Paul Craig Roberts<\/p>\n
This has come to me from a knowledgeable source:<\/p>\n
Paul Craig Roberts 1\u2014-The statute allowing such complaints is 50 USC sec. 3033. Read it for yourself.<\/p>\n
a\u2013The statute requires the complaint to involve \u201cintelligence activity\u201d.\u00a0 The \u201cintelligence activity whistle blower complaint\u201d we have been talking about has nothing to do with \u201cintelligence activity\u201d as legally required by the statute.\u00a0 Since this complaint was filed, accepted and treated as legitimate, was the drafting, filing, and handling of this particular \u201cintelligence activity whistle blower complaint\u201d a political act rather than whistle blowing?<\/p>\n
b\u2013Under the statute the whistle blowing must concern either a person or activity that is under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. One cannot use this statute to whistle blow to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, a subordinate official of the DNI, on anything that the DNI has no authority over. \u00a0In other words, nothing in the statute \u00a0allows an \u201cintelligence activity whistleblower\u201d complaint to be made concerning the president or his phone calls. Such matters are not supervised by the DNI and are outside the jurisdiction of this statute.\u00a0 The acceptance of this complaint by the IG was improper under the clear language of the statute.\u00a0 The same would be true about complaints regarding other government activities under the authority of other government agencies or branches.<\/p>\n
Conclusion? If the complaint was improper under the statute, it was improperly filed, improperly accepted, and the filer was not even a whistleblower as defined in the statute.\u00a0 How and why did this happen?\u00a0 Who drafted the complaint? Surely not the \u201cwhistleblower\u201d alone. \u00a0 Did members of the national security establishment and\/or members of Congress assist?\u00a0 If this can be shown, then shouldn\u2019t this be considered a political complaint \u00a0drafted to support impeachment proceedings and to divert our attention from upcoming events.\u00a0 If demonstrated to be true, this will be seen by many Americans as an attempted coup against a president elected under the procedures outlined in our the constitution. \u00a0 Forget Trump\u2014this is about the unity of our country and our democracy\u2014or what\u2019s left of it. The demand that Trump be impeached is so intense within the Democratic Party that even early doubters like Tulsi Gabbard have been forced to toe the line.\u00a0 Fasten your seat belts, I suspect this will get very nasty.<\/p>\n
2\u2014There is a Clinton era treaty with Ukraine signed in 2000 I did not know existed which seems to authorize the very conversation Trump was having with the President of Ukraine.\u00a0Here is the treaty language:<\/p>\n
Article 1 that \u201c[t]he Contracting States shall provide mutual assistance, in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, in connection with the investigation, prosecution, and prevention of offenses, and in proceedings related to criminal matters.\u201d<\/p>\n
3\u2014This has harmed the standing of Zelensky.\u00a0 When this became public, Zelensky was involved in intense negotiations with Russia in hopes of ending the war in the Donbass and improving Ukrainian\/Russian relations.\u00a0 Was part of the motivation for the filing this complaint effort to derail those negotiations? In other words, was the filing of this complaint triggered more by fears on the part of the US deep state that Zelensky\u2019s may actually make peace with Russian rather than constitutional concerns or fear of cutting military aid to Ukraine?\u00a0 In other words, was the CIA\/MIC afraid that peace might break out? BTW\u2014as another e-mail will show, this entire debacle has been politically damaging to Zelensky.\u00a0 This is yet another serious consequence.<\/p>\n