Remember the Justice Kavanaugh confirmation process and the failed attempt by the opposition to introduce Christine Blasey Ford to thwart his appointment? Remember the additional (failed) slanderous witnesses they trotted out when that attempt collapsed under its own weight?
It’s happening again…only this time it’s President Trump and the Ukraine fiasco.
Last week OneSource Media provided a detailed summary of the Trump-Ukraine whistleblower debacle up to the testimony of acting Director of National Intelligence (ADNI) Joseph Maguire, but recent developments demand a follow-up.
Before delving into new developments, it’s important to point out the Department of Justice conducted its own investigation and officially terminated the matter finding “no further action was warranted. All relevant components of the Department agreed with this legal conclusion, and the Department has concluded the matter.”
What has happened since ADNI Maguire’s testimony and the internal DOJ ruling?
We now know the whistleblower consulted with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s office prior to submitting his “Urgent Concern” complaint, according to The New York Times.
“Like other whistle-blowers have done before and since under Republican and Democratic-controlled committees, the whistle-blower contacted the committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community,” said Patrick Boland, a spokesman for Mr. Schiff.
Whoops… That directly contradicts Chairman Schiff’s declaration of no prior knowledge of the whistleblower’s complaint after Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) Michael Atkinson’s Testimony September 19, 2019.
First of all, I want to thank the whistleblower for coming forward, for having the courage to follow the procedures as they’re written in law to make a lawful disclosure to the Congress and to the Inspector General of conduct that was gravely concerning to the whistleblower (0:18). …and I want to thank the Inspector General. In the absence of his actions in coming to our committee, we might not have even known there was a whistleblower complaint alleging an urgent concern (2:33).
We do not have the complaint (3:33).
It also contradicts what he said during his appearance on MSNBC September 17, 2019, clearly denying any discussion with the whistleblower.
Sam Stein: …First off, have you heard from the whistleblower? Do you want to hear from the whistleblower?
Chairman Schiff: We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to, but I’m sure the whistleblower has concerns that he has not been advised, as the law requires, by the Inspector General or the Director of National Intelligence just as to how he is to communicate with Congress, so the risk to the whistleblower is retaliation.
In addition to Chairman Schiff’s flagrant deception, it appears the whistleblower also failed to disclose his prior contact to ICIG Atkinson, as reported by Fox News, which may place the whistleblower in legal jeopardy.
The intelligence community whistleblower who alleged misconduct at the White House over President Trump’s call to the Ukrainian president did not disclose contact with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s staff to the intelligence committee inspector general (ICIG), sources told Fox News Friday.
The sources said ICIG Michael Atkinson told lawmakers in a closed session that the whistleblower did not disclose the contact with the California Democrat’s committee and that Atkinson didn’t investigate that contact as he had no knowledge of it.
Thanks to more excellent reporting by John Solomon of The Hill we also know that Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin was, in fact, fired for investigating Bursima and Hunter Biden, confirming Joe Biden’s braggadocios admission to his own quid pro quo.
At the time, Shokin’s office was investigating Burisma. Shokin told me he was making plans to question Hunter Biden about $3 million in fees that Biden and his partner, Archer, collected from Burisma through their American firm. Documents seized by the FBI in an unrelated case confirm the payments, which in many months totaled more than $166,000. (Source: John Solomon, The Hill)
As a refresher, here is Joe Biden’s recollection of the quid pro quo.
…we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.
Meanwhile, the media is desperately trying to spin Biden’s remarks into a mere attempt to fight broader corruption because Shokin supposedly wasn’t investigating any corruption.
What else do we know?
U.S. diplomatic envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, testified before Congress October 3, 2019, making a clear statement of fact that he advised the Ukrainians against doing anything that could be seen as impacting U.S. elections, especially concerning former Vice President Joe Biden.
As you will see from the extensive text messages I am providing, which convey a sense of real-time dialogue with several different actors, Vice President Biden was never a topic of discussion.
Moreover, as I was aware of public accusations about the Vice President, several times I cautioned the Ukrainians to distinguish between highlighting their own efforts to fight corruption domestically, including investigating Ukrainian individuals (something we support as a matter of U.S. policy), and doing anything that could be seen as impacting U.S. elections (which is in neither the United States’ nor Ukraine’s own interests). To the best of my knowledge, no such actions by Ukraine were ever taken, at least in part, I believe, because of the advice I gave them.
Notably, I did not listen in on the July 25, 2019 phone call between President Trump and President Zelenskyy, and received only superficial readouts about that conversation afterwards. In addition, I was not aware that Vice President Biden’s name was mentioned, or a request was made to investigate him, until the transcript of this call was released on September 25, 2019 (p.3).
Now that Mr. Volker has testified, essentially dismantling the impeachment narrative of election tampering, and now that the original whistleblower may be in legal jeopardy, more whistleblowers are stepping forward exactly like the witnesses stepping forward after Ms. Ford’s failed attempt to derail Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
The first whistleblower’s attorney, Mark Zaid, told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos they are representing another whistleblower, who is a member of the intelligence community and has first-hand knowledge regarding some of the allegations “at issue.”
.@ABC EXCLUSIVE: Attorney representing whistleblower who sounded the alarm on Pres. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine tells @ABC News he is now representing a second whistleblower who has first-hand knowledge of events.@GStephanopoulos reports: https://t.co/nfsdovQMbq pic.twitter.com/LDeYL3dL26
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) October 6, 2019
Forget the facts. Forget the text messages that were revealed during Mr. Volker’s testimony, specifically Ambassador Gordon Sondland’s response to Ambassador Bill Taylor (below from p.9 of Mr. Volker’s sworn statement).
Ukraine Text Messages
There was no quid pro quo concerning President Trump and Ukraine!
It’s Déjà vu all over again…