Trump impeachment, CIA and House Democrats

OPINION:

After the two-year marathon of the Mueller investigation into allegations that President Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election, the breakneck speed with which Reps. Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have launched into a formal impeachment investigation over a Trump phone call with the new president of Ukraine has stunned even the most seasoned Washington observers.

Why was there such urgency to begin an impeachment inquiry even before seeing the actual whistleblower complaint, before knowing who the whistleblower got his or her second hand information from and before seeing the transcript of the White House phone call? Why was House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff insisting the president was hiding his communication even as Trump was declassifying and making available a completely un-redacted copy of the phone call transcript?

Is it possible Chairman Schiff, California Democrat, has been playing a lead role in choreographing the entire Ukraine chapter in yet another attempt to oust President Trump? It was Mr. Schiff, you may recall, who appeared dozens of times on television news programs proclaiming that he had seen “mountains of evidence” of Mr. Trump’s guilt in the Russia affair. As then-ranking member on House Intelligence, many would assume he had access to information that hadn’t been made public. Ultimately Robert Mueller would contradict Mr. Schiff with a 448 page report that found no evidence of Trump working with the Russians.

Though it has only been 10 days since the Ukraine related accusations surfaced publicly, a look back at Representative Schiff’s twitter account finds that the House Intel Chair was using his position to try and troll Trump on the issue nearly a month earlier. In an August 28 tweet Schiff shared the following:

Adam Schiff✔@RepAdamSchiff

Mr. Trump is withholding vital military aid to Ukraine, while his personal lawyer seeks help from the Ukraine government to investigate his political opponent.
It doesn’t take a stable genius to see the magnitude of this conflict.
Or how destructive it is to our national security.

At the time of Mr. Schiff’s tweet, the whistleblower’s complaint was still considered classified. Was Mr. Schiff trying to use information that came to him in his official Intelligence Committee Chairman capacity for political gain? Could this explain the urgency with which the House is moving forward on impeachment before having any specifics on the allegations?

There is one person who could help us sort much of this out. That person is the whistleblower, who conveniently enough for the Democrats, remains anonymous during the process. It has been reported the whistleblower is a CIA employee who was detailed to the White House for a period of time. Will Congress speak to the accuser, even if it is behind closed doors? There are surely hundreds of questions that could be asked, but I’ve boiled it down to ten very telling questions.

1. You did not have first-hand knowledge of the phone call between President Trump and the Ukraine President, but were told of it by others. If they did not think it warranted a formal complaint, what compelled you to do so?

2. Who were the individuals who shared their concerns with you and why were they sharing classified information?

3. What were your first steps once you decided to file a complaint?

4. You are reported to have worked at the CIA, but were assigned to the White House in some capacity for a period of time. Who asked you to go to work at the White House and why? Why did you subsequently leave the White House and what type work are you currently engaged in at the CIA?

5. What is your relationship with former CIA Director John Brennan? Did you communicate with him about information related to your complaint?

6. How and when did you decide what attorney to use in this matter? Who introduced you to your attorney? Your attorney is a former CIA officer. Did you know him from the CIA? What was your attorney’s relationship with former CIA Director John Brennan? Did he communicate with him about information related to your complaint?

7. Who is paying for your attorney?

8. Who assisted you in drafting the complaint?

9. Did you, your attorney or anyone associated with you in any way communicate with Chairman Adam Schiff or any other elected official and/or their staff before/during or after filing the complaint?

10. The president of Ukraine has said clearly he felt no pressure whatsoever from President Trump. Why should we believe your second hand interpretation of the conversation over that of the two principles actually on the phone call?

Those ten simple questions have the potential to illuminate the real origins and intentions of this complaint.

Is it coincidence that Intel Chairman Schiff and former CIA Chief Brennan both trumpeted “evidence” of Mr. Trump’s connection to Russia (only to have Mueller’s report demonstrate no such evidence existed) and a CIA operative was assigned to work at the White House long enough to file a complaint against President Trump through an anonymous process? Is it coincidence that a former CIA Officer is the attorney working this case for the whistleblower? Is it a coincidence that said attorney, Andrew Bakaj, left the CIA and offers his time and talents to a place aptly named “Whistleblower Aid?”

I’m no conspiracy theorist, but does it raise a red flag to anyone besides me that a former CIA director and the current House Intel Chair, who works regularly with the CIA, both have actively made claims of evidence against the president of the United States that proved to be untrue and now that same House Intel Chair, along with a CIA operative who had been temporarily assigned to the White House are making claims against that same president? The fact the lead attorney in the case was also a CIA Officer adds that much more intrigue.

Rush to judgment is something we’re told to avoid even as children. Beware a congressional rush to judgment of the president of the United States, utilizing intelligence officials with disdain for that same president as their primary tool, peppered with second-hand information assembled and presented by a team of CIA operatives. There is nothing more serious in American politics than an attempt to remove a duly-elected president from office by means other than the ballot box. If there is even a whiff that some or all of this complaint has been choreographed, not only must the president remain, but those who have put together the charade must be tried for treason.