Whistle Blower Is A Democrat Lackey!

Unlike your responses in THIS THREAD, for the purposes of this post and our current exchange I WILL assume that the claims of the Townhall.com article to which you provide a link are true: I WILL assume the whistleblower is "a holdover from the Obama administration" and a "registered Democrat," that he has been "accused of leaking like crazy," that he "worked with Joe Biden," "invited a DNC operative inside the White House to attend meetings" and "helped instigate the investigation into Russia collusion." And I WILL assume that "a handful of former colleagues have compiled a roughly 40-page research dossier on him." Assuming ALL of that is true, so what?

• Holdovers from previous administrations can tell the truth
• Registered Democrats can tell the truth
• People accused of "leaking like crazy" can tell the truth
• People who worked with Joe Biden can tell the truth
• People who invite DNC operatives to the White House can tell the truth
• People who helped launch the investigation into the Trump campaign's connections to Russia can tell the truth

Bottom line: What matters when it comes to the whistleblower is not where or with whom he (for the purposes of this post, I assume the Townhall.com article's identification of the whistleblower as a male is correct) has associated, but rather whether he told the truth. To that end - and it's sublimely ridiculous that I have to do this - here are some of the key claims of the whistleblower's complaint, attached to each of which I have offered an assessment of the truth of the assertions of fact contained in them:

In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. 1This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals. The President’s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well.

ALL TRUE. GIULIANI AND BARR WERE INVOLVED.

Early in the morning of 25 July, the President spoke by telephone with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. I do not know which side initiated the call. This was the first publicly acknowledged call between the two leaders since a brief congratulatory call after Mr. Zelenskyy won the presidency on 21 April.

TRUE. THOSE WERE THE TWO CALLS.

Multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an initial exchange of pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests. Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President’s 2020 reelection bid. According to the White House officials who had direct knowledge of the call, the President pressured Mr. Zelenskyy to, inter alia:

• initiate or continue an investigation into the activities of former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son, Hunter Biden; TRUE
• assist in purportedly uncovering that allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election originated in Ukraine, with a specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cyber security firm Crowdstrike, which initially reported that Russian hackers had penetrated the DNC’s networks in 2016; TRUE and
• meet or speak with two people the President named explicitly as his personal envoys on these matters, Mr. Giuliani and Attorney General Barr, to whom the President referred multiple times in tandem. TRUE

The President also praised Ukraine’s Prosecutor General, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko, and suggested that Mr. Zelenskyy might want to keep him in his position. TRUE

Aside from the above-mentioned “cases” purportedly dealing with the Biden family and the 2016 U.S. election, I was told by White House officials that no other “cases” were discussed. TRUE. NO OTHER "CORRUPTION" CASE WAS DISCUSSED ON THE CALL.

Based on my understanding, there were approximately a dozen White House officials who listened to the call — a mixture of policy officials and duty officers in the White House Situation Room, as is customary. The officials I spoke with told me that participation in the call had not been restricted in advance because everyone expected it would be a “routine” call with a foreign leader. I do not know whether anyone was physically present with the President during the call. TRUE

In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple U.S. officials that senior White House officials had intervened to “lock down” all records of the phone call, especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced—as is customary—by the White House Situation Room. This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call. TRUE. THEY LOCKED DOWN THE TRANSCRIPT IN A CODE WORD SECRET SERVER.

White House officials told me that they were “directed” by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored for coordination, finalization, and distribution to Cabinet-level officials. TRUE

On 26 July, a day after the call, U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker visited Kyiv and met with President Zelenskyy and a variety of Ukrainian political figures. Ambassador Volker was accompanied in his meetings by U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland. Based on multiple readouts of these meetings recounted to me by various U.S. officials, Ambassadors Volker and Sondland reportedly provided advice to the Ukrainian leadership about how to “navigate” the demands that the President had made of Mr. Zelenskyy. ALL TRUE

In our exchange on this matter, you have identified one, single example of what you believe is a whistleblower's "lies" in his statement: his use of the word "pressured." Other than that one word - which expressed his characterization of the call, not an assertion of fact about it - you have offered no evidence to substantiate your claims. From this post's visit to the content of the whistleblower's actual complaint, it's clear that the people who spoke with him told him the truth and that in his complaint, he accurately communicated that truth. Until you can show that he made materially false assertions of fact - which in this case have to be lies he wrote about what others told him, since he was not an eyewitness to most of the events he described in his complaint, and his complaint is an account of what others told him - it doesn't matter where or with whom the whistleblower has associated. His complaint accurately reports the factually accurate assertions made to him by others.

So what? The almost pinpoint accuracy of his recounting of the infamous call makes it clear that he heard from and accurately reported what was said by people who had first hand knowledge of the call and other matters.

Again, you have identified one, single, isolated word in his complaint - the word "pressured." That was his characterization - his opinion - of what was told to him (though some of the people he spoke with might also have used such a word). You have not shown that he "misrepresented" his personal opinion/characterization of the call. In addition - and as is usual for your posts - you refuse to acknowledge the many other pieces from his complaint that I included in my post, pieces ALL OF WHICH were factually accurate. [I can't help but note the irony of your objection to a single word in the whistleblower's account, but your seeming comfort with the scores, hundreds, or, more accurately, thousands of false and misleading statements President Trump has made while in office. The whistleblower characterizes the conversation in a way with which you disagree, so you discount everything he says. On multiple occasions Trump says - falsely - that the "transcript" of the call is "word for word" precise, and you don't object at all. Ah, the joy of hypocrisy.]

You're entitled to your view, as are we all.

Mr. Morrison indeed testified that he didn't believe anything he heard on the call was illegal or improper. I take him at his word - he didn't think he heard anything illegal or improper. Others who heard the call disagreed with Mr. Morrison's conclusion and testified so under oath. I also take THEM at their word. Do you?

Mr Morrison ALSO testified that Gordon Sondland, the Ambassador to the E.E., told him aid to Ukraine would not be released unless Ukraine agreed to the two investigations President Trump sought - i.e. a quid pro quo. Do you take Mr Morrison at his word there?

Mr Morrison ALSO testified about the “sinking feeling” he experienced when he learned from Ambassador Sondland that President Trumpo had "insist(ed)" Ukrainian president Zelensky publicly announce investigations into both the Bidens and the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory. Certainly in line with withholding the aid until the Ukrainians agreed to the investigations. Do you take Morrison at his word there, too?

Mr Morrison ALSO testified that after the call about which he said he found nothing illegal or improper, he was concerned enough about its contents that he contacted the top lawyer at the National Security Council and asked him to review the call's summary in case it should leak to the public - a step Morrison didn't ordinarily take. An odd response for a call that was fully legal and proper, don't you think?

So, do you take Mr Morrison at ALL of his word, or just the part that you fits your preferred narrative?

1. You're flat wrong about this. The White House provided the "transcript" of the Trump-Zelenskkyy call; that wasn't "no more than opinion." Multiple witnesses have testified to what they saw, heard, and did. None of that testimony was "no more than opinion." For example, today we learned the Lt Col Vindman told the impeachment inquiry that the NSC's top lawyer told him not to speak with anyone about the phone call that so alarmed him. That's a data point, not "no more than opinion." If the call was "perfect," as the president has said, if there was nothing inappropriate or improper about its contents, then why would the NSC's lead counsel instruct the NSC's top staff person on Ukraine not to talk with anyone about what he heard when he was on that call?
2. Mr Morrison's testimony yesterday that he didn't think what he heard on the call was illegal or improper was "evidence" enough for you to use it in your previous post. If his testimony wasn't "facts" or "evidence," why did you refer to it?