Quote (bogie160 @ Oct 6 2019 06:33pm)
Separate issues.
It's obviously terrible for low ranking government employees to coordinate with their political allies against their boss. We'll learn more about why the whistleblower form was modified to allow tertiary source information, but the implication is the same. You can't have a functioning bureaucracy with this happening, and it's obviously not the bureaucracy's job / authority / right to decide what a lawfully elected president can or can't do.
The Ukrainian saga comes down to whether or not there is quid pro quo. It's not some unspeakable crime to want your opponent investigated for committing a crime, as the Democratic party agreed when it suited them.
1. Officials go to the intel committees for guidance concerning whistle blowing somewhat frequently. Schiff's aide heard the outline of the complaint, and recommended he go to the ICIG. There's nothing improper about that. And a whistle blower reporting an abuse of power by the president and his employees is not evidence of political bias.
2. The whistle blower used the old form, and the law makes clear you don't need first hand information to make a complaint. The Federalist got the article wrong. If you're going to read propaganda, at least supplement it with fact-based reporting.
3. It's the duty of officials to report wrongdoing and corrupt behavior. They're supposed to do it through the whistle blower process. Then the ICIG determines whether it's credible. Anyone interested in good government should support that process.
4. Maybe the explicit quid pro quo is the line for you, but Democrats and many Americans feel differently. And if there was an explicit, obvious quid pro quo you would just find a way to justify that.
5. I don't know what the last sentence is referring to.
Why am I the only one on PaRD who combats the endless misinformation. Does no one else follow the news closely?
This post was edited by IceMage on Oct 6 2019 05:55pm