According to Sean Davis’ article, the snitch’s complaint (my word, not Sean’s) put together by the snitch’s legal team has some frightening similarities to the Steele Dossier. In Sean’s article, he highlights the fact that Steele’s dossier didn’t use people’s names:
Steele hadn’t gathered or witnessed any of this evidence first-hand. Rather, he relied on anonymous sources, many of them third-hand. “Source B asserted that the Trump operation was both supported and directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin,” Steele wrote. “Source A confided that the Kremlin had been feeding Trump and his team valuable intelligence on his opponents,” including Hillary Clinton, Steele claimed.
Let’s compare this with the snitch’s complaint:
“I was told that a State Department official” did this or that. “I heard from multiple US officials” that such and such. “Officials have informed me. …” And so on. Much like Steele, the Ukraine informant lacked first-hand access to evidence he claimed proved Trump’s guilt. It must have been hard to blow an accurate whistle when the whistleblower wasn’t even in the same room.
Why are we protecting a snitch that doesn’t rely on their own observations? That isn’t a whistleblower. That’s a Page 6 wannabe. House Republicans should create a firestorm that highlights the similarities between Steele’s discredited dossier and this snitch’s questionable second-hand allegations. This should be raised as a point of order or point of parliamentary procedure or some such thing. The point should be highlighted that the allegation-maker doesn’t have first-hand information for the committee. Though the Agenda Media, aka the MSM, won’t run it, real journalists like Katie Pavlich, Ed Morrissey, Guy Benson, etc. will push this story out to their readers, where it will gain a life of its own.
The snitch’s story is amplified through a compliant media that accepts everything as Gospel fact:
The questionable use of media sources to buttress hearsay claims is also consistent across both documents. After Steele compiled his dossier, he peddled the allegations to numerous reporters, who then dutifully reported them as fact. The Obama administration then cited those articles, which were sourced directly to Steele and his dossier, as proof of the validity of the allegations. One article was given to a federal intelligence court to justify wiretaps on a Trump campaign affiliate. The information it alleged was false.
Likewise, the Ukraine whistleblower repeatedly cited articles from The New York Times, Politico and even a report from former Clinton flack-turned-ABC-newsman George Stephanopoulos as evidence of the alleged conspiracy. It isn’t known whether he or his sources provided information used in any of the cited articles.
If I didn’t know better, I’d swear that the same people who tried to sabotage President Trump with Russiagate are attempting to impeach President Trump with Snitchgate. The tactics are the same. In both cases, the names have been either withheld or made up to protect the snitch.
I just finished reading the transcript of President Trump’s phone call with President Zelenskiy. There’s no question that President Trump brought up Biden’s son late in the conversation. I still don’t see the quid pro quo, though. The fact that it wasn’t one of the first things they spoke about speaks to President Trump’s priorities.
The other thing that’s noteworthy is what wasn’t said. At no point did President Trump use US military aid as a tool to insure Ukraine’s investigation of Hunter Biden. It simply isn’t there, not even in a dog whistle.
Republicans should highlight that fact frequently. If Republicans take out that leg of the Democrats’ impeachment stool, Democrats will be screwed for 2020. Democrats haven’t passed anything that’s improved the economy, fought the opioid epidemic, fixed our immigration and asylum laws or helped eliminate MS-13 here in the United States. Without question, Democrats have morphed into the Impeachment Party.