Sorry, this one is rather tame. The whistle-blower said they were not on the call and reporting it second hand. I'll chalk this one up to ignorance and a mistake before jumping to the conclusion that it was intentional and malicious
So the defense is that the whistle-blower is ignorant to the actual conversation but still called the "whistle-blower"?
Yeah, that's been the issue the whole time. The reason the report wasn't sent to congress was because the person didn't have first hand knowledge, and therefore didn't meet the requirements for immediately notifying congress. Then when word got out, it caused an uproar that the executive branch was trying to protect the president. But I think you know all that.
From your reply it appears that you believe I'm defending the whistle-blower completely, I'm not. I just feel that them being mistaken about one attendee to a meeting that they said they didn't attend themselves, is trivial compared to getting the accusation wrong.
So like I said, I'll chalk up getting one attendee wrong to a mistake, I don't feel that's where they're trying to be malicious