Was the Whistleblower’s information actually provided by a Ukrainian official?

When the dust settles on this impeachment process Adam Schiff will only have himself to blame. An honest man’s testimony may have just killed him. He just doesn’t know it yet.

Schiff will, if he is honest with himself, come to reflect that it was he alone that made the  the critical mistake that allowed the truth to come out. He leaned too hard on a largely insignificant and helpful witness for information.

What he didn’t realise is that Phillip Reeker, Acting Assistant Secretary of State responsible for European Affairs has a key piece of evidence in the form of an e-mail.

It’s entirely plausible that Phillip Reeker didn’t fully comprehend the significance of the testimony he had just given to Adam Schiff  on October 26th 2019. The testimony is pretty damning for one former Ambassador. One former Ambassador of Ukraine. Marie Yovanovitch or John Hurbst?.

I am publishing the two key pages of over 240 pages of Mr Reeker’s evidence. I would encourage everyone to read it.

WB1.PNG

WB2.PNG

 

So on July 29th, 4 days after the infamous Trump and Zelensky call, George Kent, currently Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs sent an e-mail to Mr Reeker and Bill Taylor, current acting ambassador to the Ukraine. In it, he points to the fact that a former Ambassador to Ukraine, who is now in the Think Tank world , told him that they had information that the President was pushing for an investigation into the Biden’s on the call.

I do not think it is too much of a jump to narrow down who the person in question is to one of two people based on Reeker’s testimony.

Marie Yovanovich or John Hurbst.

She is a recent, former Ambassador to Ukraine AND currently working in the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy. Hurbst was a former Ukrainian ambassador tand is currently a director for the Eurasia centre of the Atlantic Council.

thinktank1.PNG

The inference, from the testimony,  is very much that the information pertaining to the the call details came from the Ukrainian side of the call. Remember too it was the Democrats that were driving this inference in the transcript above.

Schiff actually mentions it.

Now at this juncture timelines are hugely important. so let’s recap.

July 25th – President Zelensky and President Trump call

July 29th – George Kent e-mails Reeker and Taylor indicating that he has solid information from a former Ambassador that investigations into the Bidens were discussed and pushed for on the call to Zelensky

August 12th – The whistleblower complaint was filed

September 25th The whistleblower complaint becomes public

 

Where did the ‘ former Ukrainian ambassador’  get the information from?

Whoever it may have been wasn’t on the call. By July 29th, neither would have been anywhere remotely INVOLVED with people that were on that call. Yet within a couple of days of July 25th this person was able to furnish Kent with specific, alleged details from the Presidential call. Kent, an individual who should have been a lot closer to the facts and details of what was said, seemingly wasn’t.

How likely is it that the source of the Former Ambassador’s  information and the source of the Whistle-blower’s information is different?

The same erroneous information from two, separate, independent sources with access to  people on the call?

How likely is that?

The Republicans present at the closed door deposition to the intelligence committee knew this testimony on October 26th, why the hell didn’t the relevant members push Yovanovitch and Kent on the details of this Kent e-mail to Reeker?

It would have eliminated Yovanovitch as the source of the material in Kent’s e-mail. Kent could have told us himself who the person providing the information to him was.

Indeed details of any other communication about who this individual was providing that information.

Lest we forget, let’s recall what the Whistle-blower outlined in his memo as per the reporting of CBS from October 9th. None of this turned out, subsequently, to be remotely accurate. The President as we know released his phone transcripts of the ACTUAL call after the whistle blower complaint was made public.

As described to CBS News website on October 9th

  • The President asserted that “it all started in Ukraine,” referring to the allegations of foreign interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the subsequent investigation into the Trump campaign’s contact with Russian individuals
  • The President asked Zelenskyy to locate the “Crowdstrike server” and turn it over to the United States, claiming that Crowdstrike is “a Ukrainian company,” (Note: This appears to be a reference to the DNC server from which Russian hackers stole data and emails that were subsequently leaked in mid-2016; the DNC hired cyber security firm Crowdstrike to do the forensic analysis, which informed the FBI’s investigation. It is not clear what the president was referring to when he claimed Crowdstrike is a Ukrainian company; one of its cofounders was born in Moscow.)
  • The President told Zelenskyy that he would be sending his personal lawyer, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, to Ukraine soon and requested that Zelenskyy meet with him. Zelenskyy reluctantly agreed that, if Giuliani traveled to Ukraine, he would see him.
  • The President raised the case of Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden’s role in the company, and former Vice President Biden’s role in setting Ukraine policy. The President urged Zelenskyy to [end page 1] investigate the Bidens and stated that Giuliani would discuss this topic further with Zelenskyy during his trip to Kyiv. The President urged Zelenskyy not to fire Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko, who the President claimed was doing a good job. (Note: Lutsenko has spearheaded various politicized investigations, including on Burisma Holdings and alleged “Ukrainian interference” in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Lutsenko is widely reviled in Ukraine, and Zelenskyy has pledged to fire him but has been unable to secure approval from the legislature.)

 

The irony for Adam Schiff is that Mr Reeker brought a 3-4 inch binder of e-mails and other documents to his deposition to help speed up the process  and accuracy of providing his testimony to the inquiry. He marked some pages with Yellow post-its so that he could quickly get times and dates of the events he may be asked to outline in his deposition.

Earlier in the day there was sharp disagreement between the Republican side,  Mr Reeker’s lawyer and the Chairman Adam Schiff regarding this binder of e-mails. Mr Schiff was trying to encourage the witness to read verbatim from as many e-mails as he could without asking any specific questions.

There was aggravated protest from the Republicans and Mr Reeker’s lawyer about Schiff employing this tactic. Basically, the Republicans argued he was fishing for information from Mr Reeker’s e-mail folder without being able to specifically ask a relevant question that would give reason for Mr Reeker to refer to the information in his folder.

It has back-fired spectacularly.

Mr Reeker wasn’t called to give Public testimony and his written testimony wasn’t released until AFTER Kent and Yovanovitch had PUBLICLY given their testimony. This raises more questions as to whether this was done by accident or design by Schiff.

Is the information that the whistle-blower used to file his complaint against the President of the United States and by extension launch the current impeachment process based on erroneous information that came from the Ukrainian side of the call?

Who provided this ‘ Former Ambassador’ with their information from the Presidential call?

Who provided the whistle-blower with their information from the Presidential call?

Was that person a Ukrainian official?

It raises the frightful prospect if proven true.

Has Ukrainian interference almost toppled a President?

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: