Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)

Zelensky confirmed Satanist

Love that Zelenskyy's mafia goons are just in there not giving a fuck.

Zelensky during the weekends:

  On 9/26/2019 at 5:23 PM, goDel said:

Zelensky during the weekends:

Expand  

Nothing wrong with a little presidential cosplay!

This thread has more arguing than I'd have thought...

  On 9/26/2019 at 3:14 PM, very honest said:

congressional hearing, now live. intel cmte vs the DNI.

some of this shit is just so frustrating to watch. I could never be a lawyer with all the BS that goes on with interrogations like this. with all the technological advancements humans have made, we still continually struggle with getting fellow humans to answer simple questions. 

  On 9/26/2019 at 5:58 PM, zero said:

some of this shit is just so frustrating to watch. I could never be a lawyer with all the BS that goes on with interrogations like this. with all the technological advancements humans have made, we still continually struggle with getting fellow humans to answer simple questions. 

Yeah, jesus. I watched part of the end and. . . I actually kind of felt back for Maquire. It's like, Schiff keeps on trying to get him to say "as the national security director I think this needs to be investigated" and he's, like, "my job in this system of government is to bring you the information so that your branch of government can decide what to do next." Like, 20 minutes of that shit. . .

look how maguire tries to hide that he went to the whitehouse first. schiff first tried getting the simple yes/no answer at 4:21, below, and spent the next two and a half minutes clarifying and repeating the simple question. at 6:54, because schiff doesn't let him get out of answering, maguire finally lets out "ohhh, yeah i went to the white house first, of course."

swalwell's line of questioning at 3:06:42 (timestamped below) about whether maguire is responsible for preventing election interference as Director of National Intelligence is rather glaring. again, maguire tries to wriggle out of answering. swalwell gets in his face with "are you responsible for preventing election interference. i hope you know this answer to this" and you see maguire shrink. swalwell yields to schiff as maguire makes the claim that the president's call was not about election interference. schiff follows up and again you see maguire's tale between his legs.

the dude puts on a good show but schiff gives him too much credit when saying he thinks maguire has been acting in good faith. it's not thanks to maguire that the report got out, it's despite maguire. if the IG had not told schiff that there was a whistleblower report, the public and congress may never have learned of it.

He seemed sincere to me. And his argument might have even be valid. As the whistleblowing laws were originally meant to deal with stuff inside the intelligence community. This just happens to be coming from the intelligence community and is about Trump/the white house. 

Maguire repeatedly called it unprecedented and deeply concerning. Which is quite something for someone in his position. The republicans from the intell comm couldn't do much with him so they mostly ended up blaming the dems for not taking him seriously. Which was hardly the case even.

I think it went pretty good actually. Only a couple reps and dems went into cuckoo territory.

Maguire did push the ball to the white house/doj though. Because they basically stalled the process. And the thing about them moving those recordings to different intelligence systems was new to me, btw. But Maguire did what he had to do: defend his intelligence community (including the IG and the whistleblower) and explain his actions. Which, imo, was good enough.

Rudy Giuliani: ‘You Should Be Happy for Your Country That I Uncovered This’

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/09/giuliani-ukraine-trump-biden/598879/

“It is impossible that the whistle-blower is a hero and I’m not. And I will be the hero! These morons—when this is over, I will be the hero...”

  On 9/26/2019 at 9:29 PM, goDel said:

He seemed sincere to me. And his argument might have even be valid. As the whistleblowing laws were originally meant to deal with stuff inside the intelligence community. This just happens to be coming from the intelligence community and is about Trump/the white house. 

Maguire repeatedly called it unprecedented and deeply concerning. Which is quite something for someone in his position. The republicans from the intell comm couldn't do much with him so they mostly ended up blaming the dems for not taking him seriously. Which was hardly the case even.

I think it went pretty good actually. Only a couple reps and dems went into cuckoo territory.

Maguire did push the ball to the white house/doj though. Because they basically stalled the process. And the thing about them moving those recordings to different intelligence systems was new to me, btw. But Maguire did what he had to do: defend his intelligence community (including the IG and the whistleblower) and explain his actions. Which, imo, was good enough.

Expand  

so why was maguire dodging the question of whether he went to the whitehouse first? and isn't it disturbing that he was so clearly trying to mislead viewers? you can watch him pretend to not understand the question for 2 and a half minutes. see my post above. he looks like a good liar, to me. 

anyway, maguire's complicity is beside the point. the whistle blower report is damning.

  On 9/26/2019 at 5:20 PM, chenGOD said:

Love that Zelenskyy's mafia goons are just in there not giving a fuck.

Zelensky's story is crazy; he wins Dancing With the Stars, gets a role on TV where he plays a guy who runs for President, then he runs for President.  I guess it's no weirder than electing a reality show host whom people love to hate.

the position he was in was a hard one. saying something stupid will cost his head. so he was in a pretty tough spot. regardless of his intentions. malign or benign. his behaviour could be explained even if it was benign. which i still think it was. 

not sure why you think he was clearly trying to mislead the viewers. some comments from the reps were misleading as far as i'm concerned. maguire was limited to the extent he could answer some questions. and those seemed pretty well explainable to me. it's not like he was playing tricks like barr was during hearings earlier. barr was obviously going into the legalise in order to avoid questions. maguire didn't do that here, imo.  he just tried to give a good an explanation as possible.

his explanation for going to the white house was in my eyes sincere. the only question he didn't really answer was if he didn't think it was concerning given barr's implication. what didn't get out pretty well, i think, was that those contacts were on a different level than directly through barr, btw. this was through the so-called career people, instead of the politically appointed people. even though it's likely barr was made aware.

but thats my read. you can have a different opinion of course.

@goDel i appreciate that you're lending the navy seal the benefit of the doubt. please humor me.

so you think that, from 4:21 until 6:50, maguire was failing to understand that schiff was asking if the first consultation his office sought was from the white house? and after 2 and a half minutes of schiff asking the same question repeatedly, he finally understood? (he finally admitted that he went to the white house counsel first).

if i am correct that maguire was trying to avoid clearly saying so, why was he trying to hide that?

schiff was asking different questions. and making various insertions which maguire had to correct. that's all, imo. first the thing about second opinion. and btw, from maguires first answer you could already deduce he first went to the white house. he didn't deny that. and next schiff asked whether he needed to ask the white house whether or not to give the doc to the intell comm. was again schiff making assertions which maguire had to correct. as that simply wasnt his question to the white house.

those questions of schiff showed maguire sticking to his story and making him more credible, imo. schiff was - imo - purposefully asking questions with various assertions to test whether maguire had a strong story or would bend his story. which he didn't.

that's my read.

  On 9/26/2019 at 10:52 PM, Rubin Farr said:

Zelensky's story is crazy; he wins Dancing With the Stars, gets a role on TV where he plays a guy who runs for President, then he runs for President.  I guess it's no weirder than electing a reality show host whom people love to hate.

its like something Vladislav_Surkov would come up with

good luck america

  On 9/26/2019 at 11:44 PM, goDel said:

schiff was asking different questions. and making various insertions which maguire had to correct. that's all, imo. first the thing about second opinion. and btw, from maguires first answer you could already deduce he first went to the white house. he didn't deny that. and next schiff asked whether he needed to ask the white house whether or not to give the doc to the intell comm. was again schiff making assertions which maguire had to correct. as that simply wasnt his question to the white house.

those questions of schiff showed maguire sticking to his story and making him more credible, imo. schiff was - imo - purposefully asking questions with various assertions to test whether maguire had a strong story or would bend his story. which he didn't.

that's my read.

Expand  

thanks for bearing with me. he didn't stick to his story. from 5:41 in that video of the schiff questioning:

schiff: and my question is, did you go to the whitehouse first

maguire: i went to the office of legal counsel for advise, yes sir

schiff: well, i'm asking which you went to first. did you go to the department of justice office of legal counsel first or did you go to the whitehouse first

maguire: i went to the, excuse me, my team, my office, went to the office of legal counsel first to receive whether or not the matter in the letter and in the complaint might meet the executive privilege. [...]

schiff: well director i'm still trying to understand the chronology. so you first went to the office of legal counsel and then you went to the whitehouse counsel?

maguire: we went to the, excuse me, would you repeat that, sir?

schiff: i'm just trying to understand the chronology. you first went to the office of legal counsel and you then went to the whitehouse counsel?

maquire: no sir. no sir. no. we went to the whitehouse first.

here's the schiff preliminary questioning video again:

maybe it's not a big deal. my original point was that the jury should be out on this dude.

  On 9/26/2019 at 10:54 PM, goDel said:

the position he was in was a hard one. saying something stupid will cost his head. so he was in a pretty tough spot. regardless of his intentions. malign or benign. his behaviour could be explained even if it was benign. which i still think it was. 

not sure why you think he was clearly trying to mislead the viewers. some comments from the reps were misleading as far as i'm concerned. maguire was limited to the extent he could answer some questions. and those seemed pretty well explainable to me. it's not like he was playing tricks like barr was during hearings earlier. barr was obviously going into the legalise in order to avoid questions. maguire didn't do that here, imo.  he just tried to give a good an explanation as possible.

his explanation for going to the white house was in my eyes sincere. the only question he didn't really answer was if he didn't think it was concerning given barr's implication. what didn't get out pretty well, i think, was that those contacts were on a different level than directly through barr, btw. this was through the so-called career people, instead of the politically appointed people. even though it's likely barr was made aware.

but thats my read. you can have a different opinion of course.

Expand  

Come on goDel. 

Maguire is clearly not an idiot. Going to the DoJ, when the head of that organization has been implicated, and has already made his position known, is not sensible from someone who is upholding his oath. 

Neither is Maguire’s continued insistence that the whistleblower act doesn’t apply because the president isn’t a part of the intel community. Nowhere in the relevant section does it say that is a necessary condition for going to committee with the report. 

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, the conclusion is pretty simple. Roast that fucking duck and enjoy with a glass or two of merlot. 

  On 9/26/2019 at 10:52 PM, Rubin Farr said:

Zelensky's story is crazy; he wins Dancing With the Stars, gets a role on TV where he plays a guy who runs for President, then he runs for President.  I guess it's no weirder than electing a reality show host whom people love to hate.

It's actually more plausible. I mean like mediocre 00s era comedy plausible, but still plausible.

  On 9/27/2019 at 3:30 AM, joshuatxuk said:

It's actually more plausible. I mean like mediocre 00s era comedy plausible, but still plausible.

Longshot had Bob Odenkirk playing something similar.  A terrible actor on a terrible show that became POTUS.

  On 9/27/2019 at 3:07 AM, chenGOD said:

Come on goDel. 

Maguire is clearly not an idiot. Going to the DoJ, when the head of that organization has been implicated, and has already made his position known, is not sensible from someone who is upholding his oath. 

Neither is Maguire’s continued insistence that the whistleblower act doesn’t apply because the president isn’t a part of the intel community. Nowhere in the relevant section does it say that is a necessary condition for going to committee with the report. 

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, the conclusion is pretty simple. Roast that fucking duck and enjoy with a glass or two of merlot. 

Expand  

I'm only saying it can be explained in a benign manner.

which is confirmed in this youtube:

at 5:45

Please, keep your pitchforks at home.

I just don't think Maguire is the big villain here. Relax.

Maguire isn't the bad guy exactly, but he did crumble under pressure and didn't do things completely right in respect to the law and the truth. He didn't completely stonewall, which is nice for a change, but Schiff is right to put pressure on him to force his complete cooperation so that he can be more forthcoming. They also need to show that they will be complete hardasses to anyone who stands in the way of the truth. 

  On 9/27/2019 at 6:52 AM, goDel said:

I'm only saying it can be explained in a benign manner.

which is confirmed in this youtube:

at 5:45

Please, keep your pitchforks at home.

I just don't think Maguire is the big villain here. Relax.

Expand  

No pitchforks, and Maguire is not the big villain. I will point out that the guy you chose to explain Maguires decision also states that it was “maybe not the wisest move”.

Still, at the end of the day, this was not even the big piece of the puzzle, and it was infuriating watching them go on about this for so long. 

We need to get that word for word transcript. And, if the whistleblower is to be believed, it’s not the only piece of information that has been moved to that codeword-access server in an inappropriate manner. 

Fair.

I just don't agree with veryhonests take of the situation. And must say, I think it was a fairly short session as well. Given the sensitivity and the complexity of the mine field this situation presents. It was two hours? One? It was nowhere near Hrc/Bengazy levels of infuriating. So imo, people are getting too hyped up about Maguire. 

The irony might even be that Maguire might have been pushing in the background to get here. If my memory is correct there is some reporting that he needed to do some work to get in a position to talk freely with the intell comm. And in a public session as well, I might add. There were also several mentions of him working with Schiff in the background while he was trying to clear those hurdles. 

Maguire was in a similar position as Comey was when he sent the letter about HRCs emails short before the 2016 election. Perhaps not a wise move. But thats not the same as a malicious move.

It's better to focus on those 12 people involved in those Ukraine calls. And I suspect some of those people were consciously talking with the whistleblower to indirectly "whistleblow" themselves. As I suspect there isn't a legal whistleblower framework for the white house which is similar to that of the intelligence community. So this was the safest option for them. This indirect account of events is simply too close to the actual events as far as I can tell. 

Barr however needs some explaining. I'm having a hard time seeing him weaseling out of this turd.

  On 9/27/2019 at 8:15 AM, goDel said:

It's better to focus on those 12 people involved in those Ukraine calls. And I suspect some of those people were consciously talking with the whistleblower to indirectly "whistleblow" themselves. As I suspect there isn't a legal whistleblower framework for the white house which is similar to that of the intelligence community. So this was the safest option for them. This indirect account of events is simply too close to the actual events as far as I can tell. 

Barr however needs some explaining. I'm having a hard time seeing him weaseling out of this turd.

Agreed - that's why we need the actual transcript, and not that joke of a fucking memo T-rump released.

Barr is for sure in the shitter, and I believe Rudy "America's Mayor" Giuliani is also in a world of trouble.

I will state the obvious: if this goes sideways, the dems are fucked in 2020.