Opinion

Why I’m Shying Away From MSM’s Whistleblower Coverage.

Now the media is reporting that a second whistleblower has come forth against President Trump in regards to his phone call with the President of the Ukraine. My only question is: “Why does any of this matter?” If you’re following the details of this story, you might put the pieces together enough to realize that its highly likely that the “second” whistleblower is no more than the first whistleblower’s informant. If all information is coming from the exact same source, the number of how many people are telling the information is totally irrelevant. Furthermore, with the transcripts of the call being released by the White House to the media early last week, how does any of this matter at all? The transcripts are all the first-hand knowledge one would need to decide whether or not what the President said on this phone call is offensive enough to impeach him.

Many pundits and officials on both sides of the aisle are calling for the identities of the whistleblowers to be kept anonymous. This is definitely a sentiment I can understand, but unless they are willing to come forward so that the President can face his accusers, the media reporting on these whistleblowers is just more muck to add to the pile, in an attempt to confuse and distract the public.

Anyone trying to follow this story would be best advised to just read the transcripts for themselves and determine if they think President Trump did or said anything wrong. There are lots of experts who have given their opinion on what was said and what it all means for context. I, for one, am going to steer clear of main stream media’s attempt to sully the facts of this story.