There has been so much we have documented about the corrupt intents of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), that it doesn’t take a deep-weeds political follower to see where this is going.

SSCI Chairman Richard Burr and Vice-Chairman Mark Warner now inject the Senate into the process of advancing Adam Schiff’s Ukrainian “whistleblower” narrative.  In a letter today Burr and Warner write to the attorney representing the “whistleblower”:

(Document Link)

As with the Trump-Russia investigation, Warner and Burr now insert themselves into position in order to advance the Trump-Ukraine investigation.

The SSCI is corrupt to the core.  This committee is where SSCI Security Director James Wolfe was caught leaking the Carter Page FISA application; almost certainly leaked on behalf of –and with the full authorization of– the committee leadership. [Go Deep]

This is the same SSCI who derailed the nomination of John Ratcliffe for DNI.  This is the same SSCI who “worked closely” with Robert Mueller.

Who was tipped-off and writes the first article about the SSCI letter?….  The same journalist who was working with Christopher Steele to advance the original narrative for the Dossier; the same journalist who received leaked information from James Clapper about the content of the dossier, Michael Isikoff.

[Michael Isikoff] Even as the House is ramping up its investigation into the Trump administration’s dealings with Ukraine, the Senate Intelligence Committee has opened its own inquiry and is seeking a quick interview with the whistleblower who filed the initial complaint with the intelligence community’s inspector general, according to a letter obtained by Yahoo News.

A letter seeking to question the still-anonymous whistleblower was sent Tuesday to Andrew Bakaj, the lawyer who represents the official. It was signed by committee chair Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va. — signifying that the panel is pursuing the politically explosive issue on a bipartisan basis.

“In order to ascertain the appropriate path forward for your client while protecting your client’s privacy, we are writing to request that you make your client available for a closed bipartisan interview with Committee counsel no later than Friday, September 27, 2019, in a mutually agreeable secure location,” the letter reads.  (read more)

For the past several weeks House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler has been trying to get the grand jury transcripts from the Mueller investigation in order to further advance his political goal of a presidential impeachment.

However, Nadler has been stymied because the official -legal- House impeachment process has not been followed. A DC district court judge knocked down Nadler’s attempts.

The full House of Representatives has never voted to impeach the president, which would be the first step that authorizes Nadler to begin an “impeachment inquiry.”  Nadler needs that authorization in order to gain legal authority and access to Mueller’s investigative evidence that underpins the highly political Mueller report as it relates to obstruction.

Keep in mind… The Weissmann/Mueller and overall special counsel team investigative effort was always designed to construct the obstruction case. A minimal amount of time was spent on Trump-Russia collusion, because it did not exist.  The primary team effort was to assemble evidence that could give the impression of Trump-Obstruction; according to their map, that obstruction angle would ultimately lead to impeachment.

It does not seem accidental that Chairman Nadler was rebuked by the DC judge in mid-August; and then subsequently Adam Schiff steps forth with a mysterious “whistleblower” report and a fake Trump-Ukraine narrative surfaces.

Indeed, as many have noted, the Trump-Ukraine narrative and subsequent impeachment discussion has almost identical fingerprints as the Trump-Russia impeachment narrative.

Techno-Fog astutely notes the use of the faux-Ukraine narrative seems planned, designed and rolled-out to provide Nadler’s much needed Full House impeachment stimulus:

The Lawfare group and their media narrative engineers have been working overtime to position House Democrats to support a full house impeachment vote.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi is now referencing a pending announcement for this vote. The Trump-Ukraine  narrative has been the booster fuel for this shift.

While the Full House vote would be framed around both the Trump-Russia obstruction case and the Trump-Ukraine influence case, it’s almost certain there is no “there” there with the Ukrainian angle for a successful run at impeachment.

Therefore the real goal is the House vote itself which will grant Nadler the legal authority to go back to court against the DOJ  and demand all of the material gathered by Weissmann/Mueller and the corrupt partisan team of investigators…. including the grand jury material.   Remember, all of this Mueller material was assembled over two years with the intent to create the illusion of ‘obstruction’.  Access to this material was always what Nadler needed to enhance the optic of obstruction.

While the formal impeachment vote grants the House legal rights, including constitutionally enforceable subpoenas and access to documents that do not exist without the vote, the presidential impeachment inquiry is a political process.  A process that holds value going into the 2020 election cycle.

Speaker Pelosi has been waiting for enough political momentum in order to advance an “official impeachment inquiry.”  She did not have enough material from the faux Trump-Russia narrative; she needed more.  Pelosi now has the work of Adam Schiff with the Trump-Ukraine narrative to advance the highly political legislative process.

It appears President Trump’s advisors have now caught on to larger Democrat scheme.

However, with Nancy Pelosi delivering a House impeachment announcement later tonight it may be too late:

Yes, frustrating… in the extreme.

Everything in this Democrat plan, including the original construct of the Mueller special counsel team and the continual goal of “obstruction”, is simply part of the Lawfare continuum.   All of the names constructing the background information are the same.

All of the people assisting Pelosi, Nadler and Schiff -including their paid contractors and hired staff- are the same.  All of the players (inside and outside government) are identical over the past several years.  Reference this from 2018:

A Judicial Watch FOIA Lawsuit has resulted in the release of a May 16, 2017, memo written by then Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe.  [Link Here]  The media is currently focusing on the aspect where Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein is outlined as willing to wear a wire into the Oval Office to record the President; however, the memo content actually reveals much more.

There are three aspects to this McCabe memo that warrant attention: (1) Rosenstein’s willingness to wear a wire. (2) Evidence that Rosenstein took Mueller into the White House on May 16, 2017, as a set-up to interview Mueller’s pending target; and (3) the CURRENTredactions to the memo indicate CURRENT efforts by the CURRENT AG Bill Barr to protect a corrupt endeavor that encompasses Rod Rosenstein.  While all three aspects are alarming; the last aspect is concerning in the extreme.

In order to understand the significance of this FOIA release CTH is going to present the McCabe memo in two different ways.  First, by highlighting the raw memo release; and then secondly, to highlight the important context by inserting the memo into the timeline.

First, here’s the McCabe memo:

[Link to Judicial Watch FOIA pdf]

There are two important background contexts that help to understand what is written in the McCabe memo when contrast with the background:

#1 [Rosenstein’s work with Robert Mueller in the Oval Office Meeting] and

#2 [The Overlay of the IG Report on James Comey with the Archey Declarations]

The first two substantive issues within the McCabe memo can only be accurately absorbed against the background of those two context links.

Now we can insert the new McCabe memo information into the timeline.  This will help better understand what was happening in/around the dates in question.

Start by noting the May 16, 2017, date of the meeting at 12:30pm is immediately before Rod Rosenstein took Robert Mueller for an interview with President Trump in the oval office.  This is the meeting where Mueller reportedly left his “cell phone” at the White House.

“Crossfire Hurricane” – During 2016, after the November election, and throughout the transition period into 2017, the FBI had a counterintelligence investigation ongoing against Donald Trump. FBI Director James Comey’s memos were part of this time-period as the FBI small group was gathering evidence.  Then Comey was fired….

♦Tuesday May 9th – James Comey was fired at approximately 5:00pm EST.  Later we discover Rod Rosenstein first contacted Robert Mueller about the special counsel appointment less than 15 hours after James Comey was fired.

♦Wednesday May 10th – From congressional testimony we know DAG Rod Rosenstein called Robert Mueller to discuss the special counsel appointment on Wednesday May 10th, 2017, at 7:45am. [See Biggs questions to Mueller at 2:26 of video]

According to his own admissions (NBC and CBS), Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe immediately began a criminal ‘obstruction’ investigation. Wednesday May 10th; and he immediately enlisted Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

A few hours after the Rosenstein-Mueller phone call James Comey’s office was being searched by the SSA Whistleblower per the IG report on Comey’s memos.

♦Thursday May 11th – Andrew McCabe testified to congress. With the Comey firing fresh in the headlines.  McCabe testified there had been no effort to impede the FBI investigation.

Also on Thursday May 11th, 2017, The New York Times printed an article, based on information seemingly leaked by James Comey, about a dinner conversation between the President and the FBI Director.   The “Loyalty” article [link].  The IG report shows: “[Daniel] Richman confirmed to the OIG that he was one of the sources for the May 11 article, although he said he was not the source of the information in the article about the Trump Tower briefing“.

♦Friday May 12th –  Andrew McCabe met with DAG Rod Rosenstein to discuss the the ongoing issues with the investigation and firing.  Referencing the criminal ‘obstruction’ case McCabe had opened just two days before.  According to McCabe:

… “[Rosenstein] asked for my thoughts about whether we needed a special counsel to oversee the Russia case. I said I thought it would help the investigation’s credibility. Later that day, I went to see Rosenstein again. This is the gist of what I said: I feel strongly that the investigation would be best served by having a special counsel.” (link)

According to Andy Biggs questioning of Mueller, on this same day, May 12th, evidence shows Robert Mueller met “in person” with Rod Rosenstein.  This is the same day when SSA Whistleblower went to James Comey’s house to retrieve FBI material and both Rybicki and Comey never informed the agent about the memos:

May 12th, is the date noted by David Archey when FBI investigators had assembled all of the Comey memos as evidence.  However, no-one in the FBI outside the “small group” knows about them.

♦On Saturday May 13th, 2017, another meeting between Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller, this time with AG Jeff Sessions also involved. [Per Andy Biggs]

♦Sunday May 14th –  Comey transmitted copies of Memos 2, 4, and 6, and a partially redacted copy of Memo 7 to Patrick Fitzgerald, who was one of Comey’s personal attorneys.  Fitzgerald received the email and PDF attachment from Comey at 2:27 p.m. on May 14, 2017, per the IG report.

♦Monday May 15th, McCabe states he and Rosenstein conferred again about the Special Counsel approach. McCabe: “I brought the matter up with him again after the weekend.”

On this same day was when James Rybicki called SSA Whistleblower to notify him of Comey’s memos. The memos were “stored” in a “reception area“, and in locked drawers in James Rybicki’s office.

♦Tuesday May 16th – Per the IG report: “On the morning of May 16, Comey took digital photographs of both pages of Memo 4 with his personal cell phone. Comey then sent both photographs, via text message, to Richman.

Back in Main Justice at 12:30pm Rod Rosenstein, Andrew McCabe, Jim Crowell and Tashina Guahar all appear to be part of this meeting.  I should note that alternate documentary evidence, gathered over the past two years, supports the content of this McCabe memo.  Including texts between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok:

[Sidebar: pay attention to the *current* redactions; they appear to be placed by existing DOJ officials in an effort to protect Rod Rosenstein for his duplicity in: (A) running the Mueller sting operation at the white house on the same day; (B) the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel, which was pre-determined before the Oval Office meeting.]

While McCabe was writing this afternoon memo, Rod Rosenstein was taking Robert Mueller to the White House for a meeting in the oval office with President Trump and VP Mike Pence.  While they were meeting in the oval office, and while McCabe was writing his contemporaneous memo, the following story was published by the New York Times (based on Comey memo leaks to Richman):

Also during the approximate time of this Oval Office meeting, Peter Strzok texts with Lisa Page about information being relayed to him by Tashina Guahar (main justice) on behalf of Rod Rosenstein (who is at the White House).

Later that night, after the Oval Office meeting – According to the Mueller report, additional events on Tuesday May 16th, 2017:

It is interesting that Tashina Gauhar was taking notes presumably involved in the 12:30pm 5/16/17 meeting between, Jim Crowell, Rod Rosenstein, and Andrew McCabe.  But McCabe makes no mention of Lisa Page being present. 

It appears there was another meeting in the evening (“later that night”) after the visit to the White House with Robert Mueller.  This evening meeting appears to be Lisa Page, Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe; along with Tashina Gauhar again taking notes.

♦ Wednesday May 17th, 2017:  Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe go to brief the congressional “Gang-of-Eight”: Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes, Adam Schiff, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer, Richard Burr and Mark Warner.

… […] “On the afternoon of May 17, Rosenstein and I sat at the end of a long conference table in a secure room in the basement of the Capitol. We were there to brief the so-called Gang of Eight—the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate and the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Rosenstein had, I knew, made a decision to appoint a special counsel in the Russia case.”

[…] “After reminding the committee of how the investigation began, I told them of additional steps we had taken. Then Rod took over and announced that he had appointed a special counsel to pursue the Russia investigation, and that the special counsel was Robert Mueller.” (link)

Immediately following this May 17, 2017, Go8 briefing, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein notified the public of the special counsel appointment.

We Exit The Timeline:

♦Back to the memo.  Notice the participants:  Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, Tashina Gauhar and Jim Crowell:

Now remind ourselves about who was involved in convincing Jeff Sessions to recuse himself:

The same two people (lawyers) Tasina Guahar and Jim Crowell, were involved in recusal advice for Jeff Sessions and the “wear-a-wire” conversation a few months later.

♦Back to the redactions.  Notice how in the McCabe memo FOIA release, the DOJ is redacting the aspects of the appointment of a special counsel.  The redaction justification: b(5) “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.” Or put another way: stuff we just don’t want to share: “personal privacy” etc.

Again, when combined with the testimony by Mueller in response to the questioning by Rep. Andy Biggs, the redacted information looks like current DOJ officials hiding the timing of the decision-making to appoint Mueller thereby protecting Rod Rosenstein.

More motive for this scenario shows up during a statement tonight by Matt Whitaker who appeared on Tucker Carlson television show.   Whitaker outlines why Rosenstein could never admit to having said he would wear a wire at the time the story broke.

When the “wear-a-wire” story first surfaced was when DAG Rosenstein was trying to convince President Trump not to declassify any information until after the Mueller special counsel was concluded.   Rosenstein’s justification for his instructions surrounded President Trump possibly obstructing justice during Mueller’s investigation.

.

Reminder when Rod Rosenstein convinced President Trump not to declassify the documents that were being requested by Congress (Sept. 2018):

While McCabe is a known liar, there is enough ancillary supportive information, circumstantial and direct evidence, to make the content of the McCabe memo essentially accurate.

Remember, Rosenstein expanded the scope of Mueller’s investigation twice, the second time targeting Michael Flynn Jr.  Also, Rosenstein participated in the indictment of fictitious Russia trolls and a Russian catering company.  Yes, all indications are that Rod Rosenstein was a willing participant in the overall McCabe/Mueller effort.

Ultimately all of the DOJ obfuscation, delay and hidden information under AG Bill Barr has an identical motive: help protect Rod Rosenstein.  That effort continues today with the internal DOJ redactions…

….The problem for Attorney General Bill Barr is not investigating what we don’t know, but rather navigating through what ‘We The People’ are already aware of…. (link)

[Background] As I’m wiping down the white-board to outline the corrupt purposes, intents and connections, suddenly it becomes obvious. The Ukraine story is Obstruction 2.0.

To assemble a quick elevator explanation of the Muh Russia obstruction construction, and to better understand the end goal of the political objective which encompassed the use of the FISA court, CTH previously said:

To get impeachment, they needed obstruction. To get obstruction, they needed an investigation. To get the investigation, they needed evidence. To change dossier from oppo-research to evidence they needed a FISA. To get a FISA they needed a target. The target was Carter Page.

While assembling the more recent deployment of Adam Schiff’s Ukraine story, I recognize something familiar:

To get impeachment Schiff needs obstruction.  To get obstruction, Schiff needs an investigation.  To get an investigation Schiff needs evidence.  To change political innuendo into evidence, Schiff needs a ‘whistle-blower’.  To use a ‘whistle-blower’ they need a report… And guess where we are?

In the 2016/2017 Muh Russia operation we notice the same general cast of characters were involved.  •Embeds in the intelligence apparatus; •Lawfare allies -inside and outside government- constructing the narrative for media absorption and distribution; and •politicians working to utilize their constructs.

Now, remember, the Lawfare Alliance is quite smart, they purposefully use the intelligence apparatus as part of the constructed narrative because the intelligence aspect itself can act as a shield.

You might remember when Adam Schiff was making claims in 2017 about the ‘highly classified’ FISA application used against Carter Page?

As the HPSCI ranking member Adam Schiff was saying in 2017 the ‘Steele Dossier’ was not the structural evidence underlying the application (it was).  However, Schiff knew: (A) the application was hidden by its classified status; and (B) if the application did ever become public in 2018, his allied media would never hold him accountable for the 2017 lies.

When the FISA application was ultimately released, albeit in redacted form (Aug ’18), the Steele Dossier was the structural underpinning for it; yet Adam Schiff was never held accountable for the fraudulent content in the House Minority Intelligence Report.

Fast forward to 2019 and overlay this Trump/Ukraine story and what you will immediately notice is an almost identical deployment of the same playbook.

♦Obstruction 1.0 (2016 original version): Source for Obstruction narrative, Chris Steele.
♦Obstruction 2.0 (2019 Ukraine version): Source for Obstruction narrative, an unnamed “Whistle-Blower”.

♦Obstruction 1.0: Tool for Obstruction narrative, Steele Dossier.
♦Obstruction 2.0: Tool for Obstruction narrative, Whistle-Blower Complaint.

♦Obstruction 1.0: The impediment to Obstruction narrative advancement (a needed special counsel) was AG Jeff Sessions.  Solution was to force recusal.
♦Obstruction 2.0: The impediment to Obstruction narrative advancement is current Acting DNI Joseph McGuire.  Solution ongoing, hence call him before HPSCI.

[IMHO The House Intelligence Committee will likely attempt some recusal process against Joseph McGuire.  Also, if you accept this Ukraine angle was planned to roll-out, it is almost certain to explain why Schiff and the Democrats were desperately demanding the appointment of Sue Gordon.  They’ve had this operation in the works for weeks.]

♦Obstruction 1.0: narrative exploitation needed a Special Counsel investigation.
♦Obstruction 2.0: narrative exploitation now needs HPSCI investigation.

It doesn’t matter that the underlying premise is false. What matters is the ability of Schiff and team -including media- to create the illusion of possibility within their premise:

♦Obstruction 1.0: Obstruction narrative needed the premise Trump worked with the Russians etc.
♦Obstruction 2.0: Obstruction narrative needs the premise Trump worked with (pressured) the Ukranians.

Once Schiff/Lawfare create the premise and cement a false narrative; then all efforts shift to taking aggressive measures to bait President Trump into taking action that would lead to the charge of obstruction:

♦Obstruction 1.0: Obstruction narrative mostly based on Trump firing James Comey.
♦Obstruction 2.0: Obstruction narrative will advance by baiting Trump to remove Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG).

It should be emphasized the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community; the guy who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay ‘whistle-blower‘ complaint, who was “blowing-the-whistle” based on second hand information of a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, is Michael K. Atkinson.

Atkinson’s self-interest:  Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD). That makes Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were former heads of the DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway.

[Irony Reminder: The DOJ-NSD was purposefully under no IG oversight. In 2015 the OIG requested oversight and it was Sally Yates who responded with a lengthy 58 page legal explanation saying, essentially, ‘nope – not allowed.’ (PDF HERE) All of the DOJ is subject to oversight, except the NSD.]

Put another way, Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.

Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.

Immediately after the Carter Page FISA warrant is approved, in the period where DOJ-NSD head John Carlin has given his notice of intent to leave but not yet left, inside those specific two weeks, the National Security Division of the DOJ tells the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) they have been breaking the law.  The NSD specifically inform the court they are aware of contractors who have been using FISA 702(16)(17) database search queries to extract information on political candidates.

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz has looked into the FISA application used against U.S. Person Carter Page.  Additionally, U.S. Attorney John Durham is said to be looking at the intelligence communities’ use of systems for spying and surveillance.

If the DOJ-NSD exploitation of the NSA database, and/or DOJ-NSD FISA abuse, and/or DOJ-NSD FARA corruption were ever to reach sunlight, Atkinson -as the lawyer for the process- would be under a lot of scrutiny for his involvement.

Yes, that gives current ICIG Michael Atkinson a strong and corrupt motive to participate with the Schiff/Lawfare impeachment objective.

.

If you stand back and look at the big picture, what becomes visible is the purpose for this 2019 Adam Schiff Ukraine Whistle-blower narrative to create the same situation previously used in 2016/2017 to generate Trump impeachment by obstruction.

It is an almost identical playbook.

Meanwhile…

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) ranking member Devin Nunes appears on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the ongoing headline stories surrounding President Trump talking to Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Rep. Nunes points out how the backstory of Ukraine (stimulated by a faux whistleblower complaint) highlights how former Vice-President Joe Biden was using his position to influence the Ukrainian government to withdraw investigation of his son Hunter Biden.

.

Additionally, Nunes discusses the upcoming FISA report by IG Michael Horowitz and the larger issues under investigation by U.S. Attorney John Durham; and the information coming forth as an outcome of Michael Flynn’s ongoing case, in that the mysterious “western intelligence asset” Joseph Mifsud attending the RT event in Russia with Flynn.

Fishy… Senator Lindsay Graham, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, appears on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo to discuss issues related to Iran, Ukraine and the ongoing DOJ/FBI investigation by IG Michael Horowitz.

Regarding the IG report, again Ms. Bartiromo noted congress doesn’t call Mr. Horowitz to ask questions about his report on James Comey… that specifically led to criminal referrals for the former Director of the FBI?

Skipping right past the 800lb gorilla beating him over the head with judicial bananas, Senator Graham -again, Chairman of the Senate Committee- offers no explanation for his own disinterest. …Instead, Graham states he will call for IG Horowitz to testify at some later date based on the FISA report outcome.

Just in case anyone missed it…. The DOJ Inspector General, carved out a report and specifically referred the former Director of the United States FBI, James Comey, for criminal prosecution; yet Graham is awaiting a FISA report.

In what appears to be an effort to extract Ukraine from the toxic environment of American media fake political news, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko discusses the phone call between President Donald Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Minister Vadym Prystaiko was a participant in the discussions between the U.S. and Ukraine and has specific knowledge of the phone call.  Minister Prystaiko says the phone call was long, friendly and covered a variety of important issues.  There was no undue pressure or “coercion” from U.S. President Donald Trump.  WATCH:

Earlier today President Trump delivered a series of tweet statements and videos highlighting how the media is spinning their “whistleblower” coverage to protect Sleepy Joe Biden from his corrupt endeavors to financially benefit his family.

President Donald Trump also shared a few videos to give context to the story:

Well, well, well… the media cannot say President Trump didn’t try to warn them about throwing fake-news rakes in front of their narrative parade – then wondering why they keep getting black-eyes.   Here we go, the details begin to surface.

With more reporting by John Solomon, cited and attributed to on-the-record officials in the State Department and Ukraine, a much more clear picture emerges. In reality, and unfortunately as expected, the fulsome picture is 180° divergent from the media narrative.

The government of Ukraine under both Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, and now President Volodymyr Zelensky, had been trying to deliver information about Obama officials and Democrat party officials (DNC on behalf of Hillary Clinton) requesting the government of Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 election.

Both Poroshenko and Zelensky administrations had tried, unsuccessfully, to get information to current U.S. officials. U.S. State Department officials in Ukraine were refusing to give visa’s to Ukrainian emissaries because they did not want the damaging information sent to the President Trump administration.

Failing to get help from the U.S. State Department, the Ukranians tried a workaround, and hired a respected U.S. lawyer to hand deliver the documentary evidence directly to the U.S. Department of Justice. The contracted American lawyer hand-delivered the information to the U.S. Department of Justice in New York.

However, after delivering the information and not hearing back from the U.S. government, the Ukrainian government, now led by President Zelensky, interpreted the silence as the Trump administration and U.S. government (writ large) being upset about the Ukraine involvement overall. Out of concern for a serious diplomatic breakdown, the Zelensky administration made a personal request to the U.S. State Department for assistance.

The U.S. State Department then reached out to Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani; and asked him if he would meet with Zelensky’s top lawyer, Andrei Yermak.

Rudy Giuliani agreed to act as a diplomatic intermediary and met with Yermak in Spain. After the meeting, Mr. Giuliani then contacted the State Department Officials in charge of Ukraine and Europe and debriefed them on the totality of the subject matter as relayed by Andrei Yermak.

All of this activity preceded the phone call between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

President Trump and President Zelensky discussed the issues, and this phone call is the one now referenced by the concerned “whistleblower”. The “whistleblower” obviously had no knowledge of the background and why the subject matter discussed in the phone call was framed as it was.

Apparently in the phone call, President Zelensky was explaining what action the Ukranian government had already taken to try and get the information about corrupt U.S. officials, including former VP Joe Biden, to the U.S. government.

It was from this clarification of information that President Trump is reported to have told Zelensky it was OK to proceed with any internal investigation of corruption in Ukraine that might also encompass former U.S. officials.  Yes, that would include Joe Biden.

From this context we can see how the “whistle-blower”, knowing only half of the information – might incorrectly perceive the conversation. Additionally, there’s a possibility the “whistle-blower” may be ideologically aligned with the same government entities that were trying to block the Ukrainian government from delivering the information in the first place.

Beyond the media, pundits and democrat politicians making fools of themselves, four very significant questions/issues become obvious:

• (#1) who in the U.S. State Department Ukraine embassy was blocking the visas of Ukrainian officials, and why?
• (#2) Who was the official at the New York office of the DOJ who took custody of the records hand-delivered by the American lawyer working on behalf of Ukraine?…. and
• (#3) why were those records never turned over to Main Justice?…. Or
• (#4) if they were turned over to Main Justice, why didn’t they inform the Trump administration they had received them?

At the end of this fake news narrative parade, these will be the questions that remain.

[Interview Transcript]

Q Mr. President, do you want to address this whistleblower story, sir?

Q Will you be asking — will you be asking —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Wait a moment, please.

Q Do you want to address this whistleblower story?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: What story?

Q The whistleblower, whether it was (inaudible)?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: It’s a ridiculous story. It’s a partisan whistleblower. Shouldn’t even have information. I’ve had conversations with many leaders. They’re always appropriate. I think Scott can tell you that. Always appropriate. At the highest level, always appropriate. And anything I do, I fight for this country. I fight so strongly for this country. It’s just another political hack job.

Q Mr. President, on that point, did you discuss Joe Biden, his son, or his family with the leader of Ukraine?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: It doesn’t matter what I discuss. But I will say this: Somebody ought to look into Joe Biden’s statement, because it was disgraceful, where he talked about billions of dollars that he’s not giving to a certain country unless a certain prosecutor is taken off the case.

So, somebody ought to look into that. And you wouldn’t, because he’s a Democrat. And the Fake News doesn’t look into things like that. It’s a disgrace.

But I had a great conversation with numerous people. I don’t even know exactly who you’re talking about, but I had a great conversation with numerous people — numerous leaders. And I always look for the conversation that’s going to help the United States the most. That’s very important.

Q Mr. President, do you know the identity of the whistleblower? Do you know the identity of the whistleblower?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I don’t know the identity of the whistleblower. I just hear it’s a partisan person, meaning it comes out from another party. But I don’t have any idea. But I can say it was a totally appropriate conversation. It was actually a beautiful conversation.

And this is no different than — you know, the press has had a very bad week with Justice Kavanaugh and all of those ridiculous charges and all of the mistakes made at the New York Times and other places. You’ve had a very bad week. And this will be better than all of them. This is another one. So keep — so keep — so keep playing it up, because you’re going to look really bad when it falls. You know, I guess I’m about — I guess I’m about 22 and 0, and I’ll keep it that way.

Q Did you mention Joe Biden during the conversation though, Mr. President?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I don’t want to talk about any conversation, other than to say — other than to say: great conversation, totally appropriate conversation, couldn’t have been better. And keep asking questions and build it up as big as possible so you can have a bigger downfall.

Q Mr. President, on the whistleblower, have you read the complaint? Have you read the complaint of the —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, I haven’t. It’s — it’s —

Q Who in your White House has?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I just tell you, it is — everybody has read it and they laugh at it. And it’s another —

Q But you haven’t read it?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: It’s another media disaster. The media has lost so much credibility in this country. Our media has become the laughingstock of the world.

When you look at what they did to Justice Kavanaugh and so many other things last week, I think this is one of the worst weeks in the history of the fake news media. You have been wrong on so many things and this one will be — I wouldn’t say it will top the list, because I think you can’t do worse than some of the stories you missed over the last week or two, but the media of our country is laughed at all over the world now. You’re a joke.

Okay, what else?

Q Mr. President, (inaudible) clarify: When you talk about the conversation that you —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Which conservation?

Q Well, we’re trying to figure out what conversation you’re —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, figure it out. You’re supposed to be the media. Figure it out.

Q July 25th? Was it July 25th?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: It was — which conversation?

Q Was it July 25th, with the President of Ukraine?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I really don’t know. I don’t know.

Q Should Congress see the complaint and the transcript of your call to clear any confusion?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: There is nothing. It’s nothing.

Q Should Congress see it?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: There’s nothing.

[Transcript]