There is no high-level whistleblower.
So everything you’ve heard about said “whistleblower’s complaint” you can discard as easily as the media can repeat it all.
For days on end we’ve seen non-stop dribble about President Trump’s “abuse of power.” For days we’ve been told convoluted stories of how the president — on an official call — which had many ears tuned in — openly did “something” that was of “urgent concern.”
The main reason it was labeled as such?
The whistleblower claimed it was.
We’ve been told of grandiose actions by the president that supposedly indicated he was withholding aid to a foreign government. Never mind that this president has since the beginning of his campaign run on the idea that he might stop all foreign aid as means to re-evaluate any single nation’s willingness to advance American interests.
The implication of that threatened withholding seemed to be based on some sort of ill-described plot of that nation’s refusal to investigate “Trump’s political opponent.” (Never mind that the president is allowed to on any level he wishes advise any national leader he chooses, on or about nearly anything he’d like.)
We have been told that the “opponent” he wanted investigated is Joe Biden. (Never mind that Biden is not now, and will likely not be his political opponent, but rather a former candidate for President who’s never gotten more than 6 percent in any national election.)
Also... Biden is now running second in the first in the nation caucus state of Iowa.
We have had it told to us that the president was pressuring said country to investigate Hunter Biden’s connection to extremely prosperous dealing in said country. The president has implied that when Joe Biden had been vice president that he may have been able to press his thumb to the scale—using his official capacity in office—to enrich his son. (Never mind that the president has repeatedly told the White House press corps, the American people, and even leaders of other governments that “someone needed to look into that,” on multiple occasions as well.)
The only problem being... there is no whistleblower.
Per CNN: “The whistleblower didn't have direct knowledge of the communications, an official briefed on the matter told CNN.”
By definition this person is not a “whistleblower” with provable evidence ready to be turned over and deserving of legal protection.
This person is someone who is spreading hearsay.
All of the rest of it is just NOISE!
The reason the acting director of intelligence did not pass on the complaint to Congress is simple: the source is not credible.
None of this takes into reality the fact that even if Trump was to have done nearly every last detail of what the speculation on twitter claims he has done that he still would not have broken any significant rule or law.
None of this takes into account that he never withheld the $250 million in aid supposedly discussed at the end of July and delivered it in little more than 30 days.
And none of this takes into account the fact that then Vice President Joe Biden appears to have used his influence and position while on our payroll to help guide extremely lucrative business deals in China and Ukraine into his son Hunter’s direction. And that all of those transactions should probably be “looked into.”
There were many first hand witnesses to the alleged phone call where the (non) whistleblower was said to have derived their facts — albeit not first hand. No one is corroborating the (non) whistleblower’s narrative.
The scandal here—as it almost always is the case—points more to wrong doing being done by people who oppose the President.
But none of this should even receive one more second of consideration.
Because there is not now, nor was there ever, a whistleblower.