Gabbard Makes Criminal Referrals Linked To First Trump Impeachment
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has sent criminal referrals to the Justice Department related to a whistleblower complaint that helped trigger President Donald Trump’s 2019 impeachment, his first, ostensibly tied to a phone call he held with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, reports said this week.
The referrals also include former intelligence community inspector general Michael Atkinson, who notified Congress of the allegations.
“I want to refer information that may constitute possible criminal activity in violation of federal criminal law committed by one or more former employees of the intelligence community,” the agency’s general counsel wrote. The referral cited concerns tied to actions described in congressional briefings during the 2019 impeachment process, Fox News reported.
Documents reviewed by Fox News Digital show the referrals reference Atkinson’s briefings before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Those briefings took place during the 116th Congress as lawmakers examined the whistleblower complaint.
The referrals follow the release of newly declassified records by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Officials said the materials detail what they described as a coordinated effort within elements of the intelligence community tied to the impeachment.
An intelligence official said the referral language is broad but is focused on Atkinson and the whistleblower. The complaint centered on President Donald Trump’s July 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Gabbard pointed to the documents in a social media post when asked about the referrals.
“Newly-declassified records expose how deep state actors within the Intelligence Community concocted a false narrative,” she wrote.
The Justice Department has not publicly responded to the referrals. Officials have not indicated whether an investigation has been opened.
The released materials include transcripts of Atkinson’s closed-door testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Those transcripts were later made public following a vote led by committee chairman Rick Crawford.
During his testimony, Atkinson addressed his handling of the whistleblower complaint. He said the complaint met the legal standard required to notify Congress.
“I determined that the complaint related to an urgent concern,” Atkinson said in his testimony. He said the determination was based on the information available at the time.
Atkinson acknowledged that the whistleblower did not have firsthand knowledge of the events described. He said the complaint relied on accounts from multiple U.S. officials who were deemed credible.
“I was not a direct witness to most of the events described,” the whistleblower complaint stated. Atkinson said those secondhand accounts were consistent and supported further review.
Atkinson also said the whistleblower showed potential signs of political bias. Despite that, he said the law did not require him to dismiss the complaint on that basis.
The complaint, filed in August 2019, raised concerns about Trump’s call with Zelenskyy. It included allegations that Trump encouraged investigations involving former Vice President Joe Biden and his son.
Democrats argued the request amounted to a quid pro quo tied to U.S. military aid. Trump and his allies rejected that characterization and said the call was appropriate.
Biden has said his actions regarding Ukraine were part of official U.S. policy at the time. He described pressuring Ukraine to remove a prosecutor during a 2018 event.
“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion,’” Biden recalled. He said the prosecutor was removed after the warning.
House Republicans raised concerns during the impeachment process about the whistleblower’s contact with congressional staff. They questioned interactions involving then-Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff.
Schiff acknowledged contact but said it did not influence the handling of the complaint. He described the communication as limited in nature.
The whistleblower complaint was later declassified and released publicly. It stated that the information was based largely on secondhand accounts from multiple officials.
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
