Impeach him before he even takes office. Or for firing Comey. Or for Russia collusion. Or for the emoluments clause. Or for him for being 25th Amendment-style crazy. We can impeach him over his tax returns, or Stormy Daniels. Or let’s impeach Brett Kavanaugh – remember that one from last week?

And now, let’s impeach Trump over a pleasant phone call with a friendly foreign leader, which included, among several other topics, an inquiry about the widely reported corruption of the last vice president who now wants to be president.

But as the latest in this never-ending parade of impeachment hysterics ginned up by the Democrats dominates the national conversation, the narrative of a brave whistleblower standing athwart a corrupt president and yelling “stop!” has begun to crumble under the weight of close examination.

Since the anonymous deep state complainant launched the desired firestorm, we have discovered a laundry list of problems.

The moment we discovered that the whistleblower had no firsthand knowledge of the call between President Trump and the Ukrainian president, it raised alarm bells: Wait, you mean someone who was not even in the room or did not even sit in on the call can just go ahead and file a complaint against the president of the United States?

Then, after the transcript of the call was released showing no evidence of the quid pro quo claimed by the Democrats, we were blessed with the text of the complaint itself. Alarm bells resumed: Wait, you mean the whistleblower can just talk to a guy who knows a guy who heard the call, and then embellish it with media reports and send forth an argumentative document to single-handedly launch the nation into a process to remove a duly elected president?

The answer to both those questions is yes. And now, thanks to a stunning piece of journalism by Sean Davis at The Federalist, we know why:

“Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, firsthand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings.”

With all that we’ve witnessed over these last years – from the Obama Justice Department spying on the Trump campaign to the repulsive behavior of the likes of James Comey – we hardly need further evidence to prove the deep state writ large is out to take Donald Trump down by any means necessary.

But here we have a virtual smoking gun. Common sense can lead you to only one conclusion when rules that would have disallowed the explosive complaint were changed just in time to allow it.

Now, take a deep breath and consider what this means going forward. Eliminating the firsthand requirement for whistleblowers opens an entire world of possibilities. Any cowardly mole will be able to pass along information, accurate or otherwise, to any other mole willing to be the front man for a complaint that will be lapped up by bloodthirsty leftists and their handmaidens in the elite media.

What remains out of bounds in the blinding short-sightedness of this rule? Anything? Can any employee of the federal government now file a formal complaint against the president based on what he has heard? Think about how quickly any court of law tosses out hearsay evidence. But if you want to take down a president, hearsay/gossip is just fine.

Is there anyone who believes these kinds of hearsay complaints won’t continue until the final days of the Trump era? But then, what about when some mole eventually writes up a Democratic president?

It brings to mind those obscure district court judges who think they get to overturn presidential decisions that affect the entire nation because they hate Trump. Remember how these publicity-seeking men and women in black robes sought their 15 minutes of fame by trying to overturn Trump’s travel ban, his asylum ban, and his funding for the wall?

Indeed, with the deep state now unleashed with the removal of the firsthand rule, the forces arrayed against this president have become more monumental than ever. One seriously wonders how the man has survived this long. Who else in the world would be willing to absorb unending enemy fire from the joint forces of the permanent DC bureaucracy, a shamelessly biased elite media, leftist academia, and a growing and violent socialist movement that labels the president Hitler? That’s not to mention the recycling fountain of scurrilous accusations that would, in any other sphere, be deemed flagrantly libelous.

Will this blight on the land ever end? The unequivocal answer is no. It will almost certainly continue if Trump wins a second term, for the Democrats have nothing else to discuss unless you include the politically poisonous plans of the multiple socialists populating their presidential field, any one of which would likely bankrupt the country.

But don’t make the mistake of believing these deranged Democrats will stop because the voters oppose impeachment. Adam Schiff resorted to parody – parody! – in his fantasy-laced opening statement chairing the committee that kicked off impeachment theatre. Nancy Pelosi accused the president of a “cover-up of the cover-up” – after he provided the full transcript of the call, and then the whistleblower complaint itself. This is what derangement looks like.

Pelosi knows full well that she has opened a Pandora’s box with a riverboat gamble that will dominate the political landscape from now until Election Day 2020. But with the rabid-dog left demanding impeachment while caring not one whit about the basis for it, the Speaker of the House is left with no choice but to talk the talk of impeachment. Whether she walks the walk – requiring House Democrats to go on the record with a public vote to impeach the president in the run-up to a presidential election – is another matter altogether.

~

Read more from Tim Donner or comment on this article.