[save_ferris]

Not to mention that the source for the story gave a follow-up interview with several contradictory details[0]:

> He appeared not to have a grasp on the timeline of the laptop arriving at his shop and its disappearance from it.

He owns a computer repair shop and doesn't keep basic records of the devices he services? The moment he knew what he had, he didn't start taking any kind of notes?

> Throughout the interview, Mac Isaac switched back and forth from saying he reached out to law enforcement after viewing the files in the laptop to saying that it was actually the Federal Bureau of Investigation that contacted him. At one point, Mac Isaac claimed that he was emailing someone from the FBI about the laptop. At another point he claimed a special agent from the Baltimore office had contacted him after he alerted the FBI to the device’s existence. At another point, he said the FBI reached out to him for “help accessing his drive.”

How does he not remember who contacted who regarding the device? Also, how would the FBI know that he had to device to reach out to him first? This inconsistency is absolutely damning.

> Social media postings indicate that Mac Isaac is an avid Trump supporter and voted for him in the 2016 election.

> Mac Isaac refused to answer specific questions about whether he had been in contact with Rudy Giuliani before the laptop drop-off or at any other time before the Post article’s publication. Pressed on his relationship with Giuliani, he replied: “When you’re afraid and you don’t know anything about the depth of the waters that you’re in, you want to find a lifeguard.”

Seeming to realize he’d said too much, he added: “Ah, shit.”

So Rudy was your lifeguard? the reporters asked. “No comment,” he replied.

He wasn't comfortable admitting he had been in contact with Giuliani, even though it's pretty obvious at this point that he was? That doesn't sound like a citizen fulfilling their civic duty if he was in contact with a political operative.

This story absolutely stinks to high heaven.

0: https://www.thedailybeast.com/man-who-reportedly-gave-hunter...

[zaroth]

Actually sounds exactly like a regular person would sound in this situation, being interviewed by national media about a story that could be pivotal to the election.

[save_ferris]

Completely disagree. He fails to answer basic questions about why he chose to also communicate directly with a presidential advisor instead of just talking to the authorities, he changes his story throughout the interview, and he fails to confirm critically important details about the device, who gave it to him, and how it wound up in the hands of the authorities and a presidential campaign advisor.

Being nervous in an interview is one thing, trying and failing to wing it through basic questions is entirely different. His comment about the lifeboat particularly stood out to me because he very obviously didn't want to explicitly talk about Giuliani, but he was comfortable speaking in hyperbole about it. If you're so uncomfortable to answer a question, how would you then be comfortable enough to "say it" without saying it? If I was concerned that a question could threaten my safety or legal standing, I'd stay as far away from it as possible. This guy clearly wanted the reporters to know that he had been talking to Giuliani, and once that's out there, the context of the entire story changes.

If it's a legit scandal, there's no reason that a whistleblower should reach out to a political operative in addition to the authorities. The very fact that he did this says so much about his state of mind, that he was acting in support of a candidate.