Hold on to your HATS because Undercover Huber's thread on whistleblower's complaint containing ZERO first-hand info is the bomb

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

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