It looks like the Democrat plot to impeach President Trump over what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls “a violation of law” had nothing to do with violating the law, laws that she claims she helped craft and is an “authority on.” Yet, on Thursday, the acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire told Congress that the White House did not give him any direction to withhold a whistleblower complaint from the committee and that he followed the law in an “unprecedented” situation despite claims to the contrary by Democrats that he infringed on their right to review the allegations.
“My conversations with the President, because I’m the director of national intelligence, are privileged, and it would be inappropriate for me, because it would destroy my relationship with the President in intelligence matters, to divulge any of my conversations with the President of the United States,” Maguire said responding to a question from Rep. Jim Himes, a Connecticut Democrat.
He also interacted with Muslim Congressman Andre Carson.
— Anders Hagstrom (@Hagstrom_Anders) September 26, 2019
While both sides of the argument acknowledge that there is an allegation of a coverup, Maguire told Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) “But right now, all we have is an allegation — an allegation with second-hand information from a whistleblower. I have no knowledge on whether or not that is a true and accurate statement.”
Allegations with transcript evidence to the contrary of the allegations.
Fox 5 reports:
Initially, Maguire seemed to waver about the chronology of events related to his handling of the complaint but ultimately told lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee that his office did seek guidance from the White House before raising the issue with the Office of Legal Counsel and Department of Justice, which advised he was not legally bound to provide it to the committee.
“Such calls are typically subject to executive privilege, as a result, we consulted with the White House counsel’s office and were advised that much of the information of the complaint was, in fact, subject to executive privilege,” Maguire said. “A privilege that I do not have the authority to waive. Because of that, we were unable to immediately share the details of the complaint with this committee.”
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has provided a redacted version to Congress that members can bring to an open hearing, a spokesperson said.
“I was not a direct witness to most of the events described,” the whistleblower wrote, noting that they were aware of details in the complaint pertaining to Trump’s July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian President because of “White House officials with direct knowledge of the call.”
So, not being a direct witness means that the whistleblower is basically providing hearsay and not eyewitness accounts of what is being alleged.
However, this should be pretty cut and dried considering that we have the transcript of the conversation between Trump and Zelensky.
The following is a copy of Inspector General Atkinson’s letter to Maguire concerning the complaint.
It was the job of Inspector General Atkinson, who oversees internal complaints and violations within the intelligence agencies, to determine whether the complaint into Trump’s behavior was “of urgent concern.” As the letter details, Atkinson became aware of the whistleblower’s complaint on August 12. By August 26, Atkinson had deemed the complaint was “credible” and “of urgent concern,” and alerted Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire. Read Atkinson’s full letter to Maguire below.
While Democrats have cried about stonewalling and investigation and violating federal laws that protect whistleblowers from retribution, laws that I support, the fact of the matter is that no retribution has come about. However, should the allegations be proven false, and it seems they are false according to the transcripts of the call, that whistleblower is no longer an alleged whistleblower, but has bore a false witness against a man for a crime he did not commit and should be subject to the law.
I’ll bet we don’t hear a peep out of Democrats on that one though.
Become an insider!
Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.