And here are the receipts to prove it.
THREAD
—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
—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...
—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
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
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:
The allegations *made by all of the second-hand sources* have to be true, NOT the WB's
/ENDS