• 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 whistleblower complaint has forced the Trump Administration to attack. What’s at stake? Everything our country was built upon. The efforts of our Founding Fathers. Our historic standing as a world superpower with a government that operates with integrity. A separation of church and state. The unwavering rule of law. It’s all being torn apart, violated, and disrespected in an effort to save Donald Trump from an unrecoverable blow to his ego.
What’s been compromised? Our intelligence and defense agencies, to start. This oligarchical, corrupt strategy for political gain needn’t be given any sort of benefit of the doubt. The truth here is crystal clear: Trump, did indeed, attempt to employ a foreign power as a co-conspirator to ensure a 2020 win.
An attempt to “lock down” information, because it reeked of moral depravity is enough to demand the exit of Trump and his closest allies: William Bar and Rudy Giuliani. Don’t we have enough here? In criminal cases that are handled by state judicial systems the actual crime in question isn’t the only aspect that informs the judge’s ruling. No, the defendant’s entire criminal history is called into question. Elements of behavior at work, at home, or other associations are accounted for to establish an appropriate punishment, based on a combination of these factors.
Haul Trump into court, and a quick dig into some aspects of his history reveals a defendant that doles out “hush money” to bury his affairs, a voice memo where he glorifies sexually assaulting women; firing a man who was investigating him, and even now, he tried to get the acting DNI to compromise on the cornerstone of his job. The truth, and nothing but the truth. What could possibly dig a deeper grave for Trump? If this isn’t where we put a stop to it, our republic will pay the price. We will have to collectively mourn the death of America as we once knew it.
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.
Okay. Time to restate the facts that are stated in LeftRight News’s summary: the complaint is based on testimonials of several unidentified U.S. officials who were “deeply disturbed” by Trump’s July 25 phone call.
Let’s unpack that sentence first. What informed this world-ending complaint? I’ll say it one more time: testimonials. Let’s dig a little deeper, to avoid any more confusion. What’s a testimonial? A testimonial is a statement that says how good/bad someone or something is.
Ever been torn up trying to buy a new towel set on Amazon? Where do you go for advice? The review section. That’s pretty much what a testimonial is. Have you ever bought a product with glowing reviews, only to find that it’s not all that great, or down right terrible?
Unless you’ve never been misguided by the subjective opinions and experiences of others, you’ll understand that a testimonial is hardly evidence of wrongdoing.
Well, you might argue, it depends who the testimonial is coming from. And that’s where we’ve got to pause when we consider who provided these testimonials: unidentified U.S. officials. Anonymous authorship does absolutely nothing to lend credibility or implausibility to an already subjective set of statements.
Moreover, the notion that the call transcript had been moved per instruction into a system reserved for sensitive information is hardly an established fact. What is a fact, is that the complaint “alleges”.
People are quick to jump to conclusions, but too impatient to read. Impeachment is thrown around without the appropriate noun that follows: inquiry. What’s an inquiry? An act of asking for information. All we have right now is unsubstantiated hearsay. People are always free to inquire—it’s like, say, an employment inquiry.
You’d like to work somewhere and pick up an application or send out an e-mail. It doesn’t mean you’re now employed at that place. Read, people. For the love of God, read.