House Intelligence Committee Hearing on the Mueller Report and Counterintelligence

The House Intelligence Committee is holding a hearing this morning on the Mueller Report and its counterintelligence implications. I just noticed that C-Span was not airing it until a few minutes ago. And the cable news networks don’t appear to be broadcasting it either. I’m not sure if this is a result of the snooze fest that was Monday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing on the Mueller Report or because they were expecting to cover several hours of hearings by the House Oversight Committee culminating in a contempt vote for both Attorney General Barr and Secretary Ross. That vote has been postponed until, at least, this afternoon. So for those interested, here’s the live feed of the ongoing House Intelligence Committee on the Mueller Report and its counterintelligence implications.

Open thread!






40 replies
  1. 1
    tobie says:

    I {heart} Adam Schiff. He’s making mince meat of the Republican’s witness Andrew McCarthy. Really…this is a precision filet of the worst fish I’ve ever seen.

    ReplyReply
  2. 2

    I clicked on the video and Nunes was talking. I hate this timeline.

    ReplyReply
  3. 3
    MomSense says:

    @tobie:

    I adore Schiff. Whenever his eyes 👀 widen to the point of bugging out I know the next thing he says will be brutal.

    ReplyReply
  4. 4
    piratedan says:

    Glad that McCarthy wore his flag pin, else we would have had to consider him a traitor to the country…..

    ReplyReply
  5. 5
    tobie says:

    @MomSense: Yup. He was precise and devastating today. I think all Democrats on the House and Judiciary committee should just yield their time to him. Really, there’s no one as good in ferreting out info and in exposing inconsistencies in hostile witnesses.

    @Dorothy A. Winsor: Ryan Goodman has a nice list of highlights:

    Ryan Goodman

    Verified account

    @rgoodlaw
    3h3 hours ago
    More
    Bad start for Andrew McCarthy

    Opening remarks include falsehood by saying conclusion of Mueller Report is “no evidence of a conspiracy.”

    Chairman Schiff’s opening remarks correctly stated: “The failure to establish conspiracy did not mean the absence of evidence of conspiracy.”

    ReplyReply
  6. 6
    Bex says:

    OT Adam, but I wondered if you had any thoughts on Mayor Pete’s foreign policy speech yesterday? I’d be interested in reading them if you do.

    ReplyReply
  7. 7
    Another Scott says:

    It was on C-Span Radio this morning.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

    ReplyReply
  8. 8
    MomSense says:

    @tobie:

    He was a very successful prosecutor. He, Kamala, Sheldon, and Blumenthal are so good at this. They also refrain from statements and zero in on the witness.

    I also love me some Nadler – not as much for the questioning but he knows Trump’s MO as well as anyone. Back in the day, when he was In the NY State Assembly and he was going after developers to try and preserve affordable studio space for artists, musicians, and dancers.

    ReplyReply
  9. 9
    tobie says:

    @MomSense: Very true about the four you mention. They all are very good at questioning witnesses. That’s an interesting insight into Nadler. I didn’t know he went after developers in the NY State Assembly.

    ReplyReply
  10. 10
    TenguPhule says:

    I’m not sure if this is a result of the snooze fest that was Monday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing on the Mueller Report or because they were expecting to cover several hours of hearings by the House Oversight Committee culminating in a contempt vote for both Attorney General Barr and Secretary Ross.

    I’m sure the answer is yes.

    ReplyReply
  11. 11
    Kay says:

    @MomSense:

    I also love me some Nadler – not as much for the questioning but he knows Trump’s MO as well as anyone. Back in the day, when he was In the NY State Assembly and he was going after developers to try and preserve affordable studio space for artists, musicians, and dancers.

    I wish we had someone else in that job. I don’t think he’s been effective at all. There’s something that happens with people who “know” Trump – I don’t know what it is. They’re ineffective with him. We’ve seen it with Schumer too. And the NYTimes. I don’t know, you spend enough time in his force field of bullshit and you’re rendered helpless or something.

    Get some Californian or something. Someone who only vaguely knew him as a buffoonish D list celebrity. He co-opts. He gets inside their heads and they can’t function.

    ReplyReply
  12. 12
    Immanentize says:

    @MomSense: @tobie:
    AOC and Omar can certainly get their questioning on too. There are probably many more excellent house questioners, but we don’t get to see them. And frankly, I can’t think of any good Republican questioner, although Gowdy could be good when not showboating.

    ReplyReply
  13. 13
    Kay says:

    With Schumer you think “he’s pretty aggressive and he knows Trump- he knows his bullshit- he’ll be effective against him” and then he’s just…not. When this started I thought “that’s in the NYTimes backyard- we’ll get a lot of due diligence and oversight! They know him better than anyone” and again it’s just…limp.

    To know him is to be dominated by him, apparently. Bring in Kamala Harris. To her he’s a reality tv star.

    ReplyReply
  14. 14
    Jeffro says:

    @Kay: I think you’re right. Either it’s the perception of his wealth, his ‘swagger’ (gag), his bullying ways, or even just his familiarity as a public figure, many of the folks and institutions you mention eventually fade in their desire to hammer the shit out of him.

    Not Kamala and not Elizabeth, that’s for sure.

    ReplyReply
  15. 15
    tobie says:

    @Immanentize: AOC has presence. No doubt about it. But there’s no way she could have done what Schiff did today making a hostile witness hem and haw, backtrack and reverse himself while still creating a narrative about how the FBI followed proper procedures in its counterintelligence probe of the Trump campaign. This is not a knock on her. Schiff has been doing this for a long time and is skilled at it. I don’t know of any member of the House Intelligence or Judiciary Committee who is as good. He did not let GOP talking points go unchallenged today as Nadler did yesterday. It was refreshing to see that

    ReplyReply
  16. 16
    J R in WV says:

    I know it’s important that legislative hearings go on, that important facts come out sometimes, etc.

    But oh my gawd, they are so boring, witnesses are so unwilling to just answer a question with a straight out answer. Years ago, mid 1970s, I worked for a public TV station, and one of our annual things was to spend most of each week taping the legislature.

    One day after we taped a committee hearing, I told the producer that I quit the final day of the session, so as not to leave him in the lurch in the middle of the task at hand. But I couldn’t stand those nimrod legislators asking Bullshit questions, twisting answers to meet their requirements, etc.

    Saw, heard, taped the state’s public health head tell the committee that she was unable to properly manage the mental health facilities for a lack of funding. She was pretty direct in her remarks. Next speaker was a Republican nitwit, who went on record to paraphrase Dr Bateman’s statement as “So then, Doctor, every thing in our state hospitals is going very well, is that your statement in a nutshell?”

    Which was the opposite of what Dr Batemen said. Drove me wild to stand behind the giant camera and have to say and do nothing in response to this fuckery. I quit was the mildest thing I could do. Camera was way too heavy to use it to strike the currently speaking ass with.

    ReplyReply
  17. 17
    Kay says:

    @Jeffro:

    Isn’t it weird? Schumer has all but disappeared. He’s in the minority but Jesus- you never hear a peep out of him. I would not have predicted that. The thing “the disappointments” have in common is some kind of history with Trump. He dominates them.

    Outside Pelosi (who handles him really well) the newbies with fresh eyes have done the best. I see Nadler and I’m like “MOVE!” – file already, bring it, whatever. Do something or step aside. Trump doesn’t know anything about Congress. He doesn’t know how any of this works. They should be dominating. They know all the process and rules.

    ReplyReply
  18. 18
    rikyrah says:

    @MomSense:

    He was a very successful prosecutor. He, Kamala, Sheldon, and Blumenthal are so good at this. They also refrain from statements and zero in on the witness.

    Katie Porter-former law professor, is good at questioning.

    ReplyReply
  19. 19
    tobie says:

    @Kay: The newbies haven’t had to negotiate with the admin over appearances before committees. They haven’t had to gather support for subpoenas from reluctant committee members. They haven’t been weighed down by these tasks. I’m glad to see them use their time questioning to good effect. But their role is different than the chairs and senior members.

    ReplyReply
  20. 20
    Kay says:

    @Jeffro:

    I wonder if CLINTON’s long familiarity with him hurt her. Mayor Pete doesn’t give a shit. He never went to any weddings with this phony, or where the phony was in attendance. To him Trump is like this weird 1980’s throwback who was “famous” and no one knew why. Does Biden “know” him? God, I hope not. I don’t think they would have been in the same general vicinity.

    Remember with the Morning Joe celebrities where this was this weird personal relationship subtext and they seemed vaguely ashamed about it? He absolutely manipulated them. He basically said “I know you and I will tell“.

    ReplyReply
  21. 21
    Another Scott says:

    @Kay: He (or his team) is reasonably active on https://twitter.com/SenSchumer

    I think Schumer is doing a good job. I thought Reid did a good job as well.

    It’s not a flashy position. He has a lot of constraints being in the minority, and the Senate is designed to work slowly. Team D is behind him, and that’s what matters.

    My $0.02.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

    ReplyReply
  22. 22
    Kay says:

    @tobie:

    Right, but they have an advantage on process. This is their process. It’s not Trump’s. He doesn’t even know what branch they are. If they can’t operate effectively in their own forum with their own set of rules and years of experience – if he’s beating them there– they need to get better. The person who knows the rules has a huge advantage. They treat it like these rules are all obstacles. They’re not. They can be used.

    ReplyReply
  23. 23
    Kay says:

    @Another Scott:

    I preferred Reid. He’s blunt and vicious and he doesn’t pretend to be anything else. Schumer to me is like a yapping dog at this point. The time for yapping has passed. Trump’s a blowhard. He doesn’t take that seriously.

    ReplyReply
  24. 24
    Adam L Silverman says:

    @Bex: I did not know he made one.

    ReplyReply
  25. 25
    mrmoshpotato says:

    @Dorothy A. Winsor: LMAO

    ReplyReply
  26. 26
    tobie says:

    @Kay: you’re a lawyer. As you well know, you need to show the court you’ve made every effort to get testimony and documents before turning to the courts. That what the chairs & senior members are doing right. Theyre not cowering in fear of Trump.

    ReplyReply
  27. 27
    Kay says:

    @tobie:

    I don’t think they’re all cowering. I think familiarity with Trump- a long association with him- does something to people where they become vulnerable to him. I don’t think they have to turn to a court. They’re their own branch with their own process and Trump isn’t their superior. I don’t think a court is likely to weigh in at all, if they can possibly help it. I hope they’re not preparing a court case. This has been going on for a while. The Trump hires are sailing in there, treating them with absolute contempt and lying their asses off under oath. Hammer them. Use whatever rules you have and sanction them, or give away your own authority.

    ReplyReply
  28. 28
    Kay says:

    @tobie:

    I deferred to Pelosi on impeachment – I think she’s good at her job so I went with her. But they have to be seen as effective on all the rest, and I don’t think are effective on this. Pelosi’s big talent is she herds the cats. Get them moving in the same direction and start producing something. No one wants to hear what they can’t do. If they can’t actually do it then stop explaining and stop releasing that they’re negotiating with this one or that one in order to convince them to appear or turn over something. No one cares about their process problems.

    ReplyReply
  29. 29
    MomSense says:

    @rikyrah:

    Oh yeah, she’s my favorite. She’s also wickedly funny. I was talking more about prosecutorial questioning more for Mueller investigation related issues. Did you see the clip of her on Maher’s show?

    ReplyReply
  30. 30
    rikyrah says:

    🤨🙄😒

    Uh huh 😒🤨

    ReclaimingMyTime (@MonieTalks_1) Tweeted:
    So for Sanders’s democratic socialism speech today, he chooses to deliver it from George Washington University…..

    which will cost $56,845 for a year for those entering Fall 2019 or Spring 2020

    and the median family income of a student who attends GWU is $182K (in 2017). 🤔🤔 https://twitter.com/MonieTalks_1/status/1138861086210428928?s=17

    ReplyReply
  31. 31
    Renie says:

    Democrats need to have a spokesperson who is willing to be very public in telling us what is going on; both a House and Senate rep. We hear about all the bills the House has passed and whispers on how McConnell won’t bring them up for vote. For example, yesterday we saw Jon Stewart’s heart-tearing speech for the 9/11 responders but there wasn’t much said about how it’s the GOP who blocks funding. I’m really sick of the GOP attack dogs like Jordan, Meadows, etc. but don’t see anyone on the Democrat side who speaks out as much. Messaging has always been a weakness of the Democrats.

    ReplyReply
  32. 32
    Bex says:

    @Adam L Silverman: WaPo covered it and I think it’s on his website.

    ReplyReply
  33. 33
    tobie says:

    @Kay: I agree that debating about process is boring. At the same time, I know that were Democrats to act tough they’d end up showing their hand and by extension their weakness. The problem is that they don’t have many tools in their arsenal. They can’t compel the production of documents. Censure means squat. Levied fines would be ignored. Even if Democrat were to open a jail in the House, they couldn’t detain administration officials long term. As fas as I can tell, the only authority impeachment proceedings would give the House would be access to grand jury testimony, though Barr would challenge this in court.

    So, how do you win the public? Can you even win the support of those still undecided re Trump? I dunno. Sometime I think the only thing we should be putting our effort into is expanding the electorate to vote these fuckers out. I’d decamp to Milwaukee or Detroit or Jacksonville to do this for 10 days, if I felt there was a concerted push in this direction by a national organization.

    ReplyReply
  34. 34
    Chris Johnson says:

    @Kay:

    He basically said “I know you and I will tell“.

    If he is a Russian asset with a crapload of access to money, mingling and doing things with ambitious people both in business and in politics, maybe he DOES know.

    Some of the behavior may well stem from being owned. I’ve been saying the NYT is run from Russia for months now, and I think that’s literally true. Trump would be a sort of go-between. He’d be like ‘I can hook you up with incredible deals. I’m Donald Trump!’ And you’d laugh at him, but then it turns out he actually could. And so a lot of rich people get a hell of a lot richer. And then eventually you work out the nature of the deal you made, and Donald is still laughing, but you’re not laughing any more.

    I think it’s that. The guy’s fucking toxic and has been trying to get people complicit in the crap he gets up to, since the 1980s. It’s all about the money, and when the money is coming out of Russia because some people wanted revenge for getting saddled with Yeltsin, you still don’t talk about the money or call it out (that would be rude) but you do get a sense of what’s happening.

    This would also explain Clinton’s Russia hawkishness. She moved in those circles too. I think she was the Russia hawk because she knew. She went up against that machine, and won the people but not the machine. And we’re not seeing that much of her partly because it’s like with Schumer and the others: when the problem is too big, they don’t want to trouble the heads of the poor little people about it. A lot of elites want to fix their problem themselves and not make it all too public.

    ReplyReply
  35. 35
    Another Scott says:

    @Kay: Pelosi’s job is in many ways easier than Schumer’s. There’s some famous quote out there somewhere about the Senate being made up of 100 people who know they should be President…

    Cheers,
    Scott.

    ReplyReply
  36. 36
    MomSense says:

    @Kay:

    We need to time impeachment hearings with the short memory span of the electorate and media. The house should be revealing the worst of the dirt starting right after July 4th and in to September October. If we move to quickly the Senate will quash as McAsse has promised. Trump, GOP and media will run with exonerated and we are screwed. Pelosi’s strategy is an acknowledgement of how stupid the electorate and media are. SAD!

    ReplyReply
  37. 37
    japa21 says:

    @Renie: Actually what they need is a media that will let the public know what they are saying. Right now there isn’t one.

    ReplyReply
  38. 38
    rikyrah says:

    @Renie:

    I like Ted Lieu. He’s very unapologetic straight forward.

    ReplyReply
  39. 39
    dww44 says:

    @MomSense: FWIW, Blumenthal isn’t impressive to me;he’s a bit squishy. I want to be impressed by Whitehouse, but often am not
    .@rikyrah: I agree. It’s nice to have a Dem who isn’t forever hedging his or her bets. I honestly believe that voters, whatever their politics, much prefer their politicians to take a clear stand on issues

    ReplyReply
  40. 40
    Kay says:

    Kyle Griffin
    ‏Verified account
    @kylegriffin1
    22m22 minutes ago
    More
    New from WaPo: Hope Hicks has agreed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee next Wednesday, according to people familiar with the matter. The testimony will occur behind closed doors.

    Celebrity sighting! One of the low quality hires has grudgingly agreed to appear, but only with conditions where she won’t speak directly to the unwashed rabble. Because she’s …better than other people.

    What a shame we had to pay the salaries of these “public servants”. They work only for themselves. Very special people, Trump hires. Super exclusive.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *