The House Intelligence Committee has released the 9 page, redacted, and unsigned complaint to the Inspector General alleging President Trump engaged in a politically motivated quid pro quo. Having read both the full transcript of the call to the Ukrainian President and the complaint, a few things stand out.
First, as l previously reported, the transcript shows no sign of a quid pro quo. It also shows the “favor” requested by President Trump referred not to Joe or Hunter Biden, but to the missing Clinton servers.
It’s important to note for proper context that the contents of the conversation, including offers and requests pertaining to investigations is in keeping with a formal treaty between the Ukraine and the US, that was sent to Congress for ratification by, ironically, President Bill Clinton. The Treaty with Ukrain on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters was signed in Kiev in July of 1998 by Clinton and approved by Congress later that year in September.
Also of interest, is the complaint itself. The introductory page states that the complaintent was not present in the White House Situation Room when the call was placed. The “whistleblower” (WB), it seems, is willing to testify under oath before Congress about events recounted second or third hand.
In true CNN style, the WB refers to unnamed, anonymous “officials”. This should present a problem for anybody that values rule of law. Our sixth amendment guarantees the right to face our accuser(s). In this case, the accuser is acting by proxy on behalf of anonymous individuals. The Federal Rules of Evidence defines a statement as an oral or written assertion or nonverbal conduct of a person, if the conduct is intended by the person as an assertion. Even written documents made under oath, such as affidavits or notarized statements, are subject to the ‘hearsay rule’.
In the midst of the tempest caused by this complaint, House Democrats railed and fumed about the importance of seeing the complaint, so they can better understand the scope of the situation. Hear we see House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying she wants more than just the call transcript…..the complaint is crucial to knowing the particulars of the situation
Herein lay another problem for the Democrats. Well, two problems actually. First, House Democrats unanimously supported a call for an impeachment inquiry without the one piece of evidence they said was crucial to understanding the situation. This in itself shows that this impeachment is politically motivated rather than legally motivated. It’s another hit job. If, as they constantly espouse, nobody is above the law, and that we have rules to protect our democracy, then they would be motivated to at least attempt to show restraint in their zeal and wait for actual evidence.
The second problem this outrage for the complaint presents is one of honesty. You see, they already had the complaint. If you read the first page, you see that not only was it addressed to the Inspector General, it was also addressed to House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff.
All the bluster about the need to see the complaint, the importance of transparency, and the allusions to possible cover-up…was nothing more than showmanship.
I’m certainly not one to adhere to the conspiracy theories, nor am I a Q-tip. However, having watched this unfold, one thing is evident. We are watching an attempted over-throw of the President in real time. This cannot be seen as anything but an attempted coup.
Luckily for us, the planning and execution was something akin to an orangutan planning a lunar mission, and in the end, it could very well guarantee a win for Trump in 2020.