Skip to main content

A Biased Democrat Assigned to Obama White House by Brennan, Incorrectly Labeled a Whistleblower by Press

  • A Biased Democrat Assigned to Obama White House by Brennan, Incorrectly Labeled a Whistleblower by Press

By Capt Joseph R. John, October 7, 2019: Op Ed #451

Over the last 3 years, President Trump has worked to improve the economy, reduce unemployment, improve trade agreements with foreign countries, strengthen the US Armed Forces, improve national security, reenergize production in the US, reduce job killing regulations, build a wall on the southern border to prevent hundreds of thousands of Illegal Aliens, terrorists, and drugs from entering the US, aggressively prosecute the worldwide effort to defeat terrorists, etc.  


Yet President Trump has been repeatedly and unmercifully attacked, non-stop daily, by the Democrat Socialist Party, the left of center liberal media establishment, the deep state, and left leaning network commentators.  The intent has been to disenfranchising the votes of 63 million Americans who elected candidate Donald J. Trump in the 2016 election. 


The deep state has had a non-stop impeachment obsession, which began even before President Trump was inaugurated.  Now the nation is faced again with another prolonged attempt to impeach President Trump, but not for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.  Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Tom Perez, George Soros, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, Progressives, Marxists, the Democrat Socialist Party, The Muslim Brotherhood International Terrorist Organization, the Socialist Party USA, the Communist Party USA, the left of center liberal media establishment, the Socialist Democrat Party, and Marxists refuse to accept the fact that President Trump won the 2016 election.  


This time the impeachment attempt is a political setup employing the Whistleblower Statute to remove President Trump from office, for asking the President of Ukraine to investigate the actions Ukraine took to affect the 2016 US Presidential election, the intent of using the Whistleblower Statue was to prevent the White House attorneys and members of the Republican Congress from interrogating the complainant.  The Democrats are now trying to impeach a US President in private, behind closed doors, with secret subpoenas, and bogus Whistleblowers. 


The Whistleblower Protection Act was passed by Congress and signed into Law by President George H. W. Bush in1989.  The definition of a government whistleblower is someone who has “firsthand knowledge” of a violation of the law, an illegal act, or an act that damages the national security of the US, and that person files a complaint about it with the Inspector General (IG) in their specific agency of government where the violation occurred.  That person is protected from retaliation for filing a complaint of what he or she actually witnessed, firsthand.   


The Federal Whistleblower Protection Act is a Federal Law and has not been amended by an Act of Congress, and in order to be credible to the IG in the Agency where the violation occurred, must provide reliable, “firsthand” information about the violation.  The Whistleblower Complaint Form cautions the complainant that the complaint cannot be based upon “hearsay” information.


The person being allegedly called a Whistleblower by the left of center liberal media establishment, is a CIA midlevel operative, a registered Democrat, was said the IG said is biased, has had a close association with a very high profile Democrat, was a Brennan plant in the White House on the NSC Ukraine Desk after Donald Trump was elected, and had been evicted from his White House appointment by President Trump.  The alleged Whistleblower was given second hand hearsay information by other members in the intelligence community, who are protégés of Brennan and Clapper, and are colluding with the deep state in bringing down the President of the United States.  


Whether a second, third, or fourth Whistleblower comes forward from the intelligence community, it is irrelevant because they are not members of the Executive Office of the President.  The Whistleblower Statute would requires a complainant to be employed by The White House.  The transcript of the conversation of the US President and the Ukraine President has been made public.  


Inspector General Michael Atkisson said in an Aug. 26 letter to the acting Director of National Intelligence, Joseph Maguire, that “the complainant’s letter acknowledges that the complainant was not a direct witness to President Trump’s telephone call”.  Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire’s testimony to Congress describing the claim as biased and used hearsay information obtained from other biased government employees who were opposed to President Trump.  The complainant did not tell the IG that he or she met with Adam Schiff’s Chief of Staff before he filed, and had the assistance of Adam Schiff’s staff in filing the Whistleblower Complaint.


The IG of the Intelligence Community has no jurisdiction over the Executive Office of the President, he is restricted to only deal with complaints that occurred in the Intelligence Community.  The President was not discussing intelligence details or concepts on his call to the President of Ukraine, so the IG was the wrong person to file the Whistleblower Complaint with.  If this were a valid Whistleblower Complaint, hundreds of thousands of the Federal Government employees would not be allowed to file a Whistleblower complaint based upon “hearsay” information, in any agency of government they did not work in, if they disagreed with policies the President followed. 


The person who filed a Whistleblower complaint is therefore not a valid Whistleblower in accordance with the US Whistleblower Law, he or she is instead a “Leaker’ of hearsay information.  The “leaker” did not monitor the July 25th phone call that President Trump had with the President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine.  The “Leaker” did not see the transcript of the phone conversation prior to when it was released to the public.  Since the “Leaker” is from the Intelligence Community, not from The Executive Office of the President, he filed an invalid Whistleblower Complaint that occurred in another branch of government he was not employed in.  The Whistleblower Statute requires that a Whistleblower Complaint can only be filed based upon first hand knowledge, that occurred in the agency where they were employed.    


In the narrative of the complaint, the “Leaker” disapproved of the “tone” of President Trump’s conversation, alleging the President threatened that if Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky did not investigate allegations of corruption by Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden, in a Quid Pro Quo threat, that the U.S. military aid to Ukraine would be withheld (tone?, he didn’t even hear the conversation).  The left of center liberal media repeatedly said the President would suppress the transcript of his conversation with the President of the Ukraine, and that the Whistleblower complaint would be covered up; but President Trump released both---nothing was suppressed.    


President Trump had the “US-Ukraine Mutual Legal Assistance In Crime Matters Act” (ratified in 2000), in mind, when he made the July 25th telephone call to Ukraine President  Zelensky.  The President was on firm legal ground in requesting help on investigating the Ukraine interference in the 2016 US election, and asking him to root out the corrupt attempt by the former President of Ukraine to influence Vice President Biden by giving Hunter Biden a $86,000 monthly payoff.    


The “Leaker” complained about President Trump asking President Zelensky to investigate Ukraine’s interference of the 2016 Presidential election and the corruption in the payoff of Hunter Biden. Democrats want Americans to forget Attorney General William Barr announced in April 2019 that he would investigate the source of the allegations that launched the Mueller probe, and the Ukraine connection, that has haunted the nation for three years.  Democrats do not want an investigation by the new government in Ukraine to determine who in the 2016 election was digging up dirt in Ukraine on then-candidate Donald J. Trump.  Democrats do not want Americans to remember that Democratic Senators asked Ukraine to help investigate President Trump or risk losing U.S. aid.


Adam Schiff oozed obnoxious superiority and arrogance when he insidiously deceived the American people, in a press conference, while referring to the President as a “mafia boss”, and led Americans to believe he was reading President Trump’s actual words in the President’s phone conversation with  President Zelensky, when Schiff was quoting that he repeatedly demanded that the President of Ukraine investigate Biden 7 times.  It was another of Schiff’s bold-faced lies, to smear President Trump.  The liberal Washington Post gave Schiff 4 Pinocchio’s for his continued attempt to deceive the American people, once again, as he repeatedly lied to them for two years saying he had hard evidence that President Trump colluded with Russia to defeat Hillary Clinton.  


On September 17th, Schiff told members of the House Intelligence Committee that he did not know about the Whistleblower complaint until after it was filed; that was another of Schiff’s bold-faced lies.  The New York Times reported in its October 2nd edition, that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, learned details of the CIA mid-level operative’s allegations against President Trump in August, long before the bogus Whistleblower Complaint was filed, by the “Leaker”.  The liberal New York Times called Schiff’s dishonest statement a "scandal."  The “Leaker” actually met with Schiff’s Chief of Staff while he was considering whether to file a Whistleblower Complaint.  


Normally a Whistleblower, with first-hand information, sends an E-mail or a short memo to the IG alleging a violation has occurred as a Whistleblower.  In this case the “Leaker” submitted a nine page complaint that was not composed by the “Leaker”, it was carefully composed with a great deal of legal jargon, with layers of editing by attorneys, and included inaccurate “hearsay” information.  When the “Leaker’s” 9 page complaint was compared with the actual transcript of President Trump’s conversation with President Zelensky, much of the hearsay information in the complaint was either untrue or obviously inaccurate.  


At a White House press conference on October 2nd, President Trump pointed out that President Zelensky of Ukraine stated, in front of The White House press corps, that there was no pressure exerted on him “at all” when President Trump's requested that they "look into" many allegations of corruption.  After investigation by two divisions of the Justice Department, and after a review of the recording of the July 25th conversation of President Trump with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine was completed, they made an official finding that President Trump did not break any laws.  US Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations, Ambassador Kurt Volker, stated in a 7-hour closed hearing of Adam Schiff’s House Intelligence Committee, that there was no Quid Pro Quo “of any kind”, and that the “temporary” hold on USA military aid was only to try to do more to root out corruption in Ukraine; the temporary hold was lifted on July 18th, the Ukraine Parliamentary elections were held on July 21st in which President Zelensky was elected.


Senator Jim Inhofe informed the press that he had first-hand knowledge that back in April, military aid to Ukraine was delayed to prevent and to root out corruption.  That decision to delay military aid occurred long before the current President of Ukraine was ever elected.  Senator Inhofe said the temporary delay in military aid first occurred in April, while trying to get European allies to increase their military aid to Ukraine.  President Trump has actually provided over $1 billion to fund lethal defensive weapons systems for Ukraine, in order to protect Ukraine from the Russian invasion; no military aid has ever been cancelled.  


Obama had previously refused to provide military aid to Ukraine while Russia was actually initiating an invasion of Ukraine following the invasion of Crimea, instead of lethal defensive military aid, Obama only provided Ukraine with blankets, medical supplies, food, and MREs.  At the time of the Russians initiated the invasion of Ukraine, Obama told the NATO Commander, General Curtis Scaparrotti, USA to stand down, when he tried to provide Ukraine with defensive weapons systems as required when a NATO ally comes under attack.


In December 2018, after Pelosi became House Speaker for the 116th Congress, plans for the impeachment of President Trump were initiated, she made significant changes in the House Rules.  Those new House Rules are now being used to subvert the historic processes of impeachment, and the way impeachment proceedings were always conducted in the House.  The new House Rules were designed to prevent the minority Republicans in the House from deposing witnesses.  Democrats are rushing to judgement, in order to mobilize the public support for the impeachment of President Trump, with the active support of the left of center liberal media establishment, and the deep state.


The “impeachment inquiry” did not begin with the House voting as a body to authorize an “impeachment inquiry”, as has been done in previous Houses in impeachment proceedings.  It began with Speaker Pelosi simply declaring she is authorizing an “impeachment inquiry” that would begin against President Trump, based upon an anonymous Whistleblower’s Complaint that she had not even seen; she said that Adam Schiff’s House Intelligence Committee would conduct the investigation.  


By refusing to hold a vote of the whole House on whether to go forward with an “impeachment inquiry”, Pelosi is denying the Republican members of Congress the right to certain protections and procedures, such as being able to guarantee the ability of Republicans to call witnesses and requiring that certain House committees votes on important matters.  In one of Pelosi’s recent delusionary comments and incoherent rants, she actually compared herself, Nadler, Schiff, and the Democrat Socialist Party’s coup attempt of President Trump, that began over 3 years ago, to be similar to what the American Patriots did during the American Revolution. 


After the two conversations President Trump had with the Prime Minister of Australia, the Prime Minister of England, the King of Saudi Arabia, the President of Russia, the President of the Philippines, and the President of Mexico were all leaked to the press, the method of how recorded calls with heads of state would be protected in the future was modified.  Those recorded conversations with heads of state were subsequently transferred to a highly classified server to protect them from leaks to the press.  


The telephone call President Trump had with the President of the Ukraine was also transferred to that highly classified server.  Now the Democrats are accusing President Trump of following a procedure to cover up his conversation with the President of Ukraine, when the President actually released the transcript of the conversation that allegedly violated federal law. 


Shortly before the Whistleblower complaint by a CIA Officer alleging a violation against President Trump went public, the Intelligence Community tried to secretly change the Whistleblowers Complaint Form from the requirement that a Whistleblower must have first-hand knowledge of a violation before filing a complaint, to only requiring “hearsay” information to file a Whistleblower Complaint.  The IG said that change was done to accommodate the CIA Whistleblower.  In the below listed article, Americans will be able to see how, several weeks before this latest well-orchestrated attempt to impeach President Trump by the deep state was hatched, they tried to make changes to the Whistleblower Law without passing changes to the law in Congress.  Changes to that Whistleblower Complaint Form by the intelligence community are invalid.      


By clicking on the below listed link, you will be able to listen to Bill Whittle discuss the “impeachment inquiry” announced by Nancy Pelosi to remove President Donald J. Trump from office, without allowing the measure to come to a vote in the House of Representatives.

If “hearsay” information instead of “first-hand” information was required to file a Whistleblower Complaint, it would open the door to allow every one of the hundreds of thousands of employees in the Federal Government, to be able to file a Whistleblower complaint that occurred in any agency of government, that a government employee in an another agency, felt was a violation of the law, an illegal act, or an act that damaged the national security of the US.  It would result in thousands of Whistleblower Complaints being filed by thousands of Government employees who disapproved of one policy or another, and would bring the US government to a standstill.

Copyright by Capt Joseph R. John.  All Rights Reserved.  The material can only posted on another Web site or distributed on the Internet by giving full credit to the author.  It may not be published, broadcast, or rewritten without the permission from the author 



Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge


Federal records show that the intelligence community secretly revised the formal whistleblower complaint form in August 2019 to eliminate the requirement of direct, first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.

By Sean Davis

September 27, 2019


Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. This raises questions about the intelligence community’s behavior regarding the August submission of a whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no longer requires potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to Congress to have direct, first-hand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing that they are reporting.


The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until after the transcript of Trump’s July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates the first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only “heard about [wrongdoing] from others.”


The internal properties the newly revised “Disclosure of Urgent Concern” for, which the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), show that the document was uploaded on September 24, 2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to the public. The markings on the document state that it was revised in August 2019, but no specific date of revision is disclosed.


The complaint alleges that President Donald Trump broke the law during a phone call with the Ukrainian president. In his complaint, which was dated August 12, 2019, the complainant acknowledged he was “not a direct witness” to the wrongdoing he claims Trump committed.


A previous version of the whistleblower complaint document, which the ICIG and DNI until recently provided to potential whistleblowers, declared that any complaint must contain only first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing and that complaints that provide only hearsay, rumor, or gossip would be rejected.


“The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing,” the previous form stated under the bolded heading “FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED.” “This includes information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing.”


“If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, [the Intelligence Community Inspector General] will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA,” the form concluded.


Markings on the previous version of the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form show that it was formally approved on May 24, 2018. Here is that original Disclosure of Urgent Concern form prior to the August 2019 revision:


The Ukraine call complaint against Trump is riddled not with evidence directly witnessed by the complainant, but with repeated references to what anonymous officials allegedly told the complainant: I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials,” “officials have informed me,” “officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me,” “the White House officials who told me this information,” “I was told by White House officials,” “the officials I spoke with,” “I was told that a State Department official,” “I learned from multiple U.S. officials,” “One White House official described this act,” “Based on multiple readouts of these meetings recounted to me,” “I also learned from multiple U.S. officials,” “The U.S. officials characterized this meeting,” “multiple U.S. officials told me,” “I learned from U.S. officials,” “I also learned from a U.S. official,” “several U.S. officials told me,” “I heard from multiple U.S. officials,” and “multiple U.S. officials told me.”


The repeated references to information the so-called whistleblower never witnessed clearly run afoul of the original ICIG requirements for “urgent concern” submissions. The change to the “urgent concern” submission form was first highlighted on Twitter by researcher Stephen McIntyre.   


The complainant also cites publicly available news articles as proof of many of the allegations.


“I was not a direct witness to most of the events” characterized in the document, the complainant confessed on the first page of his August 12 letter, which was addressed to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the respective chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence committees. Hearsay is generally inadmissible as evidence in U.S. federal and state courts since it violates the constitutional requirement that the accused be given the opportunity to question his accusers.


The anti-Trump complaint also made several false claims that have been directly refuted and debunked. While the complaint alleged that Trump demanded that Ukraine physically return multiple servers potentially related to ongoing investigations of foreign interference in the 2016 elections, the transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky shows that such a request was never made.   

The complainant also falsely alleged that Trump told Zelensky that he should keep the current prosecutor general at the time, Yuriy Lutsenko, in his current position in the country. The transcript showed that exchange also did not happen.   


Additionally, the complaint falsely alleged  hat T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, a U.S. State Department official, was a party to the phone call between Trump and Zelensky.


“I was told that a State Department official, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on the call,” the complaint alleged. Shortly after the complaint was released, CBS News reported that Brechbuhl was not on the phone call.   


In a legal opinion that was released to the public along with the phone call transcript, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) determined that the complainant’s submission was statutorily deficient and therefore was not required to be submitted to Congress. The White House nonetheless declassified and released the document to Congress late Wednesday evening.


“The complaint does not arise in connection with the operation of any U.S. government intelligence activity, and the alleged misconduct does not involve any member of the intelligence community,” the September 3 OLC opinion noted. “Rather, the complaint arises out of a confidential diplomatic communication between the President and a foreign leader that the intelligence-community complainant received secondhand.”


“The question is whether such a complaint falls within the statutory definition of “urgent concern” that the law requires the DNI to forward to the intelligence committees,” the OLC opinion continued. “We conclude that it does not.”


It is not known precisely when the August 2019 revision to the whistleblower complaint form was approved, nor is it known which, if any, version of the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the complainant completed prior to addressing his complaint to Congress.


Reached by phone on Friday afternoon, a Director of National Intelligence official refused to comment on any questions about the secret revision to the whistleblower form, including when it was revised to eliminate the requirement of first-hand knowledge and for what reason.

Sean Davis is the co-founder of The Federalist.