Fake Newsers Jump the Shark on Trump-Again!

Ukrainian whistle-blower hoax exposed by official transcript release of Trump-Zelenskyy convo. Read it here.

The lying fake-news legacy media does it again. 

Washington, D.C. —- The D.C. media feeding frenzy provided the catalyst for a ridiculous impromptu press conference by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called for impeachment hearings on Monday, out of fear of more primary knock-offs from the ultra-leftist “Squad” wing of her caucus.  In the meantime, high profile House Democrats just buried themselves in 2020.

Sucked down the social justice warrior rabbit hole, self-proclaimed moderate Reps. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA/7) and Rep. Elaine Luria (D-VA/2) drank the equivalent of Jim Jones political suicide Kool-Aid by signing on to a Washington Post Op-Ed calling for an impeachment inquiry into President Trump over his alleged quid-pro-quo with a foreign leader.

So much for independent thinking. Both freshman legislators publicly endorsed an impeachment inquiry based on rumor and phony news reporting.

Problem is, it turned out to be false. Again. In fact, its Quid-Pro-Joe.

Spanberger and Luria represent districts Trump carried in 2016.


The entire hair on fire episode commenced with a bogus story from a Washington whistle-blower who heard about a conversation President Trump supposedly had with newly-elected President Zelenskyy of Ukraine.

As it turns out, the whistle-blower had no first-hand knowledge of the classified discussion. In fact, he or she only heard about it third-hand from what could have been mere lunchroom gossip and innuendo.

The fake-news purveyors in D.C. – many of whom are ideologically driven opinion activists masquerading as journalists – took another massive credibility hit in rushing to craft a false narrative they didn’t feel was necessary to verify.

It was full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes. Who needs pesky supportive facts when they could smear Trump with another fictitious outrage rush to judgment?

The counterfeit news-fakers have lurched from phony collusion to false Kavanaugh accusations, to a make-believe recession, to unfounded charges of racism, to the now-debunked Ukrainian fairy-tale. All in a matter of months. What’s next?

The American legacy news media is in a credibility free fall of epic proportions. Who believes them?

Let’s take a crack at real reporting: Press reports have given currency to flat-out falsehoods about the phone call.

The now released call transcript clearly shows there was no quid pro quo or anything else inappropriate about the conversation between President Trump and President Zelenskyy.

Fake News Myth 1: The President made a mysterious “promise” to Zelenskyy in return for Ukraine reopening an investigation related to Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.

  • There was no such promise. The President wanted allegations of corruption, potentially involving an American official, to be investigated.

Fake News Myth 2: The President offered a “quid pro quo” related to military aid for Ukraine.

  •  There was no quid pro quo; in fact, there is no mention of the aid package to Ukraine at all.

Fake News Myth 3: The President urged President Zelenskyy to work with Rudy Giuliani to investigate Biden’s involvement in the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor eight times.

  • The President mentioned Rudy Giuliani only after Zelenskyy mentioned him first and referred to Biden in only one exchange.

In fact, what the President actually talked about was entirely proper.
President Trump asked President Zelenskyy to investigate any connection between Ukraine and attempts to interfere with the 2016 election, something he has publicly discussed in the past.

It is entirely appropriate for the President to ask a foreign leader to investigate any connection between his country and attempted interference in the 2016 election.

President Trump did not mention Rudy Giuliani or Vice President Biden until after President Zelenskyy brought up Giuliani’s name first. Only then did the President ask Zelenskyy to speak to Giuliani regarding corruption issues, and Vice President Biden’s role in the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor.

The prosecutor had been investigating a Ukrainian bankrolled oil and gas company that had Biden’s son on its board of directors at a fee of $50,000 U.S. per month, for a total payout of $3.5 million. Hunter Biden had no experience in energy policy, had never been to Ukraine or the region, and had no knowledge of its competitors or business operations.

  • When a high-ranking U.S. government official, like then Vice-President Biden, brags on tape that he used his official position to derail an investigation in another country that could have impacted his son, it is appropriate for the President to suggest that the matter be looked into and investigated. Biden said he would hold up $1.1 billion in U.S. guaranteed loans until the prosecutor was fired and he had only “six hours before my plane leaves.”

The real scandal here is that leaks about a second-hand account of the President’s confidential telephone call with a foreign leader triggered a media three-ring circus of false accusations against Trump and forced the President to release the full five-page transcript.

Let’s be clear, there was no quid pro quo for Ukraine to get U.S. aid in exchange for looking into Biden or his son.

Assistance to Ukraine was mentioned by President Trump only to stress how much the United States is doing and how other countries, like Germany, need to do their fair share. The fake news took this out of context, as usual.

In context, the President has said repeatedly that he wants other countries to be pitching in more to help Ukraine — and President Zelenskyy agreed with him.


After Secretary of State Mike Pompeo talked with the government of Ukraine, the President decided to release the transcript of his telephone conversation to end the wild speculation and to set the record straight.

Trump has said he believes his private conversations with world leaders should be kept confidential and says he made this exception in the interest of transparency because of the amount of misinformation being spread in the legacy press.


The idea that someone can hear a second-hand account of a confidential conversation and use it in a complaint to start a partisan investigation fundamentally undermines the office of President.

This complaint was handled absolutely by the book and it was properly determined that no further action should be taken.

After receiving the complaint from the ICIG (Inspector General of the Intelligence Community) the DNI (Director of National intelligence) appropriately consulted with the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the Department of Justice.

OLC determined that this complaint did not fall within the scope of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, and, therefore, that the DNI was not required to send the complaint to the intelligence committees.

The DNI did not forward the complaint because it implicated significant, constitutionally based Executive Branch confidentiality interests, and there was no applicable statutory requirement.

While the DNI determined that the complaint should not be sent to Congress, that did not end the review of the complaint. To the contrary, the complaint was given to DOJ for appropriate review.

DOJ officials reviewed the complaint in light of the legal issues identified by the ICIG in his cover letter to the DNI and determined that no further action was warranted.

Tragically, this case just shows another example of the “Deep State,” the concocted media, and Democrats in Congress damaging our national security by leaking confidential information in an attempt to seek political gain.