Friday, September 20, 2019

UPDATED: Brief Update On The "Whistleblower"

Multiple reports are now strongly suggesting that what the Deep State--and Congressional Dems--found so "troubling" was that Trump is said to have sought information from the new Ukrainian head of state regarding the Biden family's corrupt dealings in Ukraine. That is, understandably, "troubling" for Dems, but the fact is as Trump hater Phil Mudd puts it: the POTUS can say anything he wants to foreign leaders, and if he wants to ask them about the corrupt dealings of US politicians, well, the POTUS is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States and is the logical person to deal directly with foreign heads of state. Nor is Congress entitled to be part of those conversations. So play that on your whistle. And if you don't like that, go talk to Bill Barr about it.

UPDATE: Don Surber, We spy on our president? seems to be saying that this whole thing could have been primarily a hit job on Biden to ensure that Warren gets the nomination. Surber is very shrewd and I'd would never idly disagree with him on such matters--so I won't:

Well, well, well, the much trumpeted whistle-blower scandal promoted by the Washington Post and the New York Times turns out to be an attempt to bring Joe Biden's cocaine-addled son to justice. 
Last year, Biden bragged that as vice president, he put the arm on Ukraine not to prosecute Hunter Biden in a bribery scandal. 
The son received $600,000 a year from Burisma Holdings, Ukraine gas company, for a no show job. 
Ukrainian prosecutors were investigating the company's bribery.
Biden stepped in to stop it. 
He said last year, "I remember going over (to Ukraine), convincing our team … that we should be providing for loan guarantees. … And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from (then Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko) and from (then-Prime Minister Arseniy) Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor (Shokin). And they didn’t…
"They were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, … we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, ‘You have no authority. You’re not the president.’ … I said, call him. I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. … I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."
That is corruption. 
Biden should be prosecuted for using his public office for private gain. The fact that he was so casual about it -- bragging about it -- shows this was a common occurrence for him and Obama. The fact that the media did not blow this up into a Covington Catholic MAGA Cap scandal shows the media is in on the scam. 
The Daily Beast reported, "An explosive whistle blower complaint that is threatening to paralyze much of Washington, D.C., now may upend the 2020 presidential campaign." 
Sure, just like the Times allegation five days ago led to the impeachment of Justice Kavanaugh. 
Prediction: This will fade, and then Warren will use this against Biden. She is tenacious and she wants to win.
But the real scandal is that this "whistle blower" as the press hailed him was spying on our president.


  1. Mudd foresaw immediately that this whistle-blower has unintentionally destroyed Joe Biden's election campaign. Now the mass media -- even CNN -- will have to report about the Biden family's corruption in Ukraine.

    Mudd is angry about that -- not about President Trump's prerogatives.


    I wonder if Trump himself deliberately provoked this whistle-blowing in order to trick the mass media into reporting about the Bidens' corrupt activities in Ukraine.

    1. Or how about this? The "whistleblower"--concerned with others about Biden's likely implosion against Trump--intentionally destroyed Biden's campaign, with the approval of Dem party insiders. Of course they'll also try to make hay out of this against Trump, but the primary target would have been Biden.

    2. It is possible that Trump knows about the leaker and decided to kill 2 birds with one stone. Expose the leaker and get rid of Biden.

    3. I would discount that, only because the media leaks combined with 3 Congressional "investigations" point to some sort of Dem hit job. But, like the attempted hit on Kavanaugh it's looking pretty inept.

  2. Who would profit more, Trump or one of the dozen dwarves? Honor among thieves indeed.
    Tom S.

  3. I am guessing, the way the story is being narrated by the media-i.e. writing "involving Trump", that the allegation itself is about Giuliani's public and private conversations on the matter, and doesn not involve an actual phone conversation between Trump and a Ukranian president.

    If there really were such a phone conversation, the transcript itself would have been leaked. The way it is being done is to try to create an insinuation without going into specific details, but I think the media are just now realizing that this isn't going to work for anything other than ending Biden's campaign today.

    1. Yes, possible. I saw some blogging bringing out the Giuliani angle. But, as I said, the fact remains that Trump is president. Congressional investigations will go no where. But Biden will go away.

      Still you have to wonder, is there really a point in sabotaging Biden like this, as I suggested? My impression is that he wouldn't get far anyway, with all his absurd gaffes.

    2. It's possible this is a shot to end Biden by his opponents in the Democratic Party, with a side shot at Trump.

  4. This is not the reporting that any Dem was hoping for:

    The Dems keep firing torpedoes in the water that circle back on them.

    1. It seems to me that if some faction of Dems wanted Biden out of the way--Obama strongly urged him to stay out--this could lead to internecine warfare among Dem factions. "Moderates" would probably not take kindly to being handed an extreme Lefty on a take him/her or leave it basis. That looks like the practical effect. Who benefits from this focus on Biden? I'd hafta assume Warren.