Looking at the whistleblower complaint like this?
Section-by section?
WOW.
How is this even something we’re still talking about?
Seriously.
Check it out.
The "whistleblower" (WB) complaint does not contain ANY first-hand information. Zero.
And here are the receipts to prove it.
THREAD
3,399 people are talking about this
This thread goes through the entire WB complaint line by line:
—All of the key facts & allegations of misconduct
—Who they are sourced to
—Whether this is first-hand information from the "WB"
N.B: I've excluded anything attributed to public or open-source information by the WB
378 people are talking about this
SUMMARY:
—INTRODUCTION: No first-hand info
—SECTION I: No first-hand info
—SECTION II: No first-hand info
—SECTION III: No first-hand info
—SECTION IV: No first-hand info
—CLASSIFIED APPENDIX: Very likely no first-hand info*
*Non-redacted wording
Now, the receipts for each...
424 people are talking about this
No first-hand info.
And receipts.
Nice.
Huh.
Whoda thunk it?
We’re seeing a lot of red in this thread.
Heh.
N.B. the "WB" makes a brief mention to assistance to Ukraine changing at the end of Section IV, but provides the detail & sourcing in the unredacted parts of the classified Appendix
This is the ONLY part of the complaint that *could* be first hand knowledge (but probably isn't)
241 people are talking about this
But probably isn’t.
And that he included it speaks volumes for the legitimacy of his thread.
CLASSIFIED APPENDIX: Sources given by the "WB" (part that maybe could be first-hand highlighted in blue)
225 people are talking about this
SUMMARY
—The "whistleblower" did not provide ANY clear first-hand info in their complaint
—All allegations (other than public info) are second-hand knowledge given by unnamed "officials" (usually White House ones)
—"Officials", even if true, could be as few as two other people
324 people are talking about this
Officials.
Sure.
CAVEATS 1 & 2
It is possible that hidden away in the redactions in the classified appendix is first-hand information. But that seems unlikely given NONE of the other allegations are
The WB does appear well-placed within the IC & claims multiple White House officials as sources
242 people are talking about this
CAVEAT 3
Just because the info is second-hand doesn't make it *wrong*. However, at least one of the "WB" sources (a White House official) *was* wrong about a crucial detail, and the WB themselves are wrong on at least FOUR other points, see: twitter.com/JohnWHuber/sta…
323 people are talking about this
Finally, if one of the "WB" sources, a WH official, was wrong about correct classification of the 25 July call, they could also be wrong about many other claims throughout the complaint
The allegations *made by all of the second-hand sources* have to be true, NOT the WB's
/ENDS
304 people are talking about this
Forgot to add: check the complaint yourself to verify any of the above: assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6430…
374 people are talking about this
We owe Undercover Huber at least a few dozen cookies today after the threads he’s written on Twitter.
True story.
No comments:
Post a Comment