Fact Vs. Fiction In The Whistleblower Scandal (Thornton)

[corbe]

Fact Vs. Fiction In The Whistleblower Scandal

The key point for the coming weeks is not whether the whistleblower had an ax to grind or was part of an organized effort. The focus should be on whether the whistleblower’s allegations were factual or not.

by David Thornton
September 29th, 2019

The Republican response to the Ukraine scandal has been to attack the credibility of the whistleblower. This is pretty tricky since the whistleblower’s identity is not yet known. This hasn’t stopped a flood of speculation and misinformation about the complaint.

To start with, there is speculation that the whistleblower is a partisan Democrat. A Republican congressional source told Erick Erickson last week that the complaint was “written by someone who does not like the President” but also that “regardless, the whistleblower is credible.”

That the whistleblower is not a fan of Trump should be obvious. It is unlikely that a committed Trump supporter would have filed a complaint about the president’s activities. Anyone moved to file the complaint would not be a Trump fan by definition, although it’s possible that the whistleblower didn’t start out as a Trump critic. He or she might have been a Trump supporter at one time but then been disillusioned by the president’s activities.

Other Trump defenders have argued that the whistleblower complaint was too professional and detailed to have been put together by one person. Again, this is possible since the whistleblower cites a number of other US officials in the complaint. It is not outside the scope of possibility that that more than one person may have collaborated on the complaint, but this does not undermine its credibility. The whistleblower openly acknowledges that his information came from other people in the Administration.

<..snip..>

https://theresurgent.com/2019/09/29/fact-vs-fiction-in-the-whistleblower-scandal/

[Right_in_Virginia]

The Republicans are not (yet) attacking the "Whistleblower".  They are rightly questioning the "I did not witness any of this" aspect of the complaint; and are rightly asking who the "whistleblower's" sources are.

Leakers, even by another name, have no protection from interrogation.

[Cyber Liberty]

"Who leaked?" and "Who filed the dog-whistleblower complaint?"  are likely two separate questions....

[PeteS in CA]

The Republican response to the Ukraine scandal has been to attack the credibility of the whistleblower.

No, that has NOT been the Rs' primary response to the "whistleblower". Trump's responses have been to release the transcript of the phone call and the "whistleblower's" complaint. Having shown the original claims to be false and the complaint to have significant errors, it was only then that attention shifted to the identity and motives of the lying "whistleblower".

IOW, article author David Thornton ignored several days of the unraveling of the "whistleblower's" claims as if they never happened. That, too, is dishonest and ample reason, IMO, not to read farther than that first false sentence.

[Bigun]

No, that has NOT been the Rs' primary response to the "whistleblower". Trump's responses have been to release the transcript of the phone call and the "whistleblower's" complaint. Having shown the original claims to be false and the complaint to have significant errors, it was only then that attention shifted to the identity and motives of the lying "whistleblower".

IOW, article author David Thornton ignored several days of the unraveling of the "whistleblower's" claims as if they never happened. That, too, is dishonest and ample reason, IMO, not to read farther than that first false sentence.

I agree and won't bother to read even that far.

[Fishrrman]

My thoughts:
This "whistleblower", whoever he is, should be IGNORED unless and until he's willing to step out of the shadows and into the light.

In other words, identify himself.
Then, and ONLY then, will he have the right to make any accusations, and not until then should they be given one iota of consideration.

[jpsb]

This is a setup, first a whistle blower (WB) in the intelligence community (IC) can only file a complaint and the Inspector General (IG) of the IC can only investigate the complaint if it is about a current or former employee of the IC. President Trump is not an employee of the IC so it was illegal for the ICIG to act on this complaint. Also up until a few weeks ago the WB had to have first hand knowledge of the misconduct not hearsay. The ICIG changed that so that our WB could file his illegal complaint. What we have here is someone(s) in the IC with the assistance of the ICIG found a willing IC employee, leaked classified info to them and then helped them write a complaint and at the same time the ICIG changed the rules to allow hearsay evidence and ignored the fact that he (the IG) had zero authority to investigate the president. And all this was done in consolation with Dem leaders in the House.  The plot to overthrow our president is on going and they are getting bolder. WHERE THE HELL IS BILL BARR?