Whistleblower Reports Aren’t What They Used to Be

Remember the good old days before America became a banana republic when we used to require actual evidence before convicting someone of a crime? Even the Salem witch trials, before America’s founding, required a “two witness” standard before someone could be executed for turning into a black cat, flying around on a broom or consorting with the devil under a full moon.

But not anymore! Thanks to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) new standard, we can impeach a sitting president based on a modern-day version of the “Telephone Game” that we all used to play at summer camp.

The federal bureaucracy in DC is filled with wildly unimpressive people who couldn’t get jobs in the private sector. I know – shocker! The sorts of people attracted to that kind of environment are constantly spreading backbiting rumors about the people who work above them.

If you can get your supervisor fired, you just might end up with his job. Meanwhile, every person below you on the totem pole has a dagger aimed at your back and is spreading rumors about you. It’s sort of like working at Facebook – but with fewer Indian accents in the break room.

The back-biting and mudslinging nature of the bureaucracy is the exact reason why the intelligence agencies have never allowed whistleblower complaints to contain “hearsay,” ever since Congress set the rules protecting federal whistleblowers.

They’d be doing nothing but field whistleblower complaints all day long if hearsay was the standard. This rule was pretty straightforward: Unless you have direct, firsthand evidence of wrongdoing, your complaint is not a valid whistleblower complaint. Therefore, shut up and get back to work.

But now we have a new standard for intelligence agency whistleblower complaints. And the rule change conveniently happened just a few days before a whistleblower complaint was issued about President Trump’s phone call with the president of Ukraine. How convenient! That doesn’t look suspicious at all!

Thanks to the new rule change, the Telephone Game is a perfectly acceptable form of exposing government wrongdoing. My sister’s boyfriend’s cousin’s best friend’s uncle knows a guy in Niagara Falls who says that Trump gets TWO SCOOPS OF ICE CREAM at state dinners, while everyone else only gets ONE!

The CIA operative who filed a whistleblower complaint against President Trump, claiming a quid pro quo during his phone call with the Ukraine president, didn’t see or hear anything related to it.

He didn’t hear the phone call. He didn’t see the transcript of the phone call. He wasn’t even standing outside the oval office eavesdropping. Having read the complaint, I assume the whistleblower is a man. Only a gay CIA operative could be this catty.

Reading through the 7-page report at a glance, here are the sources of the “evidence” the whistleblower used to smear President Trump: 1) multiple US government officials, 2) officials with direct knowledge of the call, 3) officials, 4) White House officials, 5) White House officials, 6) officials, 7) a State Department official, 8) multiple US officials, 9) one White House official, 10) “multiple readouts of these meetings recounted to me,” 11) multiple US officials, 12) US officials, 13) multiple US officials, 14) US officials, 15) a US official, 16) several US officials, 17) multiple US officials, and 18) multiple US officials.

This is what the US legal system used to refer to as NOT EVIDENCE. Try prosecuting a bank robber with a chain of vagaries like that sometimes, even if you catch the robber with the cash in the trunk of his car.

“Your honor, John Smith is guilty, because the bank employees had a meeting where they talked about the robbery. I wasn’t at that meeting, but another person – I can’t tell you their name – read the notes from that meeting to me several times! Clearly, John Smith must go to jail for the bank robbery.”

There’s an old saying that nobody bowls alone at the CIA. Multiple people have noted that the whistleblower complaint reads more like a flimsy indictment written by a team of JV prosecutors.

Coupled with the fact that the CIA changed the whistleblower rules to suddenly allow hearsay – just moments before the whistleblower complaint was filed – seems to point to a broader conspiracy within the Deep State.

Here we go again. This really is Russiagate 2.0.