Second verse, same as the worst: Random Political Thoughts

The source for this is a recent Bloomberg article using a single source that happens to be the political rival of the removed prosecutor. And, in that, the source was cagey and said that the investigation was shelved from 2014 thorugh 2015. The Biden action happened at the end of 2016. On Feb 2, 2016, Shokin (the prosecuter Biden had fired) seized assets of Bursima (the company employing Biden's son) under anti-corruption statues. So, this story is, at best, a half-truth that obscures that there was current legal action against Bursima at the time of Biden's ultimatum.

Sadly, a huge amount of the reporting on this story is single source and turns out to be innaccurate. The story about the ADNI threatening resignation -- false, etc. etc.


This is another of those single source stories. The source here was cited as an advisor for the Ukrainian President. Turns out he was let go and distanced by the adminstration months before the call took place, so there's strong questions about the veracity of this claim. Again, the only source for this news is from an ex-advisor fired months before the call. There's even a correction on the ABC story.

Add to this that another journalist, who's beat is in the Ukraine, has contacted the source and the source denied telling ABC that Biden was a condition at all, or that he even could tell ABC anything about the call. Of course, take this with a grain of salt, as it's also a single sourced report from the same source.

So, yeah, given other reporting around this, this report, already corrected in a way that casts strong doubt on the source by the initial report, I'm very skeptical this is true.



The aid was released without condition after the call. I think that looking a circumstantial evidence for a quid pro quo when there are many, many legitimate reasons for the action that don't even get near the question is a bad look. Unless you can tie that stoppage as a quid, which is further hard to do because Zelensky didn't even know that the aid had been delayed, nor was such delay related in any way as part of the call, I don't think this holds water. It might, but a lot of things need to happen before it does.

And, surely, if there are senior White House officials willing to discuss the contents of the call with the whistleblower, then there's plenty of sources to reveal actual evidence about the stoppage?


So, yes and no. The transcript was moved to a classified network, but there's no allegation of code-word classification. The report also states that the whistleblower, who didn't have access to any system that such transcripts are located on, either assumed or took the word of his sources that there was no national security reasons to do so. This is carefully worded to appear bad while completely eliding that diplomatic correspondance is often classified at the Secret level, even absent specific national security discussions. This is something the State Dept does all the time. Also, I don't see how a personal discussion between the President of the US and the leader of a foreign country doesn't count as a national security issue, but, hey, I may be weird on that one. Public discussions, sure, not classified, but private ones? The fact that the Ukrainian President requested specific additional weapon systems in specific numbers alone would, from my experience, merit classification. But, I'm just a guy on the internet, so, by all means, form your own opinions. Be careful that you're not being lead by the the nose using leading language, though.

I think the whistleblower likely acted with personal integrity, here. They heard some things from friends and collegues that disturbed them, so they reported it. Sounds good, even if they did hate Trump, if what they wrote was what they knew, it seems legit. I'd rather such things get reported. However, the person was reporting something they thought might be wrong, and did so in ways to highlight what they thought was wrong -- based on second or third hand knowledge. They're also a seasoned IC professional who knows how to write a report in a way to suggest an outcome (because, largely, that's the job). Be careful about using a layman's understaning while reading something prepared by a professional -- some words or phrases that are damning to a layman aren't to a professional in that space because they sound bad but are actually quite routine.

There's also an interesting wrinkle that the ICIG whistleblower reporting form was apparently updated to allow 2nd hand reporting (from the previous requirement of direct knowledge) in early Aug between the resignation of the previous ADNI and the appointment of the current ADNI. I'm curious to see what that's all about -- it seems weird that the ICIG would reduce the level of reporting necessary but also not change the adjudication process (which remained the same). The timing is likley just coincidence, though. Still, would like to see the thinking on the change.

And, all of that said, my problem with Trump on this isn't about the call, which is, at best, a little tone-deaf, but really, as with most things Trumpian, about some of his responses. He went out recently and said that the people that told the whistleblower things should be treated as spies in the old-ways (clearly meaning taken out and shot, colloquially speaking). That's bad-wrong. Whatever you make of the Rorschach blot* of the transcript, Trump's response to the situation is his usual temper-tantrum.

*And Trump, himself, is pretty much a Rorschach blot. Those how hate him see demons in his every shadow, those who love him see angels, and those vanishing few who do neither see a butterfly. I often see clowns.