9/26: Acting DNI hearing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Importantly, if Trump hadn’t released the transcript on a whim, how would the complaint ever gotten to Congress?

The whistle blower had the option to go directly to Congress, and the Committee was in talks with the WB's attorneys to make that happen.

Only by following the process, which they did. But McGuire held up that process by a month, for some reason and in violation of the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thread over.

Swalwell has cracked this case. Sounds like Seth Abramson got to him.

Good God. How embarrassing..

Agree. He was not helpful. His whole tone played into GOP claim's of Dems on a crazy witch hunt.

Not really. He was able to elicit specific and damning facts of the case from the witness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thread over.

Swalwell has cracked this case. Sounds like Seth Abramson got to him.

Good God. How embarrassing..

Are you referring to this tweet?

Eric Swalwell just made an amazing point: if the credible, urgent allegation by the whistleblower was that the White House was *systematically*, *secretly*, and *improperly* moving documents to a classified archive, that *absolutely* triggers the mandatory language in the statute

Why did the White House do this? Because they knew crimes were bring committed.

He let his tone undermine his excellent point. Trump is a savant in understanding the importance of appearance, staging, showmanship. Democrats have to be careful is HOW they make their case. That's also why I cringed when I heard Schiff's satiric interpretation of the transcript in his opening remarks. A rare mistake by Schiff.

[Anonymous]

Isn't Bill Barr's son-in-law in the White House Office of legal Counsel?

Maybe he needs to be interrogated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GOP just needs to dump Trump.
They can easily pivot to another candidate (Jeb, Nikki, Romney) who would attract swing voters and defeat any of the Dem candidates.
If they did it now, they might just regain the House and continue to control the Senate.

They can't force him out of office--and therefore out of the running for reelection--without a conviction on impeachment, which will take months.

Otherwise, he can decide to run against anyone they put up as a primary challenger.

This will be wrapped up by Christmas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't Bill Barr's son-in-law in the White House Office of legal Counsel?

Maybe he needs to be interrogated.

Correct. Bill Barr’s son in law works in the White House Counsel’s office.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/13/politics/barr-family-justice-department-moves/index.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maguire seems to be well-intentioned, but he’s in over his head in this political environment. He also comes across as nit-picker, not a leader.

I pretty much agree with the bolded, but I wouldn't say "over his head" so much as not interested in political considerations. I actually find it somewhat reassuring to see a military man act out of the narrow, "nit-picky" attention to proper procedures. He doesn't seem to have acted out of protecting the president but of being very careful to follow protocol. The situation is unprecedented and required decision making that the whistle blower law didn't anticipate-- and I do think he made the wrong call in giving priority to executive privilege and DOJ regs-- but he does exemplify the idea that institutions and norms are holding.

I agree, I just wish he would say more clearly that the law did not anticipate such an unprecedented situation, and that therefore it's not his fault.

The result, I think, is that his testimony is credible and damaging to the president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thread over.

Swalwell has cracked this case. Sounds like Seth Abramson got to him.

Good God. How embarrassing..

Agree. He was not helpful. His whole tone played into GOP claim's of Dems on a crazy witch hunt.

Not really. He was able to elicit specific and damning facts of the case from the witness.

Completely agree on substance. Disagree on tone. I think Schiff (aside from his "interpretation" of the call memo) is a master of this. He conveys outrage and righteousness in a serious, compelling way and not in a shouting, sputtering, witchhunt-y way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't Bill Barr's son-in-law in the White House Office of legal Counsel?

Maybe he needs to be interrogated.

Correct. Bill Barr’s son in law works in the White House Counsel’s office.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/13/politics/barr-family-justice-department-moves/index.html

Ugh. That's right! Good God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maguire seems to be well-intentioned, but he’s in over his head in this political environment. He also comes across as nit-picker, not a leader.

I pretty much agree with the bolded, but I wouldn't say "over his head" so much as not interested in political considerations. I actually find it somewhat reassuring to see a military man act out of the narrow, "nit-picky" attention to proper procedures. He doesn't seem to have acted out of protecting the president but of being very careful to follow protocol. The situation is unprecedented and required decision making that the whistle blower law didn't anticipate-- and I do think he made the wrong call in giving priority to executive privilege and DOJ regs-- but he does exemplify the idea that institutions and norms are holding.

I agree, I just wish he would say more clearly that the law did not anticipate such an unprecedented situation, and that therefore it's not his fault.

The result, I think, is that his testimony is credible and damaging to the president.

Yes. He definitely comes across as sincere and well-meaning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't Bill Barr's son-in-law in the White House Office of legal Counsel?

Maybe he needs to be interrogated.

Correct. Bill Barr’s son in law works in the White House Counsel’s office.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/13/politics/barr-family-justice-department-moves/index.html

Ugh. That's right! Good God.

Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GOP just needs to dump Trump.
They can easily pivot to another candidate (Jeb, Nikki, Romney) who would attract swing voters and defeat any of the Dem candidates.
If they did it now, they might just regain the House and continue to control the Senate.

They can't force him out of office--and therefore out of the running for reelection--without a conviction on impeachment, which will take months.

Otherwise, he can decide to run against anyone they put up as a primary challenger.

This will be wrapped up by Christmas.

Don't be so sure. The Nixon impeachment hearings took over a year. The Senate Watergate Committee was formed in February 1973 and delivered its final report in June 1974. Nixon resigned in August 1974.

[Anonymous]

Very good wrap-up by Schiff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GOP just needs to dump Trump.
They can easily pivot to another candidate (Jeb, Nikki, Romney) who would attract swing voters and defeat any of the Dem candidates.
If they did it now, they might just regain the House and continue to control the Senate.

They can't force him out of office--and therefore out of the running for reelection--without a conviction on impeachment, which will take months.

Otherwise, he can decide to run against anyone they put up as a primary challenger.

This will be wrapped up by Christmas.

Don't be so sure. The Nixon impeachment hearings took over a year. The Senate Watergate Committee was formed in February 1973 and delivered its final report in June 1974. Nixon resigned in August 1974.

And the House recommended articles of impeachment in July. He resigned less than 2 weeks later.

We're well past all of the preliminary stuff. We could see articles of impeachment any day now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very good wrap-up by Schiff.

Well, he sure screwed up the opening with that ridiculous parody that was so misleading.