We now have the complaint filed by the "whistle blower" regarding President Trump and Ukraine. After reading the complaint, two things are clear:
1. The whistle blower didn't get his fact correct. He goes on at length about how President Trump "pressured" the president of Ukraine to leave the State Prosecutor in office. This prosecutor is the equivalent of the Attorney General in the USA. He had made some statements last spring about involvement by Ukrainians in working with the DNC in trying to win the 2016 election for Hillary Clinton. Supposedly, President Trump wanted him kept in his office despite the change in government in Ukraine after recent elections. Almost half of the whistle blower complaint deals with this prosecutor. But there's a major problem: the transcript of the phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian president doesn't mention this guy. There's nothing there. The whistle blower admits in his submission that he doesn't have first hand knowledge. The fact is that his complain is just wrong. The whole business about the State Prosecutor just didn't happen.
The whistle blower also says that Trump "pressured" the Ukrainian leader. That too has a major problem: it didn't happen. The transcript is of a rather amiable call. No pressure. No threats. No quid pro quo. There is a request by Trump for the Ukrainian to complete an investigation into the allegations of Ukrainian involvement in 2016 with the Democrats. That's an ongoing investigation in the USA as well, and there's nothing wrong with the head of the US government asking for assistance from a foreign country in such an investigation.
It's also important to note that yesterday, the Ukrainian president himself said that he was NOT pressured. It was just a normal friendly call.
Put all this together and it's rather clear that the whistle blower blew it.
2. We know that the criminal division of the DOJ reviewed this complaint within days of its being filed. Those career justice department personnel concluded that nothing criminal had happened even if the whistle blower was completely accurate in what he said (which he obviously wasn't). This fact was strangely omitted from all of the reporting in the mainstream media about this complaint. All we were told is that the acting DNI had not sent it to Congress. The media never reported that the acting DNI decided that the items alleged were properly to go to the Department of Justice and that he sent it on. Once again, the media was creating facts that didn't actually exist. After reading the complaint, it's pretty clear why the DNI concluded this.
1. The whistle blower didn't get his fact correct. He goes on at length about how President Trump "pressured" the president of Ukraine to leave the State Prosecutor in office. This prosecutor is the equivalent of the Attorney General in the USA. He had made some statements last spring about involvement by Ukrainians in working with the DNC in trying to win the 2016 election for Hillary Clinton. Supposedly, President Trump wanted him kept in his office despite the change in government in Ukraine after recent elections. Almost half of the whistle blower complaint deals with this prosecutor. But there's a major problem: the transcript of the phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian president doesn't mention this guy. There's nothing there. The whistle blower admits in his submission that he doesn't have first hand knowledge. The fact is that his complain is just wrong. The whole business about the State Prosecutor just didn't happen.
The whistle blower also says that Trump "pressured" the Ukrainian leader. That too has a major problem: it didn't happen. The transcript is of a rather amiable call. No pressure. No threats. No quid pro quo. There is a request by Trump for the Ukrainian to complete an investigation into the allegations of Ukrainian involvement in 2016 with the Democrats. That's an ongoing investigation in the USA as well, and there's nothing wrong with the head of the US government asking for assistance from a foreign country in such an investigation.
It's also important to note that yesterday, the Ukrainian president himself said that he was NOT pressured. It was just a normal friendly call.
Put all this together and it's rather clear that the whistle blower blew it.
2. We know that the criminal division of the DOJ reviewed this complaint within days of its being filed. Those career justice department personnel concluded that nothing criminal had happened even if the whistle blower was completely accurate in what he said (which he obviously wasn't). This fact was strangely omitted from all of the reporting in the mainstream media about this complaint. All we were told is that the acting DNI had not sent it to Congress. The media never reported that the acting DNI decided that the items alleged were properly to go to the Department of Justice and that he sent it on. Once again, the media was creating facts that didn't actually exist. After reading the complaint, it's pretty clear why the DNI concluded this.
No comments:
Post a Comment