• A whistleblower complaint (related to the July call between Trump and Ukraine’s president) released Thursday claim that President Trump used his power to coerce Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. Further, the complaint also claim that the White House made efforts to "lock down" records of that phone call.
• The complaint was released just before Joseph Maguire (acting director of national intelligence) testified before the panel. The complaint accompanied a letter (August) from the intelligence community’s inspector general that deem the complaint as urgent and credible.
• As per the complaint, it is based on testimonials of several unidentified U.S. officials, who were "deeply disturbed" by Trump's July 25 phone call. Further, the complaint alleges that White House lawyers instructed the officials to move the call transcript from the usual computer system to the system reserved for sensitive information.
• White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said Thursday that the President has nothing to hide and that the complaint is “nothing more than a collection of third-hand accounts of events and cobbled-together press clippings.”
• The whistleblower still remains anonymous. This complaint follows the release of a rough transcript of the call on Wednesday.
Remember the 2017 documentary “Get Me Roger Stone”? Whether you love him or hate him, you’ve got to give him credit. Though he currently awaits his own trial following the Mueller investigation, Stone’s rules are in full force amid the whirlwind in the White House. And it's working
“Admit nothing, deny everything, launch counterattack,” is one of Stone's rules, and as the former advisor to the president, he drove that message home.
“No pressure,” Trump proclaimed as he sat next to the Ukrainian president yesterday at the UN; a retaliation to the headlines, which did argue Trump pressured Zelensky. What started out as a released transcript, turned out to be a memorandum (the distinction is important), and now the whistleblower complaint is released to the public, stating that the transcript was moved into a separate system.
Here are two more of Stone’s rules:
1. “Hit it from every angle. Open multiple fronts on your enemy. He must be confused, and feel besieged on every side.”
2. “Avoid obviousness.”
And that’s precisely what’s going on. This story broke underdeveloped. Impeachment was announced before we knew much. The accuracy of the memorandum (“the transcript”) is under question, and the whistleblower complaint is touted as a mere paste job of second-hand recollections/perceptions of what transpired.
In a case where something either is, or isn’t, where Trump either did, or didn’t, the White House has done a good job of calling all aspects of the situation into question, making an objective conclusion hard to find.
It’s a shame. It’s an allegation that transcends partisan divides, where an investigation of the events of transpired would conclude an objective conclusion of whether or not a law was broken. I imagine that Stone is celebrating in his Fort Lauderdale home today. Knowing that his legacy as a flamboyant, incredibly irritating political advisor of sorts is still affecting the course of history. But if you’re patient enough to look through the smoke and mirrors, what remains is an astounding assault on the integrity of our democracy. The perpetrator? The president.
This is absolute lunacy. This massive ordeal, this urgent whistleblower complaint, the phone call. All the pieces of evidence have been released to the public (very quickly, may I add). It’s a bit like reading a formally written gossip column. When you read through the menacing titles, classifications, and technical language, it’s just hearsay. He said, she said. That’s what we got here. That’s…hardly proof of an impeachable offense. Say I was some kind of evil person, and I didn’t like my neighbor Sally. Truthfully, there’s nothing wrong with her, I’m just annoyed because she frequently hosts get-togethers without inviting me.
What if I decided that I wanted Sally out of the neighborhood, out of spite. I tell other people I’m friends with in the neighborhood that Sally is very rude, annoying, and a downright terrible neighbor. After saying it enough times, they’ll start to agree with me, especially if they don’t know Sally that well. Now that I'm not the only one who'd like to see Sally move away, we can work together to oust her from the neighborhood. I can file complaints to the police department, or resort to other dirty tactics to make her feel unwanted. But it doesn’t change the fact that I’m motivated by resentment. And it especially doesn’t change the fact that Sally did nothing wrong. I’m just a spiteful person.
See what I’m saying here? Just because Democrats don’t like that we have a Republican president who seems to piss them off all the time doesn’t mean he’s committing criminal acts. But if the hatred is strong enough, whether or not it’s founded in fact, it can certainly fuel the drive to get him out of their neighborhood: the White House. I wish them the best in their efforts, which will lead them no where but defeat. Perhaps some time off would help. Putting resentments to rest is step 1 on the road to mental clarity and sanity.