It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The transcript even has endnotes and footnotes.
“When you start with a witness saying, Steve and Brian, ‘I have no knowledge of the events I’m depicting here, and I’m basing this on conversations I had with colleagues of mine, and I think they’re trustworthy,’ well, do you know if they heard it correctly? I don’t know because I don’t have firsthand knowledge. And do you think the whistleblower drafted that complaint? I mean, realistically?” Sekulow posited.
“You think they had help?” co-host Brian Kilmeade asked. “Did they have help?”
“Look at the phraseology, the endnotes, and the footnotes,” Sekulow replied. “This wasn’t drafted by this individual. This was written by a law firm.
Posted by William A. Jacobson Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 9:00pm
When the so-called Whistleblower Complaint was released this morning, my first impression was that this was a very professionally-done document, likely crafted by a lawyer.
It looks like a lawyer letter. It’s very legalistic in many parts, cites to statutes and executive orders, and is heavily footnoted. It attempts to bring together evidence from disparate sources, including public news reports. It is, in every sense, a closing argument or brief in support of a position by someone who did not actually participate in the events about which he or she is writing.
The document does not at all read like we would expect a whistleblower complaint to read — alerting the appropriate authority to facts the whistleblower has learned and leaving the legal conclusions to those authorities.