About the whistleblower behind Trump's first impeachment

A very long WaPo article (not paywalled) reviews the impact on the life of the CIA analyst who blew the whistle on Trump for trying to pressure Ukrainian officials to get personal and political favors:

The CIA analyst would soon submit a meticulously sourced nine-page memo to the U.S. intelligence community inspector general that would spark Trump’s first impeachment. In Washington and around the world, the analyst would be known as “the whistleblower,” a moniker that he didn’t choose and has come to see as a burden.

In the half decade since his complaint kicked off a political firestorm, the analyst has declined all requests to speak publicly about his actions, even as he has reckoned privately with whether they made a difference. Did his lonely stand help to check what he saw as Trump’s bad behavior or reveal the weakness of the guardrails around the presidency? Did it strengthen his country’s democracy or lay bare its flaws?

He described his experience, which included death threats that upended his life and required the CIA to provide him with round-the-clock protection, in interviews over the past two months. The Washington Post is granting him anonymity because of the ongoing concerns for his safety and has confirmed his account with more than a half dozen former senior officials.

His story mirrors those of dozens of other bureaucrats, diplomats, intelligence analysts, FBI agents, politicians and military officers who stood up to what they saw as efforts by Trump to subvert the country’s democracy. Some of these officials were fired or resigned in protest. Others sought to temper Trump’s demands without alienating him and, in the process, protect themselves and their institutions from retribution.

Trump has routinely described these people as participants in a “deep state” conspiracy to destroy the country and rob his voters of their voice. If elected next month to a second term, he’s vowed to purge them from government.  

Karoline Leavitt, a Trump campaign spokeswoman, said the former president’s actions leading to his first impeachment had been “litigated and re-litigated” and described the evidence against him as “manufactured lies from the Democrat Party.”  

The CIA lawyers seemed “at a loss” about what to do, the analyst said. He hoped they would notify Congress. Instead, they informed the NSC’s top lawyer that a CIA employee was raising concerns about the president’s conduct. White House officials hurriedly moved the call transcript to a server set aside for highly classified information and warned NSC officials not to talk about Trump’s call with anyone.

Two months later, the Senate voted almost entirely along party lines to acquit Trump. The sole dissenting Republican vote was Sen. Mitt Romney (Utah) who spoke from the floor about his faith and the president’s “flagrant assault” on voters’ rights.

The analyst listened to Romney’s speech at his desk and to the final roll call as he was driving home from work. That evening he wrote a personal reflection: “Huge disappointment that more Republicans didn’t stand up against this lawless behavior. Relief that this chapter is over, but extreme apprehension about the backlash against me. The country will have moved on, and I will be stuck with Trump’s ire.”

That reality has left the analyst reckoning with whether his actions made a difference, whether his stand was worth it. In 2020, shortly after Trump was acquitted, the analyst discussed the outcome over dinner with a former CIA colleague. The analyst summarized his and his colleague’s thoughts in a journal entry: “We kind of decided that the system basically worked, and that I had given a clear and convincing case for what abuse of power looks like … even if it didn’t ultimately hold him accountable.”

The interpretation now seems “charitable,” he said.

He never deviated from believing that he did the morally right thing. “The public needed to know,” he said of Trump’s efforts to subvert the 2020 election. (emphases added)

Yes, the public needed to know. But today in 2024, about half the American public still either (i) rejects what Trump did as a pure lie by the Democratic Party, just as his spokesperson is quoted above as saying[1], or (ii) at least somewhat knows what Trump tried to do but rationalize it into something of insufficient importance to change their current support for Trump.

Q: Is this blog post (i) useless old news, (ii) too biased, hyperbolic, partisan, crackpot, or insulting, and/or (iii) just a pack of pure lies as the Trump and the GOP still assert?

Footnote: 

1. Perplexity:

Q1: How does the Republican Party talk about the reasons for Trump's first impeachment?

A1: Republicans largely rejected the charges against Trump, arguing that the articles of impeachment failed to allege any specific crimes or violations of law. They maintained that impeachable offenses must be violations of established law. 

Constitutional Concerns: Some Republicans claimed that the impeachment process itself was unconstitutional, arguing that the House lacked proper authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding and violated due process.

First Amendment Defense: During the trial, Trump's attorneys invoked the First Amendment, asserting that his political statements were protected as core free speech and thus not impeachable offenses.

Key Republican Arguments
1. No Quid Pro Quo: Many Republicans argued that there was no clear evidence of a quid pro quo in Trump's interactions with Ukraine.

2. Abuse of Power Not Impeachable: Some contended that "abuse of power" was too vague and not a sufficient basis for impeachment.

3. Partisan Motivations: Republicans often characterized the impeachment as a partisan attempt by Democrats to remove Trump from office.

4. Lack of Criminal Conduct: They emphasized that the articles of impeachment did not allege any specific criminal acts.

Q2: On balance, how valid are Republican defenses of Trump in relation to what he actually did to trigger the first House impeachment?

A2: .... It's notable that Republican defenses shifted over time, from denying the charges to arguing they weren't impeachable even if true. This evolution [I call it partisan motivated reasoning] suggests a struggle to maintain a consistent, factually-based defense. In conclusion, while Republicans presented various defenses, many of these arguments appear to have limited validity when compared to the evidence and testimony presented during the impeachment proceedings. The shifting nature of these defenses further undermines their overall credibility.