AP featured image
Christine Blasey Ford and her attorneys Debra Katz, foreground left, and Michael Bromwich, foreground right, take a break during testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Thursday, Sept. 27, 2018 in Washington. (Win McNamee/Pool Photo via AP)

If there’s any lawyer you can trust to shoot straight, it’s Christine Blasey Ford’s lawyer, right?

Yesterday, I posted on the fact that an FDA official named Rick Bright claimed he was fired over opposition to hydroxychloroquine (see Media Push Fake News About FDA Official Supposedly Fired Over Opposing Hydroxychloroquine, Then the Real Story Comes Out) . Yet, only hours later, documents had emerged showing the opposite, including Bright’s own praise for the drug. Further, his ouster was many months in the making, predating the Wuhan virus altogether.

Toward the end of that article I also noted that Debra Katz, former lawyer of Christine Blasey Ford, had been retained by Bright, so you know this is really, totally legit.

Yes, Bright is hiring Debra Katz, whose malfeasance during the Kavanaugh hearings is well known. No doubt this is an attempt to push Bright as a “whistle-blower,” either for money or via another Congressional farce.

Well, Katz is following the playbook to the letter. In response to all the evidence that came out showing her client is lying, she’s now confirming she will be filing a “whistle-blower” complaint with the HHS IG and Office of the Special Counsel. You can bet she’s running to Democrats in the House as well with this stuff.

You’ll be less than shocked to learn that the above article cites several anonymous sources claiming that Bright was removed because he did not want to expand access to hydroxychloroquine. Meanwhile, in the real world, we have actual documentation showing him apply its emergency use and lauding the increased acquisition and use of the drug.

What you’ll get here now that the guy has been exposed is an attempt to split hairs and move the goalposts. Before, the story was that he was against the use of the drug. Now, they’ll say that he did indeed support use of the drug at some level, but he just didn’t want it pushed as widely as Trump did. This will all be wrapped into a neat package and presented as the President trying to kill people by talking about a drug that’s been used since the 1950s.

The real question here is what exactly qualifies as a “whistle-blower” these days? Is it just anyone who dislikes Donald Trump? Because that seems to be the new standard. Even if you want to ignore all the evidence to the contrary, someone being removed from a post for opposing administration policy is not a “whistle-blower.” There is nothing illegal about anything related to this story. What exactly is he blowing the whistle on?

In short, none of this makes any sense. But that won’t matter so get ready for months and months of this craziness.

 

Bonchie
Front-page contributor for RedState. Visit my archives for more of my latest articles and help out by following me on Twitter @bonchieredstate.
Read more by Bonchie