the actual laws that deal with situations like this one and determines, "Neither the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 (ICWPA) nor any related statutes have language guaranteeing anonymity for whistleblowers." It also notes that the portion of the law that prevents the inspector general from outing a whistleblower's identity "appears to be the lone statutory restriction on disclosing a whistleblower’s identity, applicable only to the inspector general’s office."

University of Texas School of Law Professor Stephen Vladeck told the newspaper, “Nothing in the ICWPA expressly protects the anonymity of a complainant, or provides sanctions for someone who discloses it."

When in applying the newspaper's "Pinocchio Test," the article says that Schiff's claims were "on the line between Two and Three Pinocchios" but that the case for three was "more compelling."

"Schiff says the whistleblower has a 'statutory right' to anonymity, and it apparently, in Schiff’s understanding, extends to congressional hearings and settings that don’t involve the inspector general," the article concludes. "That’s debatable at best."

Republicans have made the case that the employee behind the complaint needs to testify so that investigators can "fully assess the sources and credibility of the employee." Republicans have also argued that Schiff himself has changed his position on whether or not congressional investigators would hear open testimony from the employee.

Schiff has also publicly claimed that he doesn't know who the employee is, despite his efforts to police the release of his identity. During Tuesday's public impeachment hearings, Schiff stopped both Reps. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Devin Nunes, R-Calif., from questioning witness Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman about whom he told about the now-infamous July 25 Trump-Ukraine phone call, citing concerns about the employee's identity.

Keep reading...Show less

Levin: 'Adam Schiff knows exactly who this whistleblower is'

Thursday on the radio, LevinTV host Mark Levin told listeners exactly what happened during the hearing Thursday with Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire regarding the whistleblower's complaint against President Trump.

"Adam Schiff and his staff and other Democrats are orchestrating this entire thing," Levin said. "I'll call [it] the 'Leak and Coup Campaign.' In coordination with the New York Times and the other media outlets — NBC and so forth. Now we know from the New York Times that a CIA operative is the whistleblower. Now what's amazing: We had a hearing today, right? Where was the whistleblower?

"We're having a hearing today on what the whistleblower is said to have written, but we don't have the main witness, so the witness can be scrutinized, and questioned, and cross-examined. Instead, we have Adam Schiff, and the other Schiff-less crowd on the committee, telling we the people how tremendous this whistleblower is! How 'brave' and 'courageous' this whistleblower is! Well who the hell is he or she? How do you know? How he's 'patriotic' or she's 'patriotic!' 'Noble!' 'Righteous!'  'Outstanding!'"

Listen:

Levin connects Schiff to the whistleblower:

"Adam Schiff knows exactly who this whistleblower is, and so does his staff," Levin continued. "Because he's been working with the whistleblower and his lawyer, that's how. ... If you look at the date of the letter that was sent to Richard Burr and Adam Schiff, it's dated August 12, 2019. August 12, 2019. And that's several weeks ago. You'll also notice as Sean Davis, the founder of The Federalist, points out, that many of the news articles cited by the CIA operative — the so-called whistleblower who has firsthand knowledge of nothing — are news articles that were cited by Adam Schiff. And so, as he points out, and he's right, when you look at the phony Russia collusion issue and the FISA matters, the leaks came out of the FBI, and the FBI cited the articles that they were responsible for. Adam Schiff is doing exactly the same thing. Adam Schiff should release his phone records. His staff should release their phone records. I'm accusing them of leaking. Now prove me wrong."

Levin also pointed out that the CIA operative had no role in monitoring the president's phone call, he merely heard there was some concern and began conducting his own investigation. Also, the complaint looks like it's written by a lawyer, with footnotes, caveats, and appendixes, Levin said.

"There was no intelligence violation here," Levin said. "There was no threat to American national security here, despite the self-serving comments of this rogue CIA operative, who had no authority to monitor the phone calls but goes through the back door. The way this presented itself in the media, the way Schiff has been conducting himself throughout and during the course of this hearing, the way this document is written, the fact that a Schumer-Clinton former staffer is his lawyer, the fact that Schumer went to the floor of the Senate the other day, demanding that this complaint be provided to the United States Senate. It's all just a little too cozy. And you heard it here first. ... This is what's going on behind the scenes. If I'm wrong, then Mr. Schiff shouldn't worry about, as the liberals like to say, releasing his phone records for the last 90 days."

Keep reading...Show less