Hearsay and lies

Now that the full complaint by the so-called "whistleblower" against President Trump has been released, we can zero in on what is, to me, the most critical part of it.

"I was not a direct witness to most of the events described.  However, I found my colleagues' accounts of these events to be credible ... I do not know which side initiated the call."

Are you s******g me?  Do you really expect me to support official, judicial or legislative action on the basis of hearsay?  Any court in the country would toss out such a case even before it began, on the grounds that hearsay testimony is not admissible as evidence.  Instead of saying "I saw or heard this happen", all the "witness" can attest to is that "I heard someone say that this happened".

Now, if we were talking about a romantic relationship . . .

However, we're not talking about a romantic relationship.  On the basis of the facts of the matter, the Justice Department appears to have been quite correct in its analysis.

The Justice Department’s Criminal Division has already investigated President Trump’s conversation with the Ukrainian president about Joseph R. Biden and concluded Mr. Trump did not violate campaign finance laws, officials announced Wednesday.

And a separate division of the department has also ruled that the administration did not break the law by failing to quickly share a whistleblower’s complaint with Congress, saying the matter didn’t meet the definition of “urgent” that would trigger the law.

. . .

“The question is whether such a complaint falls within the statutory definition of ‘urgent concern’ that the law requires the DNI to forward to the intelligence committees. We conclude that it does not,” wrote Steven A. Engel, assistant attorney general at the OLC.

They also ruled that the president’s conversation was a diplomatic communication and not an intelligence activity, and the president isn’t a part of the intelligence community anyway, so his behavior is not part of the DNI’s purview.

“Such matters simply do not relate to ‘the funding, administration or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority’ of the DNI,” Mr. Engel concluded.

There's more at the link.  It seems to confirm what I said yesterday.

Add to that the many deliberate, blatant lies being published in the mainstream media.  Example:  this Washington Post headline, republished at MSN:

Acting director of national intelligence threatened to resign if he couldn’t speak freely before Congress on whistleblower complaint

Really?  Well, guess what?

... a statement from Maguire in response to the WaPo report said:

“At no time have I considered resigning my position since assuming this role on Aug. 16, 2019. I have never quit anything in my life, and I am not going to start now.”

Apparently the Washington Post didn't even try to contact Maguire to confirm its "report".  It just published it, clearly in the hope that it would add to the confusion, controversy and conjecture surrounding the incident - and truth be damned.

This whole brouhaha appears to be founded on hearsay and lies, all blown up into a whirlwind of speculation in a desperate attempt to bring down a legitimately elected President.  I think Kimberley Strassel of the Wall Street Journal had it right when she said yesterday:

This is another internal attempt to take out a president, on the basis of another non-smoking-gun.

It's sickening, disgusting, and a terrible reflection on those trying to use it as a weapon against a sitting President.  If impeachment is in the wind, I think they should be its target, rather than President Trump.




Peter