Just suppose there was a situation where a political group wanted to take someone down, someone in a very high position. What would they do and how would they do it? Well, first of all, it would have to be something that only a very gullible society would accept and then it would have to be cooked up by someone or a group who had a gift for making up stories that were so ridiculous that it would be easily accepted by that gullible group. And then it would have to be presented to a governing body that never looked at things very deeply, but judged their response only by how the press in the seat of power reacted. The body would in turn respond accordingly because the most important thing to the privileged elected officials was keeping their good standing in the local cocktail circuit. They were a well insulated group, only conversing among themselves and those cocktail circuit elites and never desirous of going home to visit those who elected them except when absolutely necessary due to elections. Even then, they just said what they thought would make them popular while they did whatever their power broker managers wanted.
Now how about adding to that the desire to destroy someone in power who was a threat them. They dream up a charge to market, something that the politicians think is dreadful, but their adversary fools them by releasing the actual transcript of what he said and that it clears him. Well, then they find a "whistleblower," a person who is said to be so outstanding, so honorable and so knowledgeable that there is no question that what he says is true and he provides his own narrative of what was said even though he wasn't present, but used the words that others fed to him. They keep those words under lock and key, but publicly release little tidbits and they won't even let the defenders of the subject of their wrath see them. What's more, they say that their "whistleblower" doesn't want to go public or be interviewed so we'll just have to take his word for it. Then they pile on with input from supporters of the "whistleblower" who "think" what he said is absolutely true yet they can find no other person who was actually there to justify his comments. Meanwhile, the subject is in a position where he can't defend himself and yet his opposition says they are applying the best of democratic processes in the investigation they are carrying out.
And finally, the icing on the cake. The biased "investigators" say that now it is no longer necessary for the "whistleblower" to be identified nor publicly testify. Plus, we now find out that the "whistleblower" likely wasn't even a "whistleblower" at all but a troublemaker who was also involved in the previous two year long investigation of the subject which brought out nothing and he actually lied during that period. And sadly, it's not a tale at all but the actuality of what has actually been going on. No wonder things are so messed up. Confused? I know I am.