Why are we calling Ukraine story leaker a whistleblower?

President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, before boarding Marine One helicopter, Wednesday, April 10, 2019. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

The question begs to be asked: Why is the person who came forward with a story about President Trump and a telephone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky still being referred to as a whistleblower?

Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, Michael Atkinson, is a Trump appointee. Allegedly he found a reason to go forward with a complaint lodged against President Trump stemming from a conversation with Zelensky in July. The anonymous “whistleblower,” as it turns out, is not, in fact, a whistleblower. The complainant is essentially a gossipmonger. The person admits no direct knowledge of the conversation. Doesn’t that seem to be an important fact in this whole story?

The whistleblower didn’t have direct knowledge of the communications, an official briefed on the matter told CNN. Instead, the whistleblower’s concerns came in part from learning information that was not obtained during the course of their work, and those details have played a role in the administration’s determination that the complaint didn’t fit the reporting requirements under the intelligence whistleblower law, the official said.

This anonymous person has no direct knowledge of the call and his/her “concerns” come from information that was not “obtained during the course of their work”. Thus, this person doesn’t fit the title of a whistleblower. Yet, that is still the narrative in the media. There is no whistleblower, there is only a leaker with an agenda to push. This story stinks to high heaven.

White House and the Justice Department, according to reports, are rightfully advising the director of national intelligence that the complaint isn’t covered by the laws applying to intelligence whistleblowers. So far, the acting Director of National Intelligence, Joseph Maguire, has not agreed to cooperate in releasing a transcript of the president’s conversation. Maguire will testify before the House Intelligence Committee Thursday behind closed doors.

President Trump looks to be well within his rights to have been speaking honestly to the new Ukrainian leader about corruption in Ukraine. The concern is over whether or not Trump threatened Zelensky with withholding military aid as he allegedly demanded Zelensky clean up the corruption. The $250 million has been released to Ukraine.

“It was entirely reasonable that the United States spent a couple of months getting to know him and his administration,” Lankford said, adding that he had recently visited Kyiv for the same purpose. “I think we should have moved faster, but there was due diligence, and the administration has been active in trying to get lethal aid to the Ukrainians in the past.”

Speaking at a Defense Writers Group event Thursday, R. Clarke Cooper, assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, announced that Congress was notified late Wednesday that $141.5 million in funding was available to Ukraine. That money covers sniper rifles, grenade launchers and other items.

Why is it considered unusual for President Trump and his administration to go slow with delivering substantial military aid to Ukraine when Zelensky had only recently come into power and his allegiance to the United States was uncertain? That sounds like due diligence. But, this is 2019 and the Mueller Report blew up in the faces of Democrats frothing at the mouth for the impeachment of President Trump, so this telephone call conveniently emerged as the next best thing.

Connect the dots. President Trump spoke with Zelensky the day after Mueller testified to Congress. This “whistleblower” can very likely turn out to be another Trump deranged swamp creature who is disappointed that the results of the last election are still being honored and Trump is still the president. This kind of stunt, masquerading as a patriotic whistleblowing action, may backfire just like the other attempts to bring about impeachment have so far.

The president is entitled to speak with foreign leaders however he deems appropriate. If Trump felt that Zelensky needed to be pushed to do the right thing and clean up corruption in his country, then so be it. Trump’s motivation looks to be protecting taxpayer money, the military aid to Ukraine, not some kind of collusion to gain support in the 2020 election. Didn’t the Democrats learn anything from their humiliation after running with Hillary Clinton’s campaign’s phony Russian collusion story against Trump? Apparently not.

Let them proceed. Trump should not release the phone transcript to the public. Why would any world leader speak candidly to him in future phone conversations if he does so? This is the latest attempt from Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff to satisfy the far left to continue on with attempts to impeach Trump.

This Ukraine story and the Bidens is only beginning. There will also now be some checking into the China connection with the younger Biden while his father was vice-president. Biden’s son was a lobbyist, not an energy expert and the big-money contracts are highly suspect. It’s all very swampy and good old Joe is right in the middle. There are many layers to this story. Most importantly, Ukraine’s foreign minister has already come out and denied any pressure from President Trump on that phone call.

This story all began with tantalizing headlines. This time we have him. Democrats are falling for yet another trap and I’m here for it.