Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyB
This is uncomfortably similar to the kind of attacks being conducted down south to sow division and distrust in institutions and to attack political opponents.
There needs to be very strong evidence of any of this kind of stuff, not just anonymous sources, otherwise it's just tearing the institutions apart for the sake of some clicks.
If there's evidence, produce it.
I'll refer back to Snowden again. When he had something extremely important to blow the whistle on, he provided something like 10,000 documents to the press as evidence. Arguably, what he was blowing the whistle on was maybe less serious than what's being insinuated in these kinds of tweets and reports, but these leaks for some reason don't come with receipts?
Reporting that "The source said they captured a conversation" is insufficient. If they're a credible source and they believe in this enough to risk their career and freedom, they should actually provide the evidence. As is, the primary effect they're having is damaging faith in the critical institutions themselves, including CSIS, while not providing anything definitive to the public.
|
Because of the way that the Liberals and Trudeau have treated this. IE Fillibusters and playing games at the committee level.
Trudeau ignoring all recommendations from his own anti-interference mechanisms.
Ignoring questions or not answering them and being incredibly evasive.
They took control of this issue out of their hands.
In a police world what is coming out is a strong case of probable cause. If it was one source that's one thing, but for the most part we're seeing multiple sources in the same story.
The only way that the Liberals can clear this up is with at the very least a public inquiry, though I do believe that given the subject matter here that politics of any kind have to be removed. We can't have the Liberals appointing a friendly family friend at the head of a public inquiry for example. This should really have been a RCMP counter espionage investigation.