The anti-Trump “whistleblower” is a registered Democrat who reportedly has a significant tie to one of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates. Also, according to Fox News, he wrote a “dramatic” but inaccurate two-page memo on July 26, the day after the Trump-Zelensky phone call.
Immediately following his chat with an unidentified White House official about President Trump’s telephone with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky,” the so-called IC whistleblower wrote what Fox News described as a “dramatic personal memo,” alleging that the White House official characterized the call as “crazy” and “frightening.”
The whistleblower alleged that Trump improperly pressured Zelensky to investigate potential 2020 election rival Joe Biden, whose son Hunter once sat on the board of a notoriously corrupt Ukrainian energy firm. The allegation helped spark House Democrats to launch a formal impeachment inquiry into the president, who is steadfastly denying any wrongdoing.
“The following is a record of a conversation I had this afternoon with a White House official about the telephone call yesterday morning between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky,” the complainant wrote in his memo.
The whistleblower memo appeared to rebut criticism that the White House-released transcript was notes or a summary, writing that the “standard practice” was for the “White House situation room to produce a word-for-word transcript that memorializes the call.” The whistleblower also stated the transcript was produced and being “treated very sensitively.”
Presidential phone call transcripts come from the notes and recollections of Situation Room officers and National Security Council staff who are assigned to document presidential conversations, CBS News reported. For decades, presidents recorded their phone calls but that practice ended with President Nixon for obvious reasons. In recent years, administrations have relied on transcripts based on notes, and contrary to the whistleblower’s claim that those transcripts are “word for word”, they can actually have “varying levels of detail and accuracy,” according to CBS News’ report on presidential phone calls.
The probable reason for the “sensitive” treatment of the call is that deep state saboteurs have leaked the president’s phone calls at least twice in the past.
The whistleblower also noted in the memo: “The President did not raise security assistance” during the call, although allegations of a quid pro quo were central to the complaint. The complaint filed by the whistleblower in mid-August purportedly “connected the dots” through media reports and other unnamed officials.
“The President told Zelensky that he would be sending his personal lawyer, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, to Ukraine soon and requested that Zelensky meet with him. Zelensky reluctantly agreed that, if Giuliani travelled to Ukraine, he would see him,” the whistleblower wrote.
However, in the White House transcript, Zelensky did not seem reluctant at all. “We are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine,” he is quoted as saying.
The Ukraine president has since told reporters that he did not feel any pressure from Trump to investigate former Vice President Biden.
“I want to tell you that I never feel any pressure and there are very many people in the west and in Ukraine who would like to influence me,” Zelensky told reporters last week. “But I am a president of independent Ukraine and I think that, and I hope my steps demonstrate this, that it is impossible to influence me.”
According to the whistleblowers notes, the White House official allegedly described the call as “crazy,” “frightening,” and “completely lacking in substance related to national security.” [The White House transcript of the perfectly cordial phone call can be read here.]
Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG), reportedly admitted to lawmakers on Friday that the anti-Trump complainant had improperly concealed his previous secret interactions with House Democratic staff prior to submitting the complaint.
According to the Federalist’s Sean Davis, “Atkinson never even bothered investigating potential coordination between the complainant, whom DOJ said showed evidence of partisan political bias, and House Democrats prior to the filing of the anti-Trump complaint.”
According to the Washington Examiner’s Byron York, Atkinson also told lawmakers last Friday that the whistleblower once had a significant tie to one of the Democratic presidential candidates hoping to challenge President Trump in the 2020 election.
Atkinson had previously indicated that the complainant showed “some indicia of an arguable political bias … in favor of a rival political candidate.”
Three individuals who were present during last Friday’s impeachment inquiry interview with Atkinson told the Examiner that the “whistleblower” had quite the “indicia of political bias.”
“The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship with one of the Democratic candidates,” one person with knowledge of what was said told York.
“The IG said the whistleblower had a professional relationship with one of the 2020 candidates,” said another person with knowledge of what was said.
“What [Atkinson] said was that the whistleblower self-disclosed that he was a registered Democrat and that he had a prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic presidential candidate,” said a third person with knowledge of what was said.
All three sources said Atkinson did not identify the Democratic candidate with whom the whistleblower had a connection. It is unclear what the working or professional relationship between the two was.
For fans of the English language, the clue that there was more evidence of the anti-Trump complainant's partisan political bias than just voter registration is that the word "indicia" is plural. https://t.co/ylZsDKN18H
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) October 8, 2019
Whistleblower had 'professional' tie to 2020 Democratic candidate https://t.co/h1w0da4a1C
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) October 8, 2019
The IC complainant has taken some hits to his credibility in recent days, as more information about him comes out.
Now, a second IC “whistleblower” came forward on Monday, claiming to have first-hand knowledge of certain allegations contained in the first whistleblower’s complaint, which was based primarily on second-hand sources.