John Ratcliffe is quickly becoming one of my favorite Republicans because he’s skilled at cutting through the Democrats’ subterfuge. I just watched Rep. Ratcliffe demolish the Democrats’ impeachment charade. While questioning Acting Secretary McGuire, Rep. Ratcliffe highlighted the fact that the so-called whistleblower didn’t have firsthand knowledge of the phone call between President Trump and President Zelenskiy of Ukraine. Further, Ratcliffe pointed out that the whistleblower got his/her information from media articles. That caused Ratcliffe to say that this was “Russia 2.0”.

The transcript was made public yesterday. The whistleblower’s complaint was made public (with redactions) this morning. Ratcliffe highlighted the fact that the Democrats preferred the information from a document whose information was, at best, secondhand and perhaps thirdhand over the transcription of the actual phone call.

It’s worth noting that this tells me that the whistleblower will get crucified if that person testifies to Congress. If the whistleblower doesn’t have firsthand knowledge of President Trump’s phone call, why should that be considered credible? Ratcliffe highlighted that the whistleblower’s worries came from articles in Politico, NYTimes, Washington Post and other media outlets.

As bad as some of those articles might’ve been in terms of accuracy, they pale in comparison with Chairman Schiff’s opening statement:

Chairman Schiff rearranged some paragraphs from the transcript to make it sound nefarious. Apparently, it didn’t dawn on Chairman Schiff that reading things in the order they were written is required to understand what the people intended to convey. Shortly thereafter, Ranking Member Nunes delivered his opening statement. Notice how he mocks Chairman Schiff:

The whistleblower’s complaint contains some things that destroy the Democrats’ credibility. For instance, it says “In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple Government officials that President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign government in the 2020 U.S. election.” In other words, it’s entirely possible that this whistleblower might’ve gotten their information from deep state operatives who hate President Trump. That isn’t a verified statement but it’s entirely possible.

Earlier, I mentioned John Ratcliffe’s questioning of Secretary McGuire. Now, I have the videotape of his questioning. Right at the opening of Rep. Ratcliffe’s questioning, Rep. Ratcliffe starts with something very disturbing:

That’s pretty stunning. The whistleblower first accuses Rudy Giuliani of conspiring with Bill Barr to rig the 2020 election. Later, in a footnote, the whistleblower admits that they aren’t certain to what extent either Giuliani or Barr was ever involved. That’s kind of a big point to be uncertain about if you’re interested in journalistic integrity. If you’re just worried about impeaching President Trump regardless of whether the evidence supports it, which appears to be the Democrats’ goal, then it isn’t that important.

Final prediction: Apolitical people will side with Republicans on this issue. Hyper-partisans will side with Democrats. Since there are more people whose lives don’t revolve around politics, it’s likely that this issue favors Republicans politically.

3 Responses to “The whistleblower vs. the transcript”

  • Chad Q says:

    In another 2 weeks this will blow over and the next “Trump colluded with X” democrat farce will begin. These people have nothing, well other than Schiff who had the whistleblowers info for well over a month and sat on it only to watch it blow up in his face today. What a bunch of sore losers.

  • eric z says:

    Perhaps from the start, Never Trump might have been the best idea, but we are where we are, and how the Republican howl would have been had it been during Obama years, Obama asking Israel to dig dirt on Romney, that election? The bleating would have never stopped. Mitch would have expressed blind rage. But now? What I believe I am seeing is a double standard, and it is worrisome when blinders are put on party-wide, by Republicans who should know better. It is somewhat unseemly, what now is dismissed as inconsequential. Paying off bimbos, grab women by genitalia, all that stuff and then unprincipled communication with a foreign nation’s newly elected head of state – this represents Republican good judgment? Surely not, so examine the facts.

  • Gary Gross says:

    I’ve read the Trump-Zelensky transcript. Trump’s ‘bombshell’ favor was to ask Ukraine for help in tracking down election interference.

Leave a Reply