Quote (IceMage @ Oct 6 2019 07:50pm)
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?
1. If there's nothing improper about it, why did the whistleblower lie? Why did Schiff omit his office's role in the affair?
2. Please source this.
3. Difference of opinion. Reporting illegal acts versus exposing your boss based on hearsay because you want to drive him out of office. The bureaucracy's overriding responsibility is to be impartial and execute the designs of the president. The democratic party put forward an awful candidate and ran on divisive identity politics. Their responsibility is to identity the root cause of their failure and fix it, not subvert the result of the election.
4. "I know I'm wrong, but I think you'd argue like this even if I was right." Lol.
5. Investigation into Russian collusion.