by John Solomon and Jerry Dunleavy
The new memos declassified by Tulsi Gabbard were not available to the public during the 2019 impeachment trial.
The U.S. intelligence watchdog developed derogatory
evidence about the CIA analyst who prompted the 2019 Ukraine-focused
impeachment against Donald Trump, including that he submitted false
information in his whistleblower complaint, offered hearsay to support
his allegations and had the "potential for bias," according to newly
declassified memos that were kept from Americans during the failed bid
by Democrats to remove the president from office six years ago.
The documents declassified by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard at the request of Just the News provide
a starkly different portrait of the alleged whistleblower whose name
and face were never shown to the public and whose lawyerly written
letter accusing Trump of hijacking Ukraine policy for political gain was
heralded by Democrats to launch impeachment proceedings.
Investigators for the Intelligence Community Inspector
General documented several concerns about the Trump accuser's political
motives, noting he admitted he was a "registered Democrat" who had
worked closely with Joe Biden on Ukraine issues and who disliked some of
the conservative figures in the president's orbit, the memos show.
The investigators also elicited an apology from the Trump
accuser for misleading the probe and were acutely aware his allegations
were based solely on second- and third-hand accounts about what Trump
was alleged to have said and done.
“I do not have direct knowledge of private comments or
communications by the President,” the alleged whistleblower, who claimed
Trump improperly tried to pressure Ukraine President Volodymyr
Zelenskyy to investigate Hunter Biden, admitted in his initial August
2019 intake form.
That stunning line on the limitations of the
whistleblower's knowledge was not included in the nine-page letter
then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif.,
released in late summer 2019 that touched off a months-long political
maelstrom and led to Trump's impeachment by a Democrat-led House and his
eventual acquittal in the Senate.
You can read the documents here:
Defense lawyers for Trump as well as some members of Congress who served as impeachment managers told Just the News
they were deeply concerned the derogatory evidence about Trump's
accuser was kept classified by then-Inspector General Michael Atkinson
and Schiff, preventing it from being used to defend the president or
conduct impartial proceedings in the House and Senate.
"Our
adversarial system of justice requires the government to turn all
exculpatory evidence over to the accused. That’s especially true when
lawmakers seek to remove a duly elected president through impeachment
and a Senate trial," said famed Harvard law professor emeritus Alan
Dershowitz, one of Trump's defense lawyers in the case.
"The evidence about the bias and credibility of the
whistleblower who started the scandal should have been front and center
in the 2019 impeachment, but it was hidden by bureaucrats and that was a
disservice to justice and to the American people," Dershowitz said.
Mark Meadows, who as a North Carolina congressman served as
an impeachment manager defending Trump before becoming his White House
chief of staff, said GOP lawmakers during the impeachment had serious
concerns about the alleged whistleblower and were "questioning his
credibility and truthfulness.
"The exaggerated pushback and concern from Chairman Adam
Schiff made many Republicans members think that there was much more of a
coordinated propaganda effort than seeking the truth in any potential
wrongdoing," Meadows said. "Democrats leaked everything from the secure
deposition room except the fact that they were coordinating with a 'so
called' whistleblower who had no first-hand knowledge of the subject."
Whistleblower mentioned Bill Barr, Kash Patel and Devin Nunes, felt threatened by 'right-wing bloggers'
The memos also disclose numerous other details about the
whistleblower and the intelligence community's assessment of his claims
that weren't available to the public, including that the CIA analyst:
-
Appeared interested in thwarting then-Attorney General Bill
Barr from probing Hunter Biden, even though Barr wasn't a member of the
intelligence community covered by the complaint;
-
Disliked Republicans around Trump, including former House
Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes and current FBI Director
Kash Patel. The documents show the alleged whistleblower even went so
far as to make a “request for Nunes not to view the disclosure" as a
member of Congress even though he was a member of the "Gang of Eight"
leadership entitled to see such intelligence;
-
Impugned then-top Trump National Security Council staffer
Michael Ellis, now the deputy CIA director, as "slippery and
untrustworthy" during a voluntary interview;
-
Claimed he was a victim of an intimidation campaign carried out by "right-wing bloggers"; and
-
Worked on his whistleblower complaint with a witness whose
name was redacted and who told investigators he was connected to Peter
Strzok, the former FBI agent who was fired in 2019 for his role in
leading the now-discredited Russia collusion probe.
Such spontaneous statements during the early intelligence
community's review of the whistleblower complaint led the inspector
general's agents to raise red flags about the complaining CIA officer's
possible political bias.
While Atkinson kept the memos secret, he did grant a
closed-door classified interview to lawmakers during the leadup to the
House impeachment proceedings. The House Intelligence Committee is
expected to release the transcript of that interview as early as this
week.
Nunes, who was still in Congress during the impeachment and now
serves as the chairman of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board,
told Just the News the impeachment process was a "shocking and
shameful chapter in our history" and the new memos "further demonstrate
the highly orchestrated way the fake whistleblower manufactured and
deployed his complaint.
"It was clearly a staged attack by anti-Trump malcontents in the
intelligence bureaucracy who believed that they, not the American
people, should determine who is the U.S. president," Nunes said. "The
Democrats and the media promoted this hoax as a desperate Plan B after
their original pretext for impeaching Trump - Russian collusion -
finally collapsed following Special Counsel Mueller's inept testimony to
Congress."
Faulty intelligence and poorly executed spy tradecraft
Even supporters of the alleged whisteblower had concerns,
the memos show. The official identified only as “Witness 2” disclosed
that even though he came to vouch for and support the whistleblower, he
had his own concerns about the allegations and would not have made such
allegations based on what he knew.
"Witness 2 made it clear that [Redacted] would not have
taken independent action on the information [Redacted] read in the
transcript for two reasons: first that [Redacted] routinely deals with
issues on a daily basis that are contrary to [Redacted] personal
beliefs; and second that [Redacted] did not have the level of granular
insight of details related to the Ukraine that Complainant had,” the
memo said. “Witness 2 could not connect the same dots that Complainant
did into the impact of what was said during the telephone call.”
That same witness acknowledged that before he supported the
whistleblower, he had worked on a controversial December 2016
intelligence community assessment that claimed Vladimir Putin tried to
help Trump beat Hillary Clinton in that year’s presidential race, a
conclusion that the CIA now admits was based on faulty intelligence and
poorly executed spy tradecraft.
The alleged whistleblower's name was redacted from the
newly declassified memos but has been identified in some media reports
as retired CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella, who now works at a D.C. think
tank and is a regular on a podcast critical of Trump policies.
Officials declined to publicly confirm whether Ciaramella was, in fact, the whistleblower when questioned by Just the News.
Ciaramella has appeared on numerous podcast episodes put out by the anti-Trump Lawfare outlet. Benjamin Wittes, the editor-in-chief of Lawfare, appeared on multiple episodes with Ciaramella. Wittes was described by Politico
in 2017 as “The Bard of the Deep State” and is a longtime Trump critic
and a self-described friend of fired FBI Director James Comey and
Strzok.
Ciaramella did not respond to a request for comment sent to
him through the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where he
is listed as the Ukraine Initiative Director for the Russia and Eurasia Program.
The box not checked: Whistleblower form concealed discussion with Schiff staff
The memos' most explosive revelation shows the alleged
whistleblower was caught early on by the Intelligence Community
Inspector General — the independent watchdog for U.S. spy agencies —
falsely claiming he did not have contact with Congressional Democrats
about his Trump-Ukraine allegations.
When evidence emerged in media reports that he had indeed
had prior contact with Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee,
the alleged whistleblower admitted he had omitted that information in
his initial contacts with the IG and offered an apology, something never
disclosed to the public.
The “Disclosure of Urgent Concern Form” submitted by the
whistleblower on August 13, 2019, included answering a section titled,
“I have previously disclosed (or am disclosing) the violations alleged
here to (complete all that apply).”
He checked a box next to “other office of department/agency
involved” and said he had already spoken with the CIA Office of General
Counsel, the CIA's Election Security Mission Manager, the National
Intelligence Officer for Russia, and the Chair and Vice Chair of the
National Intelligence Council.
But he did not check “Congress or congressional
committee(s)” despite having spoken with the staff of then-Congressman
and now-Sen. Schiff before submitting his disclosure.
Schiff told
MSNBC in September 2019 that “we have not spoken directly with the
whistleblower” — even though members of his staff already had.
“We would like to, but I’m sure the whistleblower has
concerns, that he has not been advised, as the law requires, by the
inspector general or the director of national intelligence just as to
how he is to communicate with Congress, and so the risk to the
whistleblower is retaliation,” Schiff added.
A Schiff spokesperson soon told
Fox News in October 2019 that Schiff himself "does not know the
identity of the whistleblower, and has not met with or spoken with the
whistleblower or their counsel" for any reason. An aide to Schiff claimed
to the outlet that when Schiff had contended that "we" had not spoken
to the whistleblower, he was allegedly referring to members of the full
House intelligence committee, rather than referencing staff.
The Democrat-led House Intelligence Committee spokesman at the time, Patrick Boland, argued
to CNN that it was a “regular occurrence” for a whistleblower to reach
out to the committee for help and said that the Schiff staff
“appropriately advised” the whistleblower.
Admitted that he had spoken with Schiff staff beforehand
“Like other whistleblowers have done before and since under
Republican and Democratic-controlled committees, the whistleblower
contacted the committee for guidance on how to report possible
wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community,”
Boland told The New York Times that month. “At no point did the committee review or receive the complaint in advance.”
The newly declassified memos show the alleged whistleblower
spoke with then-Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael
Atkinson on October 8, 2019, where he admitted that he had spoken with
Schiff staff beforehand yet had not checked the proper box, with the
whistleblower both defending his actions and apologizing.
“ln regard to the news reports and questions regarding how
the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
Hotline forms were completed, and specifically that Complainant did not
check that he/she had reported the matter to Intelligence Committees as
had been reported in the news, was because no substance was given to the
Intelligence Committees,” one memo of recounted.
“Complainant did not feel it was necessary to check that
particular box because he/she had not provided any substantive
information. His/her questions were only procedural in nature, asking
how to submit the concern,” the memo continued. “The person Complainant
asked told him/her to, 'Do it right, hire a lawyer, and contact the
ICIG.' So, that is what the Complainant did. At the time, Complainant
did not even know what the ICIG was.”
The memo added: “Based on getting guidance on a procedural
question, and that no substance of the actual disclosure was discussed,
Complainant did not feel, based on the way the form question was worded,
that it was necessary to check that box. Complainant advised he/she was
sorry for any problems caused for Mr. Atkinson due to the way he/she
answered that question, as it was certainly not his/her intent.”
After the House impeached Trump in December 2019 and before
the Senate trial began in early 2020, some members of Congress began to
question whether the alleged whistleblower was politically biased and
Real Clear Investigations raised the possibility there was classified
evidence he had misled Atkinson.
But Trump's lawyers were never allowed to introduce the
ICiG evidence at trial because it was kept classified, keeping
potentially exculpatory evidence of bias and credibility from the public
and the Senate jurors.
Bias Concerns: Accuser admits he 'worked closely with Vice President Biden'
The Intelligence Community Inspector General’s “Memorandum
of Investigative Activity” related to the watchdog’s August 20, 2019,
interview of the alleged whistleblower included a section on the
"potential for bias" — although he insisted his complaint was free from
political influence.
“ICIG interviewing officials asked Complainant what
information there might be as evidence of Complainant's potential bias
against President Trump,” the memo said. “Complainant listed three
potential ways people might allege bias though [Redacted] is certain
disclosure is free from political influence.”
The memo continued: “First, Complainant worked closely with
Vice President Biden as an expert on Ukraine. [Redacted] traveled with
Biden to Ukraine and was part of conversations where [Ukrainian
Prosecutor General Yuriy] Lutsenko corruption was discussed.”
The alleged whistleblower was also a listed guest
of then-Vice President Biden at a luncheon in October 2016 to honor the
prime minister of Italy. Biden co-hosted the banquet with former
Secretary of State John Kerry for then-Italian Prime Minister Matteo
Renzi. The alleged whistle-blower was among the U.S. officials who
accepted an invitation.
The alleged whistleblower also told the intelligence
community watchdog in August 2019 that “second, Complainant worked for
the President Trump White House for [Redacted] as an [Redacted] was then
asked by [Redacted] to be [Redacted]. Complainant said this was a very
stressful job and [Redacted] became the target of right-wing bloggers,
such as [Redacted], and conspiracy theorists.”
The August 2019 memo’s section on the alleged
whistleblower's potential bias also added that “finally, Complainant is a
registered Democrat.”
Atkinson, the intelligence community watchdog, wrote
in August 26, 2019 that “although the ICIG’s preliminary review
identified some indicia of an arguable political bias on the part of the
Complainant in favor of a rival political candidate, such evidence did
not change my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent
concern ‘appears credible,’ particularly given the other information the
ICIG obtained during its preliminary review.”
The newly-declassified memos indicate the reference to
"arguable political bias" prompted thhe alleged whistleblower to reach
back out to the intelligence community watchdog’s investigators.
“On September 26, 2019, at approximately 8:45 a.m.,
Complainant contacted writer via secure line,” the memo says.
“Complainant had concerns over wording in letter from ICIG to DNI
Maguire, specific to ‘indicia of arguable political bias.’ Complainant
expressed concern that he/she had someone indicated to writer during
interview of support for a particular political candidate, which would
not have been correct or intentional.”
“Witness 2”: Worked with Strzok and co-author of controversial 2016 intel community report
The intelligence official dubbed “Witness 2” — an ally of
the alleged whistleblower during the Ukraine saga — spoke with the ICIG
on August 21, 2019. At the time, “Witness 2” was a member of the NSC
whose home agency was the National Security Agency, and he was working
for the Directorate of Intelligence and for the European and Russian
Affairs Directorate.
“Witness 2 reviewed the transcript [of the call between
Trump and Zelenskyy] in order to have situational awareness of the
circumstances surrounding the call, and the discussions of the call, as
he was covering for the Director of Ukraine, hereafter referred to as
(‘Alex’), while Alex was out of the office,” the memo said.
The memo said that “Witness 2 worked with Peter Strozk
[sic], and Witness 2 knew how it would play out if [Redacted] said
anything,” as the intelligence community watchdog quoted him saying that
“if I unilaterally try to make an issue out of it, the only person
impacted is me and not for the better.”
Strzok was a key player
throughout the FBI’s deeply flawed Crossfire Hurricane investigation —
including writing the opening communication that launched the inquiry.
His text messages with then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page in 2016 repeatedly displayed anti-Trump sentiment.
“Witness 2 is assisting Complainant in regard to the urgent
concern because Witness 2 wants to be able to sleep at night, and
[Redacted] wants to help Complainant sleep at night, by registering how
concerning this whole thing was,” the memo said. “Witness 2” stated that
he “feels a moral and patriotic duty to help Complainant due [sic] what
is right” and said that he wanted to “sleep the sleep of the just.'’
Despite this, “Witness 2” said he would not have done what the alleged whistleblower had done.
In a section on “Potential for Biases or to Be Discredited”
it was also revealed that “Witness 2” had helped with the 2016 ICA on
alleged Russian election meddling.
“If someone were to try to discredit information provided
by Witness 2, they might focus on Witness 2 being the co-author of the
2017 ICA (Intelligence Community Assessment) on Russian Interference in
the 2016 election,” the memo said, adding that “the ICA could have been,
or could be looked at, as negative towards President Trump.”
Brennan, Comey, and McCabe's anti-Trump agenda
The 2016 ICA was written at the direction
of then-President Obama and largely overseen by Comey, former CIA
Director John Brennan, and former Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper.
Comey and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe
had pushed in December 2016 to include Christopher Steele's debunked
dossier in the 2016 ICA on alleged Russian meddling. The dossier was
included in an annex to the assessment and was cited in the most
highly-classified version of the ICA.
The House Intelligence Community report, declassified last
year and the CIA review released last year, sharply criticized Brennan
for allegedly joining with these anti-Trump forces in the FBI in pushing
to include Steele’s baseless anti-Trump dossier in the ICA.
A declassified
bombshell House Intelligence Committee report revealed that, despite
repeated denials, the 2016 ICA on Russian election meddling pointed to
the Steele Dossier when attempting to underpin the conclusion that
Russian leader Vladimir Putin aspired to help Donald Trump win — with
the ICA also allegedly ignoring evidence that the Russian leader may
have favored (or at least fully expected) a Hillary Clinton victory
instead.
John Solomon and Jerry Dunleavy
Source: https://justthenews.com/accountability/whistleblowers/ukraine-bombshell-long-secret-memos-expose-whistleblower-bias-hearsay
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
