The hoked-up “impeachment inquiry” into President Trump has taken another two sharp turns that should send the credibility of the anonymous CIA whistleblower heading over a cliff.
Speaking to Fox talker Sean Hannity, The Hill’s John Solomon revealed that Ukraine reopened its probe of the Biden-Burisma influence-peddling scandal long before President Trump’s call on July 25 with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during which Trump asked Zelensky to do just that.
Even better, or worse as the case might be, the ballyhooed whistleblower, whose hearsay account of that call ignited the latest impeachment frenzy, worked for one of the 2020 Democrat presidential candidates.
So even as the impeachment probe inadvertently threatens to fully expose Biden-Burisma and the Clinton-Ukraine collusion during the 2016 election, the narrative that Trump committed an impeachable offense is falling apart.
“Illicit Funds”
Solomon told Hannity that U.S. officials knew Ukraine would re-open the probe into Biden-Burisma long before Trump’s entirely appropriate phone call.
“The U.S. government had open-source intelligence and was aware as early as February of 2019 that the Ukrainian government was planning to reopen the Burisma investigation,” Solomon said. “This is long before the president ever imagined having a call with President Zelensky.”
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
And when the U.S. government found out, Zelensky wasn’t yet president. The president was Petro Poroshenko, the man then-Vice President Joe Biden pressured in March 2016 to stop Ukraine’s prosecutor general from looking into Burisma. Biden’s son, Hunter, was on Burisma’s board and Burisma employed his consultancy. The younger Biden’s firm pulled in more than $3 million from Burisma.
Solomon told Hannity that Ukraine’s anti-corruption agency, NABU, wanted the probe of Burisma reopened, and indeed alleged that “illicit funds” went to Biden’s company.
Those “illicit funds,” Solomon told Hannity, partly coincided with the time Hunter Biden was on Burisma’s board, and investigators in Ukraine were “looking at the possibility that the $3.4 million paid to Hunter Biden’s firm may have been part of the illicit funds that were moving through the company.”
A month later, in April, the prosecutor’s office — open-source intelligence, again — the U.S. government officials confirming they were aware of this — made a request of another investigative agency in Ukraine for assistance in going through these bank records.
That is a significant change in the timeline — it was omitted from the whistleblower’s complaint, and the question is did he not know it or did he exclude it because it didn’t fit the narrative he was trying to write.
But why would the CIA whistleblower have omitted that detail?
Democrat Partisan
As The New American reported last week, citing CNN’s Jake Tapper and investigative reporter Paul Sperry, the whistleblower is a registered Democrat and a former aide on the Obama National Security Council, “where he worked on the NSC’s Ukraine desk & met with anti-Trump Ukrainian officials before being sent packing by the Trump NSC & becoming disgruntled.”
That means, Sperry concluded, “the Democrat whistleblower who complained about Trump digging up dirt in Ukraine was himself helping dig up dirt in Ukraine against Trump (and [Paul] Manafort) while working in the Obama White House during [the] 2016 campaign.”
The whistleblower’s anti-Trump bias was known before those facts surfaced, but that bias aside, the second big twist in the story might explain the whistleblower’s top allegation: Trump sought “foreign interference” in the 2020 election when he asked Zelensky to get to the bottom of Biden-Burisma.
That claim is false, but 2020 would be a concern for the whistleblower given his connection to a Democratic candidate, possibly Biden.
That revelation, the Washington Examiner’s Byron York reported yesterday, came from the intelligence community inspector general, Michael Atkinson. On Friday during the impeachment inquiry, Atkinson said the whistleblower was tight as a tick with a Democrat candidate.
“The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship with one of the Democratic candidates,” said one person with knowledge of what was said.
“The IG said the whistleblower had a professional relationship with one of the 2020 candidates,” said another person with knowledge of what was said.
“What [Atkinson] said was that the whistleblower self-disclosed that he was a registered Democrat and that he had a prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic presidential candidate,” said a third person with knowledge of what was said.
York’s sources did not identify the candidate.
Questions: Did the whistleblower work for Joe Biden and hope to take out Trump with the hearsay account of “foreign interference?” Or did the whistleblower work for another Democrat and hope to sink Biden, knowing that the Biden-Burisma scandal would resurface and fatally wound Biden’s run for the White House?
Either way, Trump wins. Biden-Burisma is exposed, as is the Clinton-Ukraine collusion to sink Trump in 2016.
Image: cbies via iStock / Getty Images Plus
