Thread by @JsnFostr

...and the @washingtonpost also issued a correction (much more professional than @RollingStone, thank you @McDanielJustine).

The @HouseDemocrats hit job on @FBI #whistlelbower @RealStevefriend caused a lot of confusion about the facts—precisely what it was designed to do.

The half-truths and deceptively edited sections of leaked transcripts presented the media scribes trying to quickly summarize it for their readers a lot of material for a political narrative, but not much context or guidance for understanding the facts.

On @realstevefriend's protected #whistleblower disclosure about unnecessary SWAT operations, a @WashingtonPost story originally claimed:

"Friend told the subcommittee in his testimony that he had objected because the men had indicated they would cooperate with the FBI, but he didn’t mention that to his supervisor at the time."

However, the claim: “he didn’t mention that to his supervisor at the time” was false.

In fact, he testified repeatedly about telling his supervisor the subject expressed a willingness to cooperate—under questioning from both Chair and Ranking Member staff.

After we pointed out the error, the Post really *meant* to report @HouseDemocrats silly swipe at @RealStevefriend about the declaration he submitted to various oversight authorities.

See, it failed to list the subject's willingness to cooperate among his reasons for concern.

It doesn't cite lots of other things that are true and for which there is corroborating evidence as well.

So what? It's supposed to start an investigation, but the @HouseDemocrats have publicly announced they are only interested in stopping one.

Resorting to this kind of back-bending and rhetorical sleight of hand to attack #whistleblowers is a tell.

So is leaking partial transcripts so quickly.

A few witnesses, no documents, and they've already drawn conclusions?

It smells of fear about what an inquiry might reveal.