Requirements of Whistleblower Knowledge Overhauled in Lead Up to Trump’s Call with Ukraine President

Y’all. . . The longer Trump is president, the harder it gets to not be a conspiracy theorist. The whole affair regarding the “treasonous” phone call between President Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky was a farce from the beginning, but recent revelations indicate it may be even more sinister than we’d dared to imagine– because as it turns out, the whistleblower complaint form was subject to a secret makeover by the intelligence community which eliminated the need for any direct knowledge of the event in question. From the Federalist:

The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until after the transcript of Trump’s July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates the first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only “heard about [wrongdoing] from others.”

So while the original form concluded that first hand knowledge was ABSOLUTELY necessary, and unsubstantiated or second-hand assertions would not be processed, the new form just asks you to check a little box to indicate that the complaint could conceivably (dare I say likely) be a juicy bit of gossip heard around the water cooler.

But, since no event occurs in a vacuum, we’re obligated to consider these events in the timeline of recent history– namely that the revision to the form was approved in August 2019, and the whistleblower’s official complaint is dated August 12, 2019. Isn’t that just a little too convenient, considering the nature of the complaint?

The Ukraine call complaint against Trump is riddled not with evidence directly witnessed by the complainant, but with repeated references to what anonymous officials allegedly told the complainant: “I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials,” “officials have informed me,” “officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me,” “the White House officials who told me this information,” “I was told by White House officials,” “the officials I spoke with,” “I was told that a State Department official,” “I learned from multiple U.S. officials,” “One White House official described this act,” “Based on multiple readouts of these meetings recounted to me,” “I also learned from multiple U.S. officials,” “The U.S. officials characterized this meeting,” “multiple U.S. officials told me,” “I learned from U.S. officials,” “I also learned from a U.S. official,” “several U.S. officials told me,” “I heard from multiple U.S. officials,” and “multiple U.S. officials told me.”

The Federalist also reports that the whistleblower’s sources included public news broadcasts and verifiably false information.

The anti-Trump complaint also made several false claims that have been directly refuted and debunked. While the complaint alleged that Trump demanded that Ukraine physically return multiple servers potentially related to ongoing investigations of foreign interference in the 2016 elections, the transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky shows that such a request was never made.

The complainant also falsely alleged that Trump told Zelensky that he should keep the current prosecutor general at the time, Yuriy Lutsenko, in his current position in the country. The transcript showed that exchange also did not happen.

Additionally, the complaint falsely alleged that T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, a U.S. State Department official, was a party to the phone call between Trump and Zelensky.

“I was told that a State Department official, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on the call,” the complaint alleged. Shortly after the complaint was released, CBS News reported that Brechbuhl was not on the phone call.

Look. None of us should be surprised that Trump’s opponents are this desperate to get rid of him. Their whole collusion brouhaha led to a whole fat wad of nothing. Blasey-Ford’s story, which could barely stay afloat to begin with, continues to have hole after hole poked into it. But this one strikes me as the most insidious because it necessitated the alteration of rules and procedures which exist to protect Americans just so the Left could try to score some cheap points from pundits and voters who can’t be bothered to find the truth for themselves. I’m not scared of Beto O’Rourke taking my guns, Bernie Sanders taking my money, or Kamala Harris taking my freedom and free labor. I know they will never become president, and even if they did we have checks and balances to keep us safe. But when the actual procedures of government are being secretly rewritten to the detriment of one party– one man— in particular? That’s bloody terrifying.

And by the way, while allowances are being made left and right (okay, mostly left) for this whistleblower, Edward Snowden is still in Russia under asylum.