The Whistleblower? Who still cares about him?

A portion of the front page of The State today...

A portion of the front page of The State today…

… or her, but the hints I’ve seen have pointed strongly toward a “him.”

The front page of The State today (above) had a headline, above the fold, dealing with The Whistleblower. And I thought, “Who still cares about him?” Hence the headline.

One does hear Republicans, and their master Trump, speak of him as though he and his identity were crucial, the main point, even. And we know why. They want to have a face, a person, they can thoroughly trash, to distract everyone from the truth he told about what Trump has done.

That’s why one Republican leader has rejected the idea of Republican lawmakers being able to depose The Whistleblower. They’re not interested in facts, not interested in getting answers. They’re interested in the Trump base seeing them, the Republican members of Congress, attacking the guy and demonstrating how hard they’re trying to defend Trump. To them, nothing else matters.

That’s why the arguments they present make so little sense. A reasonable, impartial person might wonder why, after demanding over and over that a formal vote be taken on initiating the impeachment process, they complained so mightily when such a vote was taken last week. Because, boys and girls, that’s the point: not the facts of the matter, but whether they are recorded on sound and video loudly decrying the process and competing to see how many times they can say “sham” in one sentence. It’s about the emotion, about the indignation.

Anyway, seeing and hearing (on radio) The Whistleblower back in the news reminds me that last week I meant to share this editorial that was in The New York Times.

The headline was “Thanks, Whistle-Blower, Your Work Is Done.” And it was accompanied with a copy of the official whistleblower complaint, with portions highlighted to show things that have been corroborated by other, usually named, witnesses.

That document, of course, was pretty much redundant the day it was released — because the day before, Trump’s own White House had released the memo that confirmed The Whistleblower’s account of the July 25 phone call.

It’s only become more obsolete since then.

In fact, that editorial with the highlighted complaint has been made pretty dated with the release today of a first batch of transcripts from the closed-door depositions taken thus far.

But anyway, I pass on the editorial and the annotated complaint, as they are still interesting — although the whistleblower himself and what he had to say become less central each day.

A portion of the complaint, annotated by the NYT.

A portion of the complaint, annotated by the NYT.




5 thoughts on “The Whistleblower? Who still cares about him?

    1. Mark Stewart

      Not really, these two (wise)guys were also using Rudy on behalf of their other (mutual) client. Rudy either is too far gone to catch on (that’s a maybe) or he is about to be charged – or about to be flipped. It’s all about the Russian’s – and greedy / corruptable / compromised Americans.

      BTW, just look at videos of the Trump appearances in 2016 and those of him now. The decline, mental or otherwise, is staggering. It’s like he only has the thought process and vocabulary of a 5th grader today.

      1. Mark Stewart

        Where Trump’s language was at least 8th grade-like during the primary campaign. Even his ad hominem attacks had more spiff back then. Now, it’s all human scum and dogs etc., and he can’t string together a coherent sentence.

  1. Brad Warthen Post author

    By the way, in quoting from the White House’s own account of the conversation with the Ukrainian president, the NYT leaves out perhaps the most important word in the whole document.

    They quote Trump saying, “I would like you to do us a favor.”

    They leave off the operative word, “though.”

    Zelenskyy had just been talking about how much Ukraine was counting on getting some more U.S. defense help, and what Trump said IMMEDIATELY after that was “I would like you to do us a favor though.”

    The “though” is what brings in the quid to the pro quo. Yeah, I know you want something. I want something, THOUGH.

    Without THOUGH the quid pro quo is only about 90 percent clear. With it, only a liar who think his hearers are unfamiliar with colloquial English can claim not to see it…

Comments are closed.