Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, recently unveiled a collection of declassified documents that highlight the weak foundation and biased evidence that were used by the former intelligence community inspector general to push for President Trump’s impeachment in 2019.
Gabbard pointed out that Michael Atkinson, the former IC Inspector General, didn’t adhere to appropriate protocols when he forwarded a whistleblower’s report about Trump’s controversial phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to Congress. This report triggered the first unsuccessful impeachment attempt by Congressional Democrats.
Gabbard accused “Deep State” figures within the intelligence community of fabricating a narrative that Congress used to bypass the will of the American populace and impeach a duly elected president. In her statements, she asserted that Atkinson had let political motivations take precedence over truths that matter to American citizens. She remarked that this, coupled with the misuse of the whistleblower process by former CIA operatives collaborating with Congressional Democrats, exemplifies the deep state’s strategy to weaponize the intelligence community.
The key witness did not hear the phone call.
According to Gabbard, Atkinson only interviewed four individuals during the investigation, including the whistleblower, none of whom had firsthand knowledge of the call between Trump and Zelensky.
Her office noted that one of those interviewed was a “friend” of the whistleblower and had previously collaborated on a controversial assessment regarding Russia in January 2017, alongside a former FBI agent who has faced scrutiny. The other two individuals, referred to as “person references,” also lacked any direct knowledge of the phone call.
“In light of the absence of direct evidence, IC IG Atkinson has misused the whistleblower process, acting beyond her jurisdiction, ignoring Department of Justice guidance, and depending solely on secondhand testimonies to escalate the issue to Congress and the FBI,” Gabbard’s office stated.
Whistleblowers may have been biased
During his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, Atkinson claimed he had “never believed that the whistleblower was politically biased,” despite information suggesting otherwise. Gabbard explained that the whistleblower admitted to having conferred with Democratic Congress members about the phone call prior to submitting the complaint.
Atkinson also indicated that the whistleblower was a registered Democrat and had previously collaborated closely with Vice President Biden as an expert on Ukraine.
Atkinson’s ‘weaponized’ whistleblowing process
Gabbard indicated that Atkinson went beyond his limits by labeling the phone complaint as an “urgent concern” to Congress. He disregarded the Department of Justice’s advice that the complaint did not qualify as an immediate concern, as it was not related to the management or operation of intelligence activities.
Additionally, Atkinson referred the matter to the Justice Department, despite only using secondhand information about the phone call. The Justice Department later concluded that there were no grounds for criminal charges against Trump.
Gabbard criticized Atkinson for not performing even basic due diligence, such as failing to seek access to the phone records of Trump and Zelensky. Her office mentioned that Atkinson requested “extraordinary assistance” from investigators of other agencies to further the inquiry, building on the notion that Trump might be obstructed.
The DNI also pointed out that the Office of the Inspector General within the intelligence community changed its whistleblower form within a few months, now allowing complaints to be submitted without direct knowledge of the case in question.
Following a brief 14-day investigation by Atkinson, then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi utilized this flawed narrative to create a media frenzy, ultimately leading to Trump’s impeachment trial. Trump was acquitted by the conclusion of that trial.
Gabbard believes that revealing these tactics and their implications for democracy is vital for promoting transparency and accountability and preventing future instances of power abuse.
