Hi mukk,
I'm curious. Does his political persuasion necessarily make his testimony untrue?
Don't you understand yet, that's what President Trump does. It's the reason he was asking the Ukraine to investigate the Biden's. He digs up or makes up dirt to throw and see what sticks.
This article is nothing more than Trump speak. Oh, that person that doesn't like me or doesn't agree with me or has some bone to pick with me, they're a democrat or a part of the fake news. This is how he defends himself against attacks is to show that the person attacking must not like him. Therefore, because they don't like him, nothing they say can be trusted. Or, because they're a Democrat or member of the fake news media, nothing they say can be trusted. It's classic Trump. I'm honestly surprised, while I understand that there are some who are to the bone supporters of Donald Trump, that they don't at least realize his tactics by now. By now, his supporters should at least be able to say, "Oh yea, here goes my champion. That's how he does it! Booya! He rounds up a bunch of other sycophants like me to tell me what I want to hear. To discredit his detractors by claiming that they're a part of some group that he believes doesn't like him and is therefore making up all lies. That's why he's my champion."
It isn't even possible, to those who are die hard Trump supporters, that while someone may not like him, they can still be telling the truth about him. That's exactly what this article is saying.
From the article: A senior administration official told Fox News there are a “few words” in the transcript that will raise eyebrows, but it is nowhere near as inflammatory as Democrats have suggested.
Already, the WH is preparing us for the fact that even they believe there are parts of this call transcript that are going to raise eyebrows. How can they say that and then wonder why someone would file a whistleblower complaint. That's exactly the purpose of whistleblower complaints. To see to it that things done by any government official that might raise eyebrows sees the light of day to be looked into. That's the very definition of a whistleblower: A whistleblower (also written as whistle-blower or whistle blower) is a person who exposes any kind of information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct within an organization that is either private or public.
Such things as illegal or unethical or not correct behavior by someone is supposed to raise eyebrows. When it does, they the person who's eyebrows were raised, has the right, and often is held responsible to report such behavior. By definition it doesn't even have to be illegal. It can just have the appearance of impropriety.
So, I would fully expect, just as Nixon tried to do, for the present administration to try and protect themselves and project their defense before releasing any document that might raise the eyebrows of the public. That's exactly what this article, speaking about a report issued by the WH, is telling us. They are reporting on the fact that the WH, not necessarily this news source, is saying that the call transcript is not damaging. Of course they would! Duh? However, and this is the part that is dangerous for them, they are also preparing us in advance for blowback about some of the things found in the transcript.
Oh, and BTW, we already know that President Trump is not above telling this intelligence community inspector general, just as he did NOAA, you'll support my understanding of things or people are going to be looking for another job.
I'm just sayin'.
God bless,
In Christ, ted