Washington Examiner Editor Suggests Whistleblower Should Testify Because of ‘Factual Errors’ in Complaint


Washington Examiner editor-in-chief Hugo Gordon told Fox’s Maria Bartiromo that the whistleblower should provide more than written answers to questions, because of what he claims are “factual errors” in his complaint.

“There are holes that are being punched in what the whistleblower has said,” Gordon told Bartiromo on Fox Business Monday morning. “First of all, there are some factual errors. We know as a small factual error, he didn’t know who was on the call. He said someone was on who was not. A bigger factual error, he said that President Trump asked for the DNC server, which he didn’t.”

“People want to really look into who the whistleblower is,” Gordon said. “And that’s why written testimony – no doubt written by his lawyers – would not pass the laugh test.”

According to a memo of the Ukraine call released by the White House, Trump told the Ukrainian president “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it.”

The whistleblower memo notes that President Trump specifically asked that Ukraine’s leaders “locate and turn over servers” used by the DNC:

…assist in purportedly uncovering that allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election originated in Ukraine, with a specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cyber security firm Crowdstrike,3 which initially reported that Russian hackers had penetrated the DNC’s networks in 2016;

Gordon appears to believe the incongruity between the specific language in the complaint above and, that which is included in the rough transcript released by the White House, is reason enough to unmask the whistleblower, whose identity is protected by the whistleblower statute passed in 1989.

The inconsistency, however, could just as easily be explained by the notation on the released transcript that it is not a verbatim representation of the call. Inconsistencies and omissions in the transcript have been reportedly alleged in House Intel committee testimony by Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman.

Gordon went on to argue the whistleblower’s account should be dismissed because the complaint is “interpretive.”

“It said, for example, [Trump] was asking the president of Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election. That’s just his interpretation,” Gordon argued.

Watch above, via Fox Business.

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Filed Under: