Editorial illustration
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has officially referred the whistleblower whose complaint triggered President Trump’s 2019 impeachment, along with former Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, for potential criminal prosecution. The move comes after Gabbard’s office released never-before-seen documents that she says expose a coordinated effort within the intelligence community to manufacture a conspiracy against the sitting president.
The declassified materials paint a troubling picture of how the impeachment machinery was constructed. According to the documents, Atkinson conducted what can only be described as a rushed and politically tainted preliminary investigation into Trump’s July 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Instead of following standard inspector general procedures, Atkinson reportedly relied on second-hand testimony from a whistleblower who admitted having no firsthand knowledge of the call, a co-author of the discredited 2017 Russia Hoax intelligence assessment, and two character references with zero direct knowledge of the events in question.
What makes this revelation particularly striking is the political pedigree of the key witness Atkinson chose to trust. This wasn’t some neutral career official offering objective analysis. According to the newly released documents, one of Atkinson’s primary sources was literally a co-author of the January 2017 intelligence assessment that helped launch years of Russia collusion conspiracy theories. The same witness admitted to working alongside disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok, the man whose text messages revealed blatant political bias against Trump during the 2016 election investigation. When your star witness has those kinds of credentials, reasonable people start asking whether this was an investigation or an opposition research operation.
The whistleblower himself doesn’t fare much better under scrutiny. The documents confirm what many suspected at the time: the complainant was a registered Democrat who had worked closely with then-Vice President Joe Biden on Ukraine matters. He traveled with Biden to Ukraine and participated in conversations where Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin’s corruption investigations were discussed. The same Shokin who Biden later bragged about getting fired. The whistleblower also admitted to investigators that he had spoken with Democratic staff on the House Intelligence Committee before filing his complaint, a detail he initially withheld from Atkinson’s team. Does that sound like a concerned nonpartisan civil servant blowing the whistle on genuine wrongdoing, or does it sound like someone running a political playbook?
Atkinson’s own testimony, which was kept locked in a safe by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff until just last month, reveals the extent of the corner-cutting. The inspector general never requested access to the actual transcript of Trump’s call with Zelensky, despite knowing it existed. He conducted no formal investigation to determine whether the alleged actions actually took place. Yet he still rushed to characterize the complaint as an “urgent concern” that Congress needed to see immediately. When the Department of Justice later reviewed the matter and concluded there was no campaign finance violation and no urgent concern, Atkinson ignored their determination and sent it to Congress anyway.
Democrats are predictably framing Gabbard’s referral as an attack on whistleblowers. Congressman Jim Himes called it a chilling move designed to prevent future whistleblowers from coming forward. But that argument only holds water if you believe the 2019 impeachment was conducted in good faith. If the whistleblower process was weaponized for political purposes, if an inspector general ignored procedures and statutory limits to advance a predetermined narrative, then what exactly is being chilled? The right to manufacture scandals based on gossip and partisan animus?
Gabbard has referred the matter to the Justice Department to determine what specific laws, if any, were broken. The referral includes all the declassified documents, witness interview notes, and Atkinson’s previously hidden testimony transcripts. Whether prosecutors choose to pursue charges remains to be seen. But the release of these documents accomplishes something important regardless: it shows the American people exactly how the sausage was made during that first impeachment. And what it reveals isn’t pretty.
About The Author
