I think I understand it now:
The first whistleblower got the phone call story firsthand from the second whistleblower who was privy to the call at first. So the first one is really the second one, and the one that was second is really first. The second one, who was first, passed firsthand info to the first, who was really second, so the first reported secondhand account was documented second because the second was the one who heard it first. What screwed them up was not understanding the second a whistleblower hears information first it should not be sent as a firsthand account to a second person, but presented first to everyone so no one will for a second consider it at first false.
Do I have it about right?Published in