Has the idea that all of the hithery-dithery anonymously sourced reporting on Trump's call with Ukraine might be a BS narrative crafted by the White House to distract from the actual substance of the whistleblower complaint he is illegally withholding from Congress?

If not, consider it. Is there a more perfectly reasoned story than the one they're telling? The one where Trump admits, through surrogates and anonymous sources, that hell yes, he pressured Ukraine's president to work with Rudy to dig up dirt on Joe Biden and his son Hunter. How perfect! He gets to slime Joe Biden with a long-debunked story involving Hunter Biden while simultaneously throwing smoke at the real story contained in the whistle-blower's report.

It's all so convenient, and national security attorney Brad Moss is warning that yes, it's too convenient and too easy.

A lawyer for the firm representing the whistleblower, Moss had some warnings for Ali Velshi's viewers.

"Well, the president's certainly trying to frame a narrative here and there's certainly been the selective leaks of what the substance of the disclosure may or may not have been. There's been no leak from the whistle-blower and from the legal team representing the whistle-blower confirming any of the details of what actually was the full universe of claims outlined in that whistle-blower complaint and that validated by the inspector general of the intelligence community," Moss pointed out.

Or in simpler terms, all of the stories out there haven't been from the people who actually know what's in the substance of the complaint. They've come from current and former administration officials, who are always quoted as anonymous sources.

"People need to wait and they need to let all of the information to come out before they render judgment on what happened here," he added.

After some discussion about what would ordinarily happen in an administration that wasn't a lawless, craven, wanton, self-serving piece of garbage, Velshi moved on to Trump's assertion that the complaint was motivated by partisanship.

Moss was direct about the consequences of the media hunt for the person's identity: "Horrible. If this person is out, I know a lot of the media trying to figure out who this person is, their career in the intelligence community and the government itself is probably over."

"They didn't break any laws but they will have that scarlet letter on them. They'll never be employed again in the U.S. government and all they did was follow the law to raise the concern about what they saw."

"They could have been the most partisan person on the planet. It doesn't matter," he emphasized. "The statute doesn't care and the Inspector General appointed by this president validated it."

While you watch the media hurry to and fro bringing breathless reports about what may or may not have been said to the Ukrainian president, take a moment to think about this: Obstruction of the complaint is the crime. There may be others, but the crime which should be emphasized is not how many times the administration says it pressured the Ukrainian president, but the act of obstruction which is keeping that urgent, credible report from going to Congress.