You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
86 points

I’m not convinced it is a good thing that both are being investigated if the investigation into Buttigieg is just political smearing. HRC’s emails show the cost of abusive investigations. Investigations aren’t cost free, either monetarily or in terms of public trust in institutions. It implies he did something worth investigating, and devalues the seriousness of real investigations, like those against Trump.

When the review was announced, Buttigieg had flown on FAA planes 18 times out of 138 flights for official trips since becoming secretary early in 2021, according to The Washington Post. He takes commercial flights most of the time, and when he uses FAA aircraft, it’s usually because it’s cheaper than commercial flights, a Department of Transportation spokeswoman said.

This does not seem to be something worth investigating.

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

devalues the seriousness of real investigations

The only thing people like Green or Jordan doing Congress is distract, distract, distract.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-18 points

Huh?

If they investigate him, and everything is cool, then it’s cool… Which is what the article sounds like.

If he’s abusing it, just to a much smaller degree, then that’s still an issue.

Like, that’s the whole point of not just holding people from your “own team” accountable. If someone might be doing something wrong, you investigate them no matter who they are.

Do you think an investigation means a huge thing where he testifies in front of Congress? That’s not an investigation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

The problem with investigating false allegations, aside from the waste of tax payer money, is that the damage is done in the beginning of the investigation. The fascist talking points are now about excessive spending from the Democrats. They won’t even bother retracting statements when they are found to be false.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-14 points
*

What do you think an investigation is?

It’s just looking at his flights, and seeing if he was flying free when he should have been paying.

From the article, that’s already been done.

How much do you think that possibly costs?

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

I am not against holding “my own team” accountable if there is some valid reason to think there is something worth investigating. If there isn’t, it is a witch hunt, and witch hunts are harmful. They can be used to harass, waste time, and slander by vague insinuation. More to the point, the public has finite attention. News of pointless investigations can be used strategically to drown out real ones, which is a threat to democracy. That is, I believe, what Republicans are presently doing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

Yeah, but when you have obvious and public cases of MASSIVE corruption in “your own team” and you fail to adress that… instead gojng after any “petty” corruption in the other team…

Yeah. That’s a problem.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-10 points

If someone steals 100 million from a charity, it doesn’t mean we dont care if someone else stole 10k…

And it certainly doesn’t mean we don’t even look if someone stole 10k

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

The problem is, Republicans don’t tell the truth. When you actually press the investigative committee into Hunter Biden about the evidence they have, they’ll quietly murmur there isn’t any. But otherwise, they’ll very loudly suggest they have evidence and outright lie.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 15K

    Posts

  • 429K

    Comments