U.S.POLITICS
The super weird Republican argument about the whistleblower
U.S.POLITICS

The super weird Republican argument about the whistleblower

Published: November 11, 2019  |  3 min read, 693 words
WRITTEN BY
Your review will affect the following:
cnn.comcnn.comChris CillizzaChris Cillizza
With a series of damning closed-door hearings behind them and public hearings into the possible impeachment of President Donald Trump set to start later this week, Republicans have fixated on a very strange idea: We have to know who the whistleblower is! "I consider any impeachment in the House that doesn't allow us to know who the whistleblower is to be invalid because without the whistleblower complaint we wouldn't be talking about any of this," said South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) on Fox News on Sunday. That echoes what Trump himself has been saying for weeks now. "Like every... READ MORE
CRITIC
cnn.com
Outlet Rating
cnn.com
img-trusted
76%
Critic Reviews: N/A
USER
img-contested
33%trust it
User Reviews: 3
Average: 2.4/5
TOP REVIEWS
Great Context1
Pure Opinion1
Political Agenda1

CRITIC REVIEWS

There don't seem to be any reviews yet.

USER REVIEWS

Great Context
November 13, 2019
Great Context
It's an Op-Ed, clearly. The facts about the charges, and the process within are true, and can be checked against most any other news source within seconds, obviously because this is the main news item right now. Yes it is the writer's opinion, but the subject matter remains factual. The preceding dissemination is source bias, and partisan bias.
Is this helpful?
Pure Opinion
November 12, 2019
Pure Opinion
Much of this piece is speculative and the author's opinion. I'm always very skeptical of Chris Cillizza's work. This piece doesn't have any major flaws, but overall it's a politically framed opinion piece meant to be a jab at Republicans. I've seen Cillizza write far more egregious pieces than this, but this is still not an article I'd recommend reading.
Is this helpful?
Political Agenda
November 12, 2019
Political Agenda
This piece reads like an Op Ed pushing an agenda. It does not portray both sides equally, and it is clearly written in a tone that comes to a foregone conclusion before the argument is laid out.
Is this helpful?