Just like that, democrats don't like whistleblowers anymore

Pretty sure neither party likes whistle blowers, but go on I guess.

Can you provide the legal definition of whistleblower? I know Rep Jordan can't, he proved that on camera. But can you?

Wondering; which do you think is more important in ferreting out public corruption?
The "legal" definition of whistleblower,
or
The uncontroverted testimony from people who the dems would celebrate as "whistleblowers" if they were talking shit about Trump

All of those whistleblowers got fired not because they were conservatives.

They got fired because they repeatedly refused to do their jobs. (oh, sure, 1 quit before he could be fired, but still)

Whistleblowers have to be exposing wrongdoing- whether criminal, financial, or what have you.

Did they do that?

No.

What did they do? They refused to arrest people they'd been directed to bring in. They acted as judge and jury rather than doing their jobs. One of them downloaded sensitive information after hours and without authorization. Then refused to participate in various training about cyber security.

And how many of them are currently on Cash Patel's payroll?

You didn't answer the question.
Why do leftists never just answer the question they are asked?

Curious; can you point to a single refutable fact in the Durham Report? I ask because the Durham Report established (in the absence of controverting EVIDENCE) that circumstances existed that made abuse of whistleblowers not only possible, but probable.

Did you even listen to the abuse that they suffered after their firings, even if, as you need so desperately to believe, their firings were justified?

The Durham report is a nothing burger. It changed nothing from the Mueller Report which brought over 36 charges across multiple people. The only thing the Durham report found was... *checks notes* Some confirmation bias in their work ethic (Kinda hard not to have confirmation bias with the Trump admin, let's be honest) and one person modified an email.

Why didn't I answer the question?

I did.

But I think I didn't clearly communicate it to you.

Am I for rooting out government corruption? Yes.

Are these people called to the committee by Jordan whistleblowers? No.

There is a specific requirement to meet whistleblower status. They don't meet it. Not even vaguely.

Also, I don't think Jordan has any real interest in "uncovering corruption." I say that because he refused to share this testimony with the Democratic members of the committee beforehand DESPITE THE CLEARLY STATED REQUIREMENTS TO DO SO.

If they were being presented as former employees of the FBI who believe they were targeted because they were conservatives, and had some documentation or evidence to back it up.

And that evidence & testimony had been shared with everyone on the committee ahead of time as required by Congressional Rules.

But their testimony has been obscured from scrutiny. They're being presented as something they're not. They're even being paid by someone in the Trump circle- Cash Patel is fronting them money.

They're literally being paid to be there.

They're there under false pretenses, their testimony was hidden against the rules, and they're paid to be there.

And to me, that's all bullshit.

Are these people called to the committee by Jordan whistleblowers? No.
Did you know that the FBI has their own definition of whistle-blowing including a process that contains information harmful to the FBI

There is a specific requirement to meet whistleblower status. They don't meet it. Not even vaguely.

Also, I don't think Jordan has any real interest in "uncovering corruption." I say that because he refused to share this testimony ...

Jordan's interest is uncovering corruption, obviously. Refusing to share whistle-blower testimony was a dick move, which is an entirely different issue

" FBI who believe they were targeted because they were conservatives ..."
That is flat out wrong. They blew the whistle on corrupt investigations and arrests; it had nothing to do with their politics.

They're even being paid by someone in the Trump circle- Cash Patel is fronting them money.
Again, that it not proof that their testimony is false. How do you explain the abuse they suffered after blowing the whistle if whistle-blowing isn't frowned on by the FBI? Have you no experience in government bureaucracies; have you never tried to file a complaint against a powerful politician or public servant. I have, and I will never forget how dirty they played.

"They're there under false pretenses..."
Your opinion, unsupported by evidence. Strictly speaking, you have no idea what thoughts run through their heads. Sounds like opinion promulgated by left wing media and again, unsupported by evidence

And to me, that's all bullshit.
That there is bullshit doesn't mean there is nothing there. Don't lose sight of the crimes (at least ethical and moral misdeeds) committed by powerful democrats to harm Trump and enable crooked Hillary Clinton

It seems to me that people who think there's nothing in the Durham Report, in truth have no idea what's actually in the report. They are relying on left wing fake news to tell them the truth

Can you articulate a single accusation in the Report? Like, specifically what and on what page?

Because I've read it and the only one I can find is that Durham thinks the FBI should have done a preliminary investigation before going on to a full.

Not that the full shouldn't have happened.

Just that they should have done a prelim one first.

That's it.

For the record, I don't believe that you read the report, or that you couldn't find a single accusation in your read, or that having read it, you couldn't see that the whole report was that NO investigation was warranted in light of the abject absence of any evidence at all that would have warranted one. The evidence is indisputable. To the extent that you do, you display your willing ignorance of the truth. Think about it; left wing media hasn't contradicted a single accusation. Instead, they are hiding the truth from CNN acolytes such as yourself so all you have to do is deny the truth rather than confront it.

Seriously. I told you to point to a single accusation in the report that you could refute. You chose instead to divert the discussion into my refusal to point to an accusation (there are many) that you could nitpick to death (like leftist trolls do).

OK, to prove my point, an accusation;
the Durham Report details a conspiracy to exploit the Russia Hoax at the highest levels of the FBI in order to manipulate the outcome of a presidential election.

go for it

If there are many, tell me 2.

I say there is 1. He claims that the FBI should have done a preliminary investigation before moving to a full.

That's it.

The Inspector General's report, which was commissioned by Trump appointed Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

You remember Jeff, right?

The group who's job it is to hold the FBI accountable to its own rules found that the discussion the senior members over the available evidence at that time, the FBI was okay to move to a full investigation right away.

Where's the accusation that HIllary and her campaign did something wrong? Or even illegal?

He doesn't make one. He certainly didn't take her to court over it.

Remember the 2 cases he did take to court? He lost both of those.

So.

You're the one who wants them refuted. I'm here to do that.

Just name 2.

It should be easy. If there are so many. And they're so egregious. Fox, OAN, someone should have a bullet point list available for you.

Pick 2.

were done, go pester someone else

You're the one demanding that accusations be refuted. And when you're asked to provide the accusations.... you don't.

So.

Why did they refuse to do their jobs?

I ask you because you are always so adamant that you are unequivocally correct.

No sense me tuning in a news broadcast and getting drunk on the Kool aid.

Better we get it straight from the most reliable source - you

Oh, no, even more reliable than me, the best sources of all, the primary source: https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2023/05/FBI-Response.pdf

The FBI goes into 11 pages worth of details on why those agents were let go.

I know it's annoying how right I am so often.

Want to know how I do it?

I'll let you in on the secret.

I read. I read a lot. I click through to links claiming to be sources, and I read them. I keep reading and clicking and reading until I get to primary sources. Then I read those.

Then, before I post anywhere, I verify that I am using the most up to date and accurate information.

When you start with facts and keep reading facts, it is really just that easy.

"The FBI goes into 11 pages worth of details on why those agents were let go."

Assume for the sake of argument, that these whistleblowers didn't actually blow the whistle on corruption in the leadership of the FBI, and that the FBI is on the up and up. (not true of course, but let's pretend for the sake of the argument)

Then why were the whistleblowers treated so abysmally after their firing? As but one example; they are still under an FBI edict that prevents them from find a full time job to support themselves and their families until the FBI decides they're finished teaching them and other potential whistle-blowers their lesson. Did you even listen to what these men have suffered after they spoke up?

Yeah, it's rough.

But.

Being suspended without pay (which is what they were talking about) is a regular/known level of discipline.

So.

Either they should have been more thoughtful about the potential outcomes of their actions OR had the self-reliance to save up in case they were every suspended without pay.

Isn't that the answer conservatives give whenever someone is short on cash? They should have taken the responsibility on themselves to plan for this and save accordingly?

Being suspended without pay (which is what they were talking about) is a regular/known level of discipline.

Suspending without allowing the suspended to find other work or enjoy any other income (for a year or more) is not a regular/known response to whistle-blowing (that the FBI was persecuting people well beyond the the requirements of the law)

Either they should have been more thoughtful about the potential outcomes of their actions OR had the self-reliance to save up in case they were every suspended without pay.

Seriously? Do you have a year or more of salary within your access? most public servants, including FBI agents don't. I have to point out "they should have been more thoughtful" is remarkably insensitive. Have you ever said the same thing about the Republican's whistle-blowers being abuse by the government? Y or N

Isn't that the answer conservatives give whenever someone is short on cash? They should have taken the responsibility on themselves to plan for this and save accordingly?

Again, this comes off as explicitly bigoted statement. Are you here to participate or to represent for left wing media and their hatred of "conservatives"?

Based on your exhaustive research, what was the reason the agents provided for refusing to do their job or specific job related task?

What's your "legal" definition? Enlighten those you believe ignorant instead of shaming them.

Not everyone posseses your legal acumen.

It's almost like if you listened to the congressional hearing and when one Representative said, "They don't meet the legal definition of whistleblower." you didn't then say to yourself, "huh, I wonder what the legal definition of whistleblower is and what requirements need to be met?"

Then you didn't go to Google and type in "legal definition of whistleblower" then find https://www.whistleblowers.gov/ to learn some stuff.

And then you didn't go on to https://oig.justice.gov/hotline/whistleblower-protection to learn about the legal protections a whistleblower gets.

Because to get that status you have to go through a process that shows some documentation about the violations you saw or were a part of.

It's a specific thing that has specific requirements that need to be met.

So, no, having an opinion on why you were fired doesn't make you a whistleblower. It just means you have an opinion.

I think it's interesting that Jordan didn't provide their testimony to the Democrats on the committee ahead of time (despite being required to by Congressional rules for all committees).

I didn't get what your legal definition of whistleblower is from your verbose reply.

Your name is appropriate. 🤦‍♂️

It sure is, because whenever I go to politics stream, I always end up starving. ;)