Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

(Acting) Director of National Intelligence Testimony Thread


cosjobs

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I stopped watching, but it seems to me there are point the Dems can make about the substance of the allegations here, and I am not sure they will take them.  

Maguire is not going to speak to the truth of the allegations, but its a pretty easy step to ask him questions like - if the allegations are true - is that a threat to national security?  Or more broadly, would you consider that to be inappropriate behavior, etc.

Not important. In fact, I don’t think there’s anything more to be learned from this testimony, now that the whistleblower complaint has been released. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Redwes25 said:

I agree with this.  From his testimony, I don't think Maguire did the anything wrong on this one.  Dems should not be attacking him like this.  It is going to hurt them.  

Just going on the early questions - but I think the Dems are really going after the DOJ (and Barr) and whoever in the White House said to keep this under wraps.

Maguire is the unfortunate go-between - but they need Maguire to lay out precisely why he did not turn over the complaint, and who directed him to withhold the allegations from Congress.

 

I like Maguire.  He seems like a righteous dude. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Rove! said:

So, networks are pre-emptying programming so everybody can watch the Democrats beat up on a lifelong public servant who has simply been acting within the bounds of the law. 

Up until now, I had always considered the Republicans the stupid party...

:lmao: 

Yeah, your spin ain't workin.  Sorry.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rove! said:

So, networks are pre-emptying programming so everybody can watch the Democrats beat up on a lifelong public servant who has simply been acting within the bounds of the law. 

Up until now, I had always considered the Republicans the stupid party...

:lmao: 

Yes the Democrats are going to come away from this looking like the bad guys. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Not important. In fact, I don’t think there’s anything more to be learned from this testimony, now that the whistleblower complaint has been released. 

Disagree - this is still a PR battle - we now know the conduct, but you want a neutral to help define the conduct for the public.

"DNI says allegations are troubling" - gets a lot of people in the middle to think beyond partisanship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rove! said:

So, networks are pre-emptying programming so everybody can watch the Democrats beat up on a lifelong public servant who has simply been acting within the bounds of the law. 

Up until now, I had always considered the Republicans the stupid party...

:lmao: 

The questioning going on now is beating a dead horse. He has explained it over and over yet they don't listen and keep on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

The questioning going on now is beating a dead horse. He has explained it over and over yet they don't listen and keep on.

I actually agree with this. But 90% of public hearings go on this way because each of these guys want their spotlight on television. 

And yet there is no better way to get the truth out. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, timschochet said:

This guy wants us to believe that the IG never read the transcript and if he had, he would have decided that the whistleblower complaint wasn’t credible? Really? 

That is one of the top GOP talking points - the "transcript" shows that Trump had the first perfect call in the history of phone calls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, snitwitch said:

seems to me the reason we have this transcript and the complaint itself ahead of this hearing is because someone calculated it was better to have it out ahead of time in order to blunt the impact of this hearing. 

It’s the old Clinton strategy: you get the bad news out there as soon as possible, and then whenever somebody talks about it, you yell “old news! Move on!” 

Its usually an effective strategy, unless the news is really really bad. Like in this case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Punxsutawney Phil said:

Adam Schiff saying that Trump asked Ukraine to make up dirt on his political opponents is nice cover in case they do happen to have anything.  Now they can just say it's fake like they did for the WikiLeaks emails.

It might just be me - but I don't think the Dems will go to the mat for Biden - if facts come out that show some corruption on his part, he will have to face those consequences.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, squistion said:

Republican Rep. Mike Turner on Trump's conversation with Ukraine:

"Concerning that conversation, I want to say to the president, this is not OK. That conversation is not OK. And I think it's disappointing to the American public when they read the transcript."

*Not a transcript

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Redwes25 said:

I agree with this.  From his testimony, I don't think Maguire did the anything wrong on this one.  Dems should not be attacking him like this.  It is going to hurt them.  

I agree as well. Several of the democratic examiners made me sympathetic to Maguire. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mcintyre1 said:

"How dare you attack this man by asking him whether he was inappropriately instructed to withold this complaint, or whether he made the decision himself" -Whoever this Republican is

The funny thing is Trump will impugn him himself. He both withheld and also delivered. He wouldn’t comment on the substance but he did say those making the claims were in good faith and credible and the claim itself is urgent and important. Pick your poison, Trumpites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

One observation- there’s going to be a lot of public hearings, and in the larger scheme of things this one is pretty minor- but it’s already a thousand times more riveting than the Mueller testimony. That testimony bombed with the public. This won’t. 

Well it’s one incident instead of hundreds and the report came out immediately as opposed to 2 years. As they say in football this is a bam bam play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Well it’s one incident instead of hundreds and the report came out immediately as opposed to 2 years. As they say in football this is a bam bam play.

But Tim is right - this incident will resonate - because its a bam-bam play.

99% of the public don't have the time nor inclination to understand complex topics.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Claire Malone makes a good point - 

One thing I’m taking away from two hours of Maguire’s testimony — in which he refuses to weigh in on the veracity or seriousness of the complaints in the whistleblower report — is that I would really like to see the testimony of the whistleblower.

---

I look forward to seeing John Bolton up there testifying. 😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, whoknew said:

Interesting. I'm not watching but 538 thought he was smart to get to the issues of the complaint.

But he didn't spend 15 minutes rambling incoherently about what a great job he's doing, he never mentioned Hillary's emails, Obama or China and he never once used the phrase "Presidential Harassment". How effective can he be?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yesterday we got a transcript that is not a transcript, today they release a whistleblower complaint that is based on the call that was or was not captured in the transcript that is not a transcript and the complaint lays out that the complaintant was not on the call but trusts the half dozen that were on or privy to the call.  Good thing we have an inquiry to sort through what is going on because right now I am not sure what to believe.  I am totally shocked that one side is characterizing this as a nothing burger and the other is characterizing this as the most egregious abuse of the powers of the presidency in the history of presidencies. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, squistion said:

Schiff:

"You're not suggesting, are you, that the president is somehow immune from the laws that preclude a U.S. person from seeking foreign help in a U.S. election, are you?

Acting DNI Maguire:

"What I am saying, Chairman Schiff, is that no one, none of us, is above the law."

 

 

I so want this to play out like the scene in A Few Good Men.  You want the truth?  You can't handle the truth.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mr. Know-It-All said:

Yesterday we got a transcript that is not a transcript, today they release a whistleblower complaint that is based on the call that was or was not captured in the transcript that is not a transcript and the complaint lays out that the complaintant was not on the call but trusts the half dozen that were on or privy to the call.  Good thing we have an inquiry to sort through what is going on because right now I am not sure what to believe.  I am totally shocked that one side is characterizing this as a nothing burger and the other is characterizing this as the most egregious abuse of the powers of the presidency in the history of presidencies. 

 

 

this probably make its way through the clutter...

https://twitter.com/DavidJollyFL/status/1177235311321079809/photo/1

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, squistion said:

Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe now asking questions, who was Trump’s first choice to become director of national intelligence after Coats resigned.

He didn't ask any questions. 

He just tried to make it seem like a) there was nothing in the transcript and b) the transcript is all that's in the complaint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that it matters, but I don't have a problem with how DNI Maguire handled this - 4 days into the job.

I think it was wrong to withhold the information from Congress - but I think he took appropriate steps to ensure he was acting within the law.  I blame DOJ, OLC, and the White House for trying to cover this up.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q: Could WH be hiding other calls with leaders like Putin or MBS?

(Complaint says this was "not the first time" WH used system to protect "politically sensitive" info.)

Maguire: How WH and NSC conduct their business is their business. All we have is second hand allegation.

 

 

Open up the vault boys, we're gonna need to take a look inside...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Captain Cranks said:

I just don't understand the adversarial approach the Dems are taking here.  IMO, it makes them look bad and whatever point they're trying to hammer home is not resonating with me.  

Nobody is watching this - the soundbites and headlines will be the only things that get distributed.

GOP got nothing so far.  Dems have a treasure trove.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...