Newly declassified documents prove that the first impeachment of President in 2019-2020 was a carefully orchestrated fraud.
It all was concocted by Trump-hating within the intelligence community who secretly conspired with Democrats in Congress to remove Trump from office and subvert the will of the American people who put him there.
The damning evidence was produced Monday, April 13 by Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. On Wednesday, she sent criminal referrals to the Department of Justice (DOJ) aimed at two of the central figures who propelled the impeachment proceedings, accusing them of manufacturing a conspiracy.
The first is Michael Atkinson, who served as the inspector general (IG) of the Intelligence Community at the time of the impeachment hearings, and the whistleblower who filed a formal complaint about Trumps July 2019 telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
The identity of the whistleblower â a CIA analyst and registered Democrat â has still not been officially disclosed, which is utterly absurd. He is not entitled to hide in the shadows of anonymity. By law, only the IG can decline to release his name. But this applies to no one else. Gabbard should identify him, particularly since he no longer works in intelligence.
Moreover, the so-called “whistleblower” was not a whistleblower at all, as I explained repeatedly in a series of columns seven years ago during . The complaint he filed against the president never qualified as a valid complaint under the whistleblower statute. It does not meet the two requisite conditions set forth in the law.
That is, the alleged wrongful conduct must involve intelligence activity, and it must be committed by a member of the intelligence community. The president is not a member of the intelligence community and never has been. Under Article II of the Constitution, the chief executive has sweeping authority to conduct foreign affairs, negotiate with leaders of other nations and make requests or solicit information.
That is precisely what Trump did in his conversation with Zelenskyy. He suggested that the leader examine s ridiculously lucrative business deals with the Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings, as well as later-President Joe Bidens on-camera brag in which he threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. taxpayer funds unless the Ukraine prosecutor investigating both Burisma and Hunter Biden was fired. It appeared to be an overt and corrupt “quid pro quo” to protect his son and keep the Biden familys financial gravy train chugging along. It also smacked of extortion. Â
There was nothing inappropriate about Trumps phone discussion since the younger Biden was already the subject of a DOJ criminal probe into his highly suspicious international business schemes. Trumps request was logical and not at all uncommon. Other presidents have done the same thing.
Our Justice Department has enlisted foreign help in numerous cases over the years. Presidents sometimes get involved. It was ludicrous for Democrats to declare that the conversation was an impeachable offense. Yet they did so zealously.
They knowingly exploited a faux whistleblower who had no firsthand knowledge whatsoever of the phone conversation. He neither listened in nor read a transcript of it. He simply heard about it from someone else. The Constitution does not grant the power of review or disapproval to unelected and inferior bureaucratic employees over the most superior officer in the U.S. government, the president. Â
Again, IÂ Â as the impeachment saga unfolded in 2019:
“So what should we call the fake “whistleblower”? It is more accurate to describe him as an undercover informant acting as a Democratic operative who spied on President Trump by gat
