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
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) October 1, 2019
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
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) October 1, 2019
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…
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) October 1, 2019
No first-hand info.
And receipts.
Nice.
INTRODUCTION: No first-hand info pic.twitter.com/KpCvSzsMS0
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) October 1, 2019
Huh.
INTRODUCTION: Sources given by the "WB" pic.twitter.com/jm85Mrrfk2
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) October 1, 2019
SECTION I: No first-hand info pic.twitter.com/ogXCDD0Lth
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) October 1, 2019
Whoda thunk it?
SECTION I: Sources given by the "WB" pic.twitter.com/EjD9e3u6Ah
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) October 1, 2019
SECTION II: No first-hand info pic.twitter.com/Htp1OBDRVi
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) October 1, 2019
We’re seeing a lot of red in this thread.
Heh.
SECTION II: Sources given by the "WB" pic.twitter.com/kLYmEFaOrK
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) October 1, 2019
SECTION III: No first-hand info pic.twitter.com/Sjb2rMjWH7
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) October 1, 2019
SECTION III: Sources given by the "WB" pic.twitter.com/QL9d7XgyKG
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) October 1, 2019
SECTION IV: No first-hand info pic.twitter.com/2u0d8waf3Q
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) October 1, 2019
SECTION IV: Sources given by the "WB" pic.twitter.com/ZautHSFv7r
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) October 1, 2019
CLASSIFIED APPENDIX: No first-hand info pic.twitter.com/SVmhJx17fb
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) October 1, 2019
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) pic.twitter.com/TzOfRGUX0B
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) October 1, 2019
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) pic.twitter.com/t9c76IejHm
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) October 1, 2019
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
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) October 1, 2019
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
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) October 1, 2019
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: https://t.co/so63HlbQb5
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) October 1, 2019
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
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) October 1, 2019
Forgot to add: check the complaint yourself to verify any of the above: https://t.co/eDoHmRZlGD
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) October 1, 2019
We owe Undercover Huber at least a few dozen cookies today after the threads he’s written on Twitter.
True story.
Related: