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.
BOMBSHELL — Senate Votes 50-49 on SAVE America Act
THE RECONCILIATION SHOWDOWN: SAVE America Act Secures Historical Senate Majority in Late-Night Vote-a-Rama, Exposing Radical Procedural Rift
WASHINGTON, D.C. — JUNE 9, 2026 — The high-stakes legislative trench warfare over the future of American election security has just experienced a seismic shift, culminating in a dramatic late-night showdown that shattered partisan fault lines on Capitol Hill.
What happens when an unyielding election integrity package secures a historic, raw majority in the United States Senate, yet remains aggressively bottlenecked by entrenched procedural rules? For advocates of absolute border and ballot verification, the answer is an agonizing turning point. The SAVE America Act has officially secured majority support in the U.S. Senate during a high-velocity, late-night voting session on Thursday—marking a monumental victory for election integrity advocates despite falling short of the strict 60 votes required to dismantle Senate procedural hurdles.
The high-threshold clash detonated during the Senate’s grueling marathon “vote-a-rama” session on June 4. Moving with absolute administrative lethality, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) forcefully maneuvered to lock down a clean vote on the House-passed version of the SAVE America Act. The sweeping legislation would mandate strict documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for all federal voter registrations and aggressively fortify voter identification requirements nationwide.
I. THE BUDGETARY BARRICADE: THE 50-49 TALLY
When the dust settled in the chamber, the amendment successfully passed by a definitive vote of 50-49, sending shockwaves through the progressive wing by giving the hardline measure an authentic majority in the upper house.
However, because the proposal was introduced as a waiver to stringent budget rules within the complex reconciliation process, Senate rules mandated a three-fifths supermajority—an absolute 60-vote threshold—for formal adoption. In a calculated display of total partisan obstruction, every single Senate Democrat voted in lockstep against the amendment, successfully preventing it from reaching the necessary numbers for passage.
Despite being blocked, the final 50-49 count represents a spectacular operational improvement from an earlier election-integrity amendment pushed by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Graham's previous proposal had crashed in a humiliating 48-50 defeat after four high-profile Republican senators crossed the aisle to join Democrats in active opposition.
II. THE DEFECTION MATRIX AND COLLINS’ REVERSAL
The strategic differences between the two amendments reveal a calculated internal maneuvering within the Republican conference. Graham’s broader, more complex proposal included sweeping, additional provisions that went far beyond the clean, House-passed version of the SAVE Act—including controversial restrictions regarding transgender athletes' participation in sports.
That added weight initially alienated key centrist Republicans. Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and Thom Tillis of North Carolina all voted to kill Graham’s version.
However, the political equation altered permanently when Lee isolated the legislation down to the clean House bill. Confronted with the unadulterated text, Collins executed a rapid tactical shift, abandoning the holdouts to join the rest of the unified Republican conference in absolute support of the measure.
In contrast, Murkowski, McConnell, and Tillis dug in their heels, continuing to oppose the clean amendment even as it surged to its final 50-49 victory.
THE MATRICES OF THE CONGESTED SENATE LEDGER
* THE CLEAN BALLOT SURGE: Senator Mike Lee commands a 50-49 majority victory.
* THE TIE-BREAKER PROTOCOL: Vice President JD Vance stood ready to cast the 51st vote.
* THE CENTRIST REVISION: Susan Collins switches to "YES" on the clean House version.
* THE IMMIGRATION CASUALTY: $70 Billion border security bill advances stripped of the SAVE Act.
The final 50-49 tally mathematically demonstrates that supporters of the SAVE Act can officially assemble a functional Senate majority behind the legislation, even if they lack the supermajority dictated by current Senate rules.
Furthermore, Vice President JD Vance—who serves as President of the Senate and holds the constitutional power to cast tie-breaking votes—was physically available in the chamber if needed, meaning supporters effectively proved they could command 51 votes in favor of the security transformation.
III. THE FILIBUSTER EMERGENCY: THUNE EXPOSES THE WALL
Supporters of the legislation argue with data-driven precision that requiring documentary proof of citizenship via birth certificates or passports is the ultimate mechanism to ensure only eligible citizens participate in federal contests, instantly spiking public confidence in election outcomes.
Unsurprisingly, the SAVE America Act has transformed into one of the Republican Party’s absolute top priorities heading into the volatile 2026 midterm elections, backed by intense endorsements from President Donald Trump, Vice President Vance, and conservative advocacy groups. Conversely, unified progressive opponents claim that existing legal frameworks already stop non-citizens from voting, arguing that additional paperwork mandates create unfair barriers for eligible voters.
The high-stakes voting session has also intensely magnified the nationwide debate surrounding the controversial Senate filibuster. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has frequently cited the 60-vote cloture requirement as the supreme, unyielding obstacle preventing the passage of critical election-related legislation, noting that Democrats remain completely unified in blocking the measure.
THE FINAL VERDICT
Thursday night’s vote-a-rama reinforced that cold institutional reality. Although the America First coalition successfully captured a true majority of the chamber, they remained exactly 10 votes short of the threshold required to overcome procedural objections and permanently attach the voting limits to the broader reconciliation package.
As a direct consequence, lawmakers expect the underlying, massive $70 billion immigration enforcement and border security legislation to advance through the pipeline without the SAVE Act provisions included in the final text.
Still, Republicans have quickly weaponized the 50-49 tally as definitive evidence that the legislation enjoys majority support within the Senate. The outcome places renewed, high-threshold attention on Senate rules and whether Republican lawmakers will seek alternative, aggressive strategies to bypass the filibuster in the future. For now, the SAVE America Act remains procedurally blocked—but the political warfare over who controls the rules of American voting has just entered a dangerous new phase.
