Have you read the July 25 phone call transcript between Trump and the Ukrainian president? How about the accusation document written by the whistleblower informant?
Some observations and questions:
1. This informant states he/she was investigating Trump for four months. The phone call is the only item found to cause concern in those four months. And it happened only two months ago. So why was he/she investigating Trump for four months? By what authority? And why was this the only item uncovered in four months? Who sent the whistleblower to investigate Trump for four months? Why was the whistleblower looking for dirt on Trump?
Advertisement - story continues below
2. This informant uses very precise legal language in a very precise legal document. He/she asks for very precise legal action. Is this person a lawyer? If not, then what lawyer helped draft it? (Reportedly, the whistleblower's attorney is a former CIA officer who lost his security clearance.)
3. This informant was not a witness to the phone call. He/she claims to have interviewed a half dozen people who "may or may not" have firsthand knowledge vs. secondhand hearsay. What if they all got their information from one source as secondhand information, as with the Steele dossier? As with Steele, what if the informant is the original source of the information? What if there is no original firsthand source who actually witnessed the phone call that provided information to this whistleblower? If one of the people who was on the call provided information, was that the illegal leaking of classified information?
TRENDING: Schools purging all books from before 2008 to guarantee 'inclusivity'
4. The information in the whistleblower document does not agree with the transcript. There are many differences. Government "listeners" who were witness to the actual call verified that the transcript is accurate and complete. The transcript shows that the discussion about help for Ukraine happened several minutes before Trump asked about information concerning Biden and the Clinton server. Those two separate parts of the conversation did not happen back-to-back as portrayed by this whistleblower and Rep. Adam Schiff. The 2020 election was never discussed. Biden was only mentioned three times, not eight. If this was an attempt by Trump to get dirt on a 2020 opponent, then why ask about the Clinton server?
5. As stated by acting DNI Joseph Maguire under oath on Sept. 26, there was no justification for the classification of "urgent" this whistleblower specifically requested. This was sent by the whistleblower to members of Congress. Why? Why not just the inspector general? Schiff used that request of "urgent" to justify his actions while ignoring the fact that a classification of "urgent" was rejected by the DNI. Was there collusion between Democrats and the informant? Through a third party perhaps?
Advertisement - story continues below
Do you think that I am the only person who will notice these issues? How about all the Republicans in the Senate and Trump's lawyers? This smells like a setup. Four months of spying? A legal document? Urgent? Sent to Congress? No firsthand witness? All signs of a setup.
Read the two documents for yourself. Don't let the liberal media cartel summarize them for you. Don't be stupid. Don't be misled. Trump asked for information in his capacity as president of the United States about possible crimes committed by Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, not in his role as a 2020 candidate.
Just as with the accusations by Democrats about collusion between Trump and Russians, this accusation will also be found to be baseless. Then people will vote in droves for Trump as he carries lots of state candidates on his coattails – voters realizing that Democrats have nothing else to offer against the wonderful results achieved by President Trump.
