Newly Declassified Documents Raise Questions About Trump’s First Impeachment

Recent documents that have now been declassified suggest that the impeachment of President Donald Trump back in 2019-2020 may have been a meticulously staged fraud. The claim is that this effort was orchestrated by “deep state actors” within the intelligence community, who opposed Trump, and colluded with congressional Democrats to undermine his presidency and the will of the voters who elected him.

Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, raised alarms about this situation. On April 13th, she referred a criminal complaint to the Department of Justice (DOJ), implicating two key individuals in the impeachment process for allegedly constructing a false conspiracy.

One of these individuals is Michael Atkinson, who served as the inspector general for the intelligence community during the impeachment. He is also the whistleblower who disclosed the controversial phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that sparked the impeachment process.

Gabbard maintains that there was a “coordinated effort” by various intelligence entities to sway the narrative surrounding Trump’s impeachment.

Interestingly, the whistleblower—a CIA analyst who is registered as a Democrat—has not had their identity made public yet. Some argue that they shouldn’t be allowed to remain anonymous, especially since they no longer work in the intelligence community. It’s a complicated matter; only the inspector general has the authority to withhold their identity.

In discussions surrounding impeachment, it’s been pointed out that the whistleblower was never technically a “whistleblower” in the legal sense. Gabbard has emphasized that the complaint lodged against the president doesn’t satisfy the essential criteria laid out in the Whistleblower Act, which requires that any reported misconduct be linked to intelligence activities and perpetrated by someone within the intelligence community. Since the president isn’t part of that community, the argument follows that his actions should be beyond the reach of such complaints.

The heart of the matter lies in the phone call where Trump suggested that the Ukrainian government should investigate Hunter Biden’s dealings with the natural gas firm Burisma. Critics framed this as a quid pro quo, essentially suggesting that Trump was leveraging U.S. aid to protect his son. Yet, advocates for Trump argue that this request was reasonable given prior investigations into Hunter Biden’s activities.

There’s been some skepticism regarding the whistleblower’s motivations. Reports suggest they had heard of the phone conversation through second-hand sources and did not possess firsthand knowledge, raising questions about their credibility.

As the impeachment proceedings unfolded in 2019, Gabbard pointed out that the process had numerous flaws. The information presented by the whistleblower was not sufficient to warrant impeachment, she argues, and any assumptions made from it should be treated with caution.

The documents recently declassified seem to support Gabbard’s assertions. They indicate that the whistleblower admitted to being politically biased and even had close ties to then-Vice President Biden, which paints a rather questionable picture of their role.

Furthermore, Atkinson, who was expected to be neutral, apparently supported the whistleblower’s claims even after knowing they were based on inadequate or false information. This raises further concerns about the integrity of the impeachment process.

As the conversation surrounding these events continues, it becomes increasingly clear that there are those within the intelligence community, including Atkinson and the whistleblower, who might have conspired against Trump to facilitate this impeachment.

Amidst these revelations, the next steps could include a thorough investigation by the Justice Department based on Gabbard’s referral, with potential charges of false statements, perjury, and conspiracy. It’s crucial for accountability to be established regarding the events that unfolded during the impeachment proceedings.

While Trump managed to navigate through the impeachment challenge, the implications of these findings could reshape historical perspectives on the matter, possibly labeling it as a farce in retrospect.