One more thing. The article you posted says that some lawyers said the complaint did not meet the statutory definition of “urgent concern.”

That, of course, is the way to make a claim without taking responsibility for it — hiding behind unnamed lawyers who may or may not have had all the facts.

I looked at that and went WTF? The allegation is that the POTUS committed a felony under circumstances that jeopardize national security. How could that not be urgent?

So I went and re-read the whistleblower complaint. And I am still in WTF? mode. How could anyone plausibly claim there is no urgent concern?

And, in re-reading, I noticed that the whistleblower made a bunch of speculations about what White House staffers must have been thinking. I ignored those speculations the first time I read it because, well, they were speculations. That’s no longer so. After the hearings this last week, we know that the speculations were spot on.

You claim the whistleblower made errors of fact that reflect on his credibility.

I claim it makes no difference because there’s no exclusionary rule that could be used to preclude consideration of anything downstream from such errors.

But, just for the record, I was wondering what errors you are talking about?