Share This Article with a Friend!


Conservatives Unravel Deep State Coup Against Trump

Trump Tweet
The late Phyllis Schlafly called them “the kingmakers” in her groundbreaking conservative manifesto A Choice Not An Echo, we here are CHQ often refer to them as “the Wall Street – Washington – Silicon Valley Axis,” and our former Capitol Hill colleague Mike Lofgren has insightfully defined them as “the Deep State.

Whatever you call them, their power has been on full display this past week as an anti-constitutional and self-serving elite concentrated in the intelligence apparatus of our government has attacked Donald Trump mercilessly in a final battle to maintain and enhance its own power.

The weapon of mass destruction deployed by the Deep State in this battle is a scurrilous and completely unfounded “whistleblower” complaint purportedly showing that President Trump engaged in some sort of misconduct during a phone call with the President of Ukraine.

That the transcript of the call shows that none of the charges in the complaint are true or reflect accurate firsthand knowledge of the call did not deter House Democrats from immediately launching an “impeachment inquiry” concerning the President.

Now, conservatives inside and outside of government have begun to unravel the backstory of the latest Deep State coup against President Trump. The details they have developed reveal a breathtaking assault on the Constitution by a conspiracy of Democrats and Far Left operatives in the intelligence agencies, in Congress and in Soros-funded organizations.

As our friend Sean Davis of the Federalist detailed in this article, between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. This raises questions about the intelligence community’s behavior regarding the August submission of a whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no longer requires potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to Congress to have direct, first-hand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing that they are reporting.

The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until after the transcript of Trump’s July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates the first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only “heard about [wrongdoing] from others.”

A previous version of the whistleblower complaint document, which the ICIG and DNI until recently provided to potential whistleblowers, declared that any complaint must contain only first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing and that complaints that provide only hearsay, rumor, or gossip would be rejected.

Mr. Davis also documented that the anti-Trump complaint also made several false claims that have been directly refuted and debunked. While the complaint alleged that Trump demanded that Ukraine physically return multiple servers potentially related to ongoing investigations of foreign interference in the 2016 elections, the transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky shows that such a request was never made.

The complainant also falsely alleged that Trump told Zelensky that he should keep the current prosecutor general at the time, Yuriy Lutsenko, in his current position in the country. The transcript showed that exchange also did not happen.

Additionally, the complaint falsely alleged that T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, a U.S. State Department official, was a party to the phone call between Trump and Zelensky.

“I was told that a State Department official, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on the call,” the complaint alleged. Shortly after the complaint was released, CBS News reported that Brechbuhl was not on the phone call reported Mr. Davis.

As Air Force vet and principled limited government constitutional conservative Matt Beebe explained in a lengthy tweet thread, military planners euphemistically use the term “shaping the battlefield” as they engage in full spectrum operations to (hopefully) win without firing a shot. Misinformation campaigns, etc. are all part of this. But it takes careful preparation.

Let's see how it applies to the Ukraine “whistleblower” operation.

Someone on the Intelligence Community Inspector General/Director of National Intelligence (ICIG/DNI) staff revised the procedures to make it easier to process a complaint based on hearsay (the statute still doesn't permit it - but we'll come back to that). This was done in August of 2019. Right as the whistleblower's report was being vetted. Convenient, eh, observed Mr. Beebe.

INCREDIBLY, IT GETS WORSE says Mr. Beebe: on 23 September, just four days before Mr. Beebe’s post, and BEFORE the complaint was released, the Congressional Research Service made an extensive update to their publication on "Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protections"
Link here: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/R45345.pdf

The previous version of this publication was released on 13 Dec 18. Strange to make an extensive update when there has been ZERO legislative action to update the statute since then. The prior version is here: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/R45431.pdf

Mr. Beebe compared the two documents: INCREDIBLY, BEFORE THE REPORT WAS RELEASED, CRS saw fit to provide significant additional insight into what an "urgent concern" was under the statute. Neat that they're "Johnny On The Spot" with such a fast moving train, huh?

The prior version used the term "urgent concern" twice. The current version uses it 10 times. (term has been around since at least 1998 when the ICWPA was codified). BEFORE THE REPORT WAS RELEASED to Congress the CRS researcher thought this might need more explanation. Odd, says Mr. Beebe.

What else changed? They added multiple pages on the “means for addressing disagreements that may arise between the ICIG and the DNI,” that were authorized in the FY2010 IAA, but for “some reason” weren’t relevant to include in the CRS analysis before the middle of this month

And how did the "nonpartisan" CRS explain the statute to Congress and staff who wouldn't dive deeper to see if it was misleading them on the underlying statute? Glad you asked, wrote Mr. Beebe:

CRS cites chapter and verse from 50 U.S.C. §3033 in footnotes for the majority of their analysis. Except for 3 paragraphs when they discuss ICIG's *conditional* authority to report directly to Congress.

Let's take the first two because the sleight of hand is obvious: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EFfr-dyXkAEvDx1.jpg

Look carefully. The two bullets that are not footnoted in the above screen shot relate to those conditions. Indeed, the omission of the footnote is intentional to mislead.

Why do we know this? Look at 50 U.S.C. §3033(k)3(A)iii & iv : https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EFfr-2OWsAAjaEa.png

Now we must stick with Mr. Beebe’s analysis of 50 U.S.C. §3033(k)3(A)iii & iv.

The omission of "described in clause (ii)" is ESSENTIAL to understanding the game they're playing here. What type of person does "clause (ii)" describe? Precisely three categories of people -- none of which would include President Donald Trump. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EFfr_N7W4AEcSu8.png

Let that sink in. Congressional authority does NOT include the right to receive this type of whistleblower report. Period.

Is that good law? Arguable. But it IS THE LAW. CRS is intentionally misleading Congress and the public to facilitate this usurpation of authority.

That third paragraph without a footnote? It's a highly debatable editorial comment (passing off as statutory interpretation) to give Rep. Adam Schiff et al even more cover to mislead their fellow Congressmen and the American public: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EFfr_neWkAAr9zJ.png

What Matt Beebe finds odd is the timing and substance of the differences in the CRS documents facilitate a particular partisan narrative that the ICIG CAN forward a report to Congress about the President AND color it an “urgent concern” under the statute, when that statute in fact says NO SUCH THING.

Folks, says Matt Beebe, this is an attempted coup. The Executive branch is by no means perfect, but if the rule of law is to mean anything moving forward, we cannot allow the Legislative branch to usurp this authority and toss Constitutional checks and balances aside because "orange man bad."

Who is behind this coup?

As Michael F. Haverluck of One News Now reported, the Soros organization has been highlighted as being a major source of the allegations against the president.

“Even though the statement was written in first person – ‘multiple U.S. officials told me’ – it contains a footnote referencing a report by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP),” Breitbart’s Aaron Klein reported.

Soros’ involvement and influence in the matter was clear once financial records were examined reported Mr. Haverluck.

“Soros’ Open Society was listed as the No. 2 donor in most of the annual financial records posted on OCCRP’s website beginning in 2012,” WND reported.

It was discovered by Breitbart News that Soros’ organization was the number-one donor for numerous years.

In fact, the Soros-funded OCCRP is credited for being a major driving force behind the claim that Trump unscrupulously asked top Ukrainians to investigate Biden and his son.

“Multiple U.S. officials told me that Mr. Giuliani had reportedly privately reached out to a variety of other Zelensky advisers, including Chief of Staff Andriy Bohdan and Acting Chairman of the Security Service of Ukraine Ivan Bakanov,” the whistleblower claimed in a key section of his report.

And “OCCRP is cited in a key section of the complaint that claims Ukrainian officials followed up on Trump’s request for Ukraine to investigate allegations of corruption by then-Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, who was receiving $50,000 monthly from a natural gas company despite having no experience in the industry,” WND pointed out.

We will wrap this up with some analysis from our friend Fred Fleitz, president of the Center for Security Policy, who served as deputy assistant to President Trump and chief of staff of the National Security Council. He previously held national-security jobs with the CIA, the DIA, the Department of State, and the House Intelligence Committee staff:

I am troubled by the complaint and wonder how an intelligence officer could file it over something a president said to a foreign leader. How could this be an intelligence matter?

It appears likely to me that this so-called whistleblower was pursuing a political agenda.

I am very familiar with transcripts of presidential phone calls since I edited and processed dozens of them when I worked for the NSC. I also know a lot about intelligence whistleblowers from my time with the CIA.

My suspicions grew this morning when I saw the declassified whistleblowing complaint. It appears to be written by a law professor and includes legal references and detailed footnotes. It also has an unusual legalistic reference on how this complaint should be classified.

From my experience, such an extremely polished whistleblowing complaint is unheard of. This document looks as if this leaker had outside help, possibly from congressional members or staff.

Moreover, it looks like more than a coincidence that this complaint surfaced and was directed to the House Intelligence Committee just after Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), an outspoken opponent of President Trump, expressed numerous complaints in August 2019 accusing President Trump of abusing aid to Ukraine to hurt Joe Biden. This includes an August 28 tweet that closely resembled the whistleblowing complaint.

It looks like more than a coincidence, because, as Michael F. Haverluck of One News Now reported, the Soros organization is a major source of the allegations against the president; and, as Matt Beebe parsed out, the Democrats on the Congressional Research Serviced staff teed-up a biased report to facilitate the actions of Rep. Adam Schiff; and as Sean Davis explained, the Deep State operatives in the intelligence apparatus created the environment in which the phony “whistleblower” complaint based on secondhand information could be brought forward, just as President Trump was about to address the UN and the 2020 campaign season is heating up.

Share this