Jump to content
IGNORED

Impeachment Inquiry


GreyhoundFan

Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, lumpentheologie said:

Wow, Nunes seems pretty nervous as he's rattling off all those lies.  

The willingness of Republican elected officials to straight up lie to the public when there is obvious evidence contradicting them continues to shock and appall me. 

Nunes strung together more outright lies (unlike Trump, not sounding demented or drugged -- so those so predisposed will believe him). I will never understand how people can lie to that extent.

  • Upvote 1
  • I Agree 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, Rep Turner is implying that the whistleblower statute should not even apply here. 

And on Maguire's grave it will read, "He thought it would be prudent" ?

  • Upvote 6
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Maguire is doing a reasonably good job presenting himself as a non-partisan civil servant and protecting the professionalism of his office. 

 

Although he did just say that there are other people who would have been better for his job, lol. 

Edited by lumpentheologie
  • Upvote 1
  • I Agree 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ms. Speier is really holding MaGuire's feet to the fire. Good.

Although I must say, MaGuire is not playing along with the Repugliklan playbook.

Rep. Stewart is an ass.

That is all.

  • Upvote 2
  • I Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, good question from Quigly: does Giuliani have a security clearance, and why doesn't the DNI know that?

  • Upvote 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not hating Hurd? I don't know much about him. Is he not sticking to the Republican talking points or am I missing something?

Also if the DNI does not know security clearances, who does? Genuine question. 

Edited by Ticklish
Added question
  • Upvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ticklish said:

I'm not hating Hurd? I don't know much about him. Is he not sticking to the Republican talking points or am I missing something?

Also if the DNI does not know security clearances, who does? Genuine question. 

Hurd is retiring at the end of his term because the Republicans have gotten too racist for him to continue.  He's not holding the line. 

 

Edited by lumpentheologie
  • Upvote 2
  • I Agree 3
  • Thank You 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm struck by how few Republicans bought into characterizing this as a charade, like the Senate Republicans did with the Kavanaugh hearing a year ago.  It feels like most people here think this is a serious concern. 

  • Upvote 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, a variation of the Sgt. Schultz defense.  Not quite "I know nothing.", but more like "I'm new here.  I wasn't informed. This whole mess  started before I even got to put my nameplate on my desk.  I had to rely on others for clues as to what to do."

In true Schultz fashion, Maguire played by party lines, found he didn't have a complete belief in the people he was playing for, and just hoped to get to the end of this nightmare with his skin intact.

I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't accept this job due to a combination of loyalty to public service and a naive expectation that he could resist the unsavory aspects of working for Trump.  I bet he very soon started looking for a good excuse to leave the job without just saying "These people are beyond what I'm able to deal with, I'm out."

  • Upvote 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Flossie said:

Ah, a variation of the Sgt. Schultz defense.  Not quite "I know nothing.", but more like "I'm new here.  I wasn't informed. This whole mess  started before I even got to put my nameplate on my desk.  I had to rely on others for clues as to what to do."

In true Schultz fashion, Maguire played by party lines, found he didn't have a complete belief in the people he was playing for, and just hoped to get to the end of this nightmare with his skin intact.

I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't accept this job due to a combination of loyalty to public service and a naive expectation that he could resist the unsavory aspects of working for Trump.  I bet he very soon started looking for a good excuse to leave the job without just saying "These people are beyond what I'm able to deal with, I'm out."

For the most part your assessment aligns with mine. On the face of it, it seems he was acting in good faith. He seems to answer as truthfully as he can. He attempts (somewhat successfully I might add) to convey his honesty and integrity. And on the face of it, his Sgt. Schultz defense (I love this description btw) seems to work for the most part.

What I'm struggling with, is that his actions completely contradict his demeanor. He gave no credible answer to the question why he chose to convey the complaint first to the White House, and then to the DOJ. He did not of his own volition inform Congress, as the law dictates he should have. In fact, it's entirely possible that he would have kept Congress in the dark had not the IC IG taken it upon himself to inform Congress. At no time today did MaGuire answer that query, other than vaguely pointing to a so-called question of executive privilege that he wanted cleared up first. He never indicated he would ever have informed Congress of the complaint had Michael Atkinson not done so.

And then came the closing questions from Adam Schiff, which confirmed my suspicions that MaGuire, for all his nice Sgt Schulz demeanor, his expounding of his service to the country, and the underlining of his good faith, is indeed a bad actor in this. No matter how many times he was asked if he thought Trump's actions (or hypothetical actions by a hypothetical president) should be investigated, would he answer affirmatively. He hemmed and hawed, tried to deflect, gave some quality Shultz answers, but did not once admit that he believed the egregious actions of Trump should be investigated. The fact that he would not answer these simple questions belied the image of honesty and integrity that he was trying to emulate.

MaGuire is just as bad as the rest of them. Maybe even more so, for his almost convincing demeanor of integrity. It's like what Rachel Maddow alsways says: Watch what they do, not what they say.

 

 

Edited by fraurosena
riffle
  • Upvote 2
  • I Agree 6
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although this information helps to confirm the whistleblower's integrity, I'm not sure we should we be glad these details are becoming public. Next thing they'll be naming him. Not a good development. Trump is already threatening him.

Whistle-Blower Is a C.I.A. Officer Who Was Detailed to the White House

Quote

The whistle-blower who revealed that President Trump sought foreign help for his re-election and that the White House sought to cover it up is a C.I.A. officer who was detailed to work at the White House at one point, according to three people familiar with his identity.

The man has since returned to the C.I.A., the people said. Little else is known about him. His complaint made public Thursday suggested he was an analyst by training and made clear he was steeped in details of American foreign policy toward Europe, demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of Ukrainian politics and at least some knowledge of the law.

The whistle-blower’s expertise will likely add to lawmakers’ confidence about the merits of his complaint, and tamp down allegations that he might have misunderstood what he learned about Mr. Trump. He did not listen directly to a July call between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine that is at the center of the political firestorm over the president’s mixing of diplomacy with personal political gain.

Lawyers for the whistle-blower refused to confirm that he worked for the C.I.A. and said that publishing information about him was dangerous.

“Any decision to report any perceived identifying information of the whistle-blower is deeply concerning and reckless, as it can place the individual in harm’s way,” said Andrew Bakaj, his lead counsel. “The whistle-blower has a right to anonymity.”

A C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment. A spokeswoman for the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, said that protecting the whistle-blower was his office’s highest priority. “We must protect those who demonstrate the courage to report alleged wrongdoing, whether on the battlefield or in the workplace,” Mr. Maguire said at a hearing on Thursday, adding that he did not know the whistle-blower’s identity.

Dean Baquet, the executive editor of The New York Times, said The Times was right to publish information about the whistle-blower. “The role of the whistle-blower, including his credibility and his place in the government, is essential to understanding one of the most important issues facing the country — whether the president of the United States abused power and whether the White House covered it up.”

Agents, officers and analysts from the military, intelligence and law enforcement communities routinely work at the White House. Often, they work on the National Security Council or help manage secure communications, like calls between the president and foreign leaders.

The C.I.A. officer did not work on the communications team that handles calls with foreign leaders, according to the people familiar with his identity. He learned about Mr. Trump’s conduct “in the course of official interagency business,” according to the complaint, which was dotted with footnotes about machinations in Kiev and reinforced with public comments by senior Ukrainian officials.

Officials regularly shared information to “inform policymaking and analysis,” the complaint said. The complaint raises the prospect that the whistle-blower was not detailed to the White House either during the events in question or when he learned about them.

Mr. Trump took aim at the whistle-blower’s credibility on Thursday, attempting to dismiss his revelations because they were secondhand.

[tweet]

He also obliquely threatened the whistle-blower or his sources with punishment. “I want to know who’s the person who gave the whistle-blower the information because that’s close to a spy,” Mr. Trump told staff members from the United States Mission to the United Nations before an event there.

“You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart with spies and treason, right?” he added. “We used to handle it a little differently than we do now.”

On the call with Mr. Zelensky, Mr. Trump asked him to investigate unsubstantiated allegations of corruption against former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son and other matters he saw as potentially beneficial to him politically.

Mr. Trump cajoled Mr. Zelensky to coordinate with Attorney General William P. Barr and the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, according to a reconstituted transcript of the call that the White House released on Wednesday. Mr. Zelensky, who was elected in April, agreed to help Mr. Trump. While Ukrainian prosecutors have moved to pursue an inquiry of an oligarch whose company paid Mr. Biden’s son Hunter, they did not allege wrongdoing by the Bidens.

The call with Mr. Zelensky was originally thought to be a routine matter, the complaint said, and the White House did not restrict it, meaning a number of officials and note takers listened.

But the whistle-blower said that afterward, White House officials “intervened to ‘lock down’ all records of the phone call,” putting them in a highly classified system meant for discussing covert actions. One White House official called that an abuse because the transcript contained no classified material.

Notes and rough transcripts of White House calls are typically stored on a computer system that allows senior officials in different departments and agencies to access them, to better coordinate policy.

Some White House colleagues told the whistle-blower that they were concerned they had witnessed “the president abuse his office for personal gain,” according to the complaint.

His complaint went beyond the call. During his time at the White House, the whistle-blower became deeply unnerved about how he believed Mr. Trump was broadly seeking to pressure the Ukrainian government to conduct investigations that could benefit him politically.

“Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the president’s 2020 re-election bid,” the complaint said of Mr. Trump.

After the call, multiple officials told the whistle-blower that future talks between Mr. Trump and Mr. Zelensky would depend on whether the Ukranians would “play ball” on the investigations he sought.

The whistle-blower, who lodged his concerns with the inspector general for the intelligence community, has identified at least a half-dozen government officials — including several who work for the White House — who he believes can substantiate his claims. The inspector general has interviewed some of them and found the whistle-blower’s claims credible.

 

 

  • Upvote 7
  • WTF 5
  • Thank You 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shame on the Times. The identity of the whistleblower should be protected.  They've essentially doxxed him/her now, and in the face of threats from Trump.  This is not the way to protect democracy. 

  • Upvote 2
  • I Agree 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

“You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart with spies and treason, right?” he added. “We used to handle it a little differently than we do now.”

Says the man who has tweeted out classified photos, spoken in private with Putin, accepted Putin's help in winning an election and covered it up, let slip classified information about his "wall", kissed up to Putin and Kim, repeatedly broken a multitude of laws, is personally indebted to Russia and probably other countries, and now has essentially extorted Ukraine to help him win the next election. How is none of that treason?

I do worry that if the whistleblower's identity comes out, they'll be in serious danger. If it becomes public enough, it won't even have to be one of Trump's cronies or anything covert. Some Trump-Humper will go after them.

  • Upvote 6
  • I Agree 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, lumpentheologie said:

Shame on the Times. The identity of the whistleblower should be protected.  They've essentially doxxed him/her now, and in the face of threats from Trump.  This is not the way to protect democracy. 

In the face of the threat the body of the whistleblower, and close family (IMO), should be protected...but I suspect the protection itself could potentially help dox the whistleblower's identity.

  • Upvote 11
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Ms. Speier is really holding MaGuire's feet to the fire. Good.

Although I must say, MaGuire is not playing along with the Repugliklan playbook.

Rep. Stewart is an ass.

That is all.

Jackie is amazeballs:

Quote

She represents much of the territory that had been represented by her political mentor, Leo Ryan. In 1978, while working as his aide, Speier survived five gunshot wounds during the assassination of Ryan, part of the Jonestown massacre.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Speier

  • Upvote 9
  • Thank You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Alisamer said:

Says the man who has tweeted out classified photos, spoken in private with Putin, accepted Putin's help in winning an election and covered it up, let slip classified information about his "wall", kissed up to Putin and Kim, repeatedly broken a multitude of laws, is personally indebted to Russia and probably other countries, and now has essentially extorted Ukraine to help him win the next election. How is none of that treason?

I do worry that if the whistleblower's identity comes out, they'll be in serious danger. If it becomes public enough, it won't even have to be one of Trump's cronies or anything covert. Some Trump-Humper will go after them.

I seriously hope the whistleblower is Dan Coats.  He can handle the heat.

@fraurosena I always think you HAVE to look like your profile pic.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

I seriously hope the whistleblower is Dan Coats.  He can handle the heat.

Nice theory, but Coats was DNI, not part of the CIA. That said, the NYT article could be a strategic misdirect on the part of the whistleblower, who in that case could indeed be Coats or... Sue Gordon. Or anybody, really.

  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, fraurosena said:

Nice theory, but Coats was DNI, not part of the CIA. That said, the NYT article could be a strategic misdirect on the part of the whistleblower, who in that case could indeed be Coats or... Sue Gordon. Or anybody, really.

I am just not sure how much I trust NYT reporting on this. It did a lot of damage in 2016. Maggie Haberman's mom worked for Fred and Donald Trump from the 70s-90s.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

@fraurosena I always think you HAVE to look like your profile pic.

Well, Frogface the Witch is my alter ego irl. :my_biggrin:

Seth Abramson's opinion on the politico article revelations:

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Thank You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • GreyhoundFan locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.