The press has universally adopted the convention of referring to the person who started the Ukraine frenzy as “the whistleblower,” in part because his identity is unknown. Until we know his name–he reportedly is a CIA employee–I would rather call him “the Democratic Party loyalist.” Now that his complaint has been made public, along with the transcript of President Trump’s innocuous conversation with President Zelensky, and we have had a few days to observe the Democrats’ behavior, I am starting to think the Ukraine matter may have been orchestrated just as fully as the Steele dossier/Russia collusion hoax.
Fred Fleitz, a veteran of the CIA, the DIA, the Department of State and the House Intelligence Committee staff, as well as the National Security Council and the White House, has some interesting observations about the Ukraine complaint in the New York Post:
I am very familiar with transcripts of presidential phone calls since I edited and processed dozens of them when I worked for the NSC. I also know a lot about intelligence whistleblowers from my time with the CIA.
My suspicions grew this morning when I saw the declassified whistleblowing complaint. It appears to be written by a law professor and includes legal references and detailed footnotes. It also has an unusual legalistic reference on how this complaint should be classified.
From my experience, such an extremely polished whistleblowing complaint is unheard of. This document looks as if this leaker had outside help, possibly from congressional members or staff.
Moreover, it looks like more than a coincidence that this complaint surfaced and was directed to the House Intelligence Committee just after Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), an outspoken opponent of President Trump, expressed numerous complaints in August 2019 accusing President Trump of abusing aid to Ukraine to hurt Joe Biden. This includes an August 28 tweet that closely resembled the whistleblowing complaint.
***
Also very concerning to me is how the complaint indicates intelligence officers and possibly other federal employees are violating the rules governing presidential phone calls with foreign leaders.The content and transcripts of these calls are highly restricted. The whistleblower makes clear in his complaint that he did not listen to a call in question, nor did he read the transcript — he was told about the call by others. If true, intelligence officers have grossly violated the rules as well as the trust placed on them to protect this sensitive information.
We now know that the “whistleblower” had nothing, just as Christopher Steele had nothing. His complaint consists of rumor and hearsay that turned out to be wrong. But, just as it didn’t matter that Steele’s dossier was nonsense, it hasn’t mattered that the “whistleblower’s” complaint was inaccurate, and perhaps fabricated out of whole cloth. It nevertheless serves the Democrats’ purposes.
It seems obvious that the Democrats have been planning for a while to proceed with impeachment against President Trump. I infer this from the fact that almost immediately after Nancy Pelosi announced publicly that House committees would proceed with impeachment inquiries, Democratic politicians of all kinds were sending out emails that recited nearly identical talking points and concluded with the assertion that President Trump must be impeached–not investigated, but impeached. This was not just a Nancy Pelosi operation, it was coordinated by the Democratic Party more broadly.
That coordination may have included the Democratic Party loyalist who made the Ukraine complaint. It may be, as Fred Fleitz suggests, that Democratic committee staff or Democratic lawyers helped him write it. In any event, it seems clear that the Democrats were aware of the complaint and coordinated their strategy to build impeachment proceedings around it.
It seems to me, in short, that we are seeing a replay of the Russia collusion hoax, with the “whistleblower” playing the part of Christopher Steele. He relates hearsay allegations that he may have heard from someone else, or may have simply made up, just as Steele did. The Democrats pretend to believe the whistleblower just as they pretended to believe Steele, even though in both cases, there is clear evidence that the claims against Trump are false.
No matter: the Steele dossier was used as the pretext to fraudulently obtain FISA warrants to spy on the Trump presidential campaign and the Trump team post-election, while the already-refuted Ukraine complaint is nevertheless the pretext for beginning impeachment proceedings.
The purpose of the multiple “inquiries” through which we are about to suffer is not, of course, to learn anything about events in Ukraine. It is, rather, to generate as many headlines as possible from friendly newspapers (i.e., all of them) that pair the words “Trump” and “impeachment.” If the Steele dossier couldn’t stop Trump from being elected in 2016, the Democrats are hopeful that the equally baseless Ukraine complaint will prevent him from being re-elected in 2020.