But on the off chance that the rest of your post was serious, if you don't see a difference between doing something positive to court voters and attempting to extort a foreign country into opening a sham investigation then I stick by my belief that republicans lack a moral compass.
I find it incredible how people are now living in very different factual universes.
I dont see when would be school shooters have been “punished “ for thought crimes.
Bad actors with access to guns might be hauled into law enforcement offices to talk to police, they might be hauled into school guidance counselor’s offices to talk to school personnel, they might be flagged for their parents to know their thoughts. I don’t consider that “punishment. “
Is this the kind of thing you are talking about?
One thing I don't get, beyond even Trump, is the effort to out the whistle blower. It was brought up several times in the impeachment hearings. After Donald himself implied he/she was guilty of treason, punishable by death, and another time something along the lines that in other times he/she/them would be executed. First of all, all that he/she/they have said has been collaborated, secondly it would seem illegal under whistle blower protection, but most importantly I can only imagine the danger it would pose to the whistle blower and family(s).
I can almost see a stronger case for witness intimidation and obstruction of justice over abuse of power. His tweet in the middle of the last testimony was downright shameful if not illegal.
The whistle blower has done his/her job. It's not up to him/her to provide backup to the investigators. There's plenty of corroborating evidence without exposing him/her to the real dangers (death penalty, Trump, really?) inherent in being outed.
I think the request to interview the whistleblower comes from the desire to see how much involvement Mr Schiff's office had in identifying and encouraging a person willing to initiate an official inquiry based upon things they heard from a friend who heard from a friend, for the continuing purpose of invalidating an election.
All they needed was someone willing to say they heard something through the grapevine and then they could manipulate public opinion through a willing press and a large percentage of the population willing to believe gossip as proof. Public opinion is not enough to secure a victory in the impeachment process but it will be invaluable in the next election. That is the point. The question is will it succeed?
Edited to add: I see the Washington Post has gotten ahead of this question by publishing a whistleblower timeline detailing his/her thought processes, motivations, conversations with friends and steps taken to complete the process of blowing the whistle. It occurs to me that if the whistleblower has provided interviews to the press, he/she should also be available for questioning under oath.
Unfortunately, the story I linked is behind a paywall and I could only read another sources highlights.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)