The one thing that seems to be clear do far is that there were policy differences between some of the career State folks and the elected President Trump's Americas First policies do not sit well with some of the career folks
It is as if they never accepted the results of the election, i.e., unelected bureaucrats pushing back against the will of the people. They think they know better. And perhaps in some instances they do. But that is not the point. Shining a light on this attitude at the Foggy Bottom stop might be one of the few good things that come out of this
I admit obvious bias, but I do not think those first two hours was a good start for them. I dont see how this will capture and hold the attention of the public. So no one will watch and no one will change their mind. And the designated lawyers are making me cringe
When Trump's college yearbook showed him in a photo in Black Face, damn, that did it for me right there. Can't get any worse than that... (speaking of looking "past it", as you say)
Bill Taylor's posts, besides Ukraine, were -- Libya Syria Egypt Afghanistan Tunisia And he "facilitated the Israeli disengagement from Gaza and parts of the West Bank" How do we look at this? Is this a good resume for an American diplomat? Or does it look like he one of the group of people inside State who got us in a bunch of related but different messes? What is the proper way to look at this? One of Trump's platforms that was that these people had failed us and he would work to get us out of these messes.
Good point and one I wish more would realize. The intelligence/military community is the group is really against Trump. They are called by other names: deep state, career bureaucrats, DOD, Pentagon, NSA, unelected officials, etc. Trump doesn't like signing off on their plans for more war, so have been trying to discredit and remove him since the election. It isn't the Democrats per se, but it helps them get back in power so of course they will go along with it.
Joe Interesting angle. I did not know his resume. Mr Castor, a Pub attorney is making both of them look clueless except for their biased position on policy.
Hunter Biden... poor guy, he's been skewered by Counsel without him even being present. If he has to be present before the senate... good luck you, young man
Shifft went on and on in his opening statement that Trump severely jeopardized Ukraine's safety from Russia. Taylor said he was so concerned for Ukraine when he could look across and see Russians. Interesting Oped by WaPO. It details how Obama refused military aid to Ukraine. https://nypost.com/2019/10/09/sorry-joe-team-obama-refused-to-arm-ukraine-at-all/ "None of this excuses Trump’s delaying a new round of lethal military aid to Ukraine. But if this military assistance was as vital to countering the Russian threat as Biden says, then it’s fair to ask: Why didn’t the United States provide it when Biden was the Obama administration’s point man on Ukraine?" 2019, The Washington Post Writers Group
John Ratcliffe has a much better flow going He is from Texas and I think a former US Attorney The one guy on the R side who McCarthy left on (or I think he is still on), is Will Hurd. Never-Trump guys like him should not be on this panel. The Rs left a couple of dubious choices on, but IMO, Hurd (who is former Deep State himself) is the worst decision. He should have been replaced
He was not on the call -- so only a hearsay witness to it To me, he is an odd choice to start with. Usually you want to start strong, grab everyone's attention. In this, they failed, IMO Kent, however, does seem to have a firm grasp of the facts. And whether he intended it or not, he made a good case for the need to investigate Burisma, Ukraine corruption and the Bidens
So far he hasn't detailed any poor decisions etc by Rudy G, just that it wasn't the norm for him to be involved You have to have severe bias against POTUS to see anything impeachable here. At least what's been said so far Agree, I thought the bomb shells would come early. (Taylor just looks worse and worse as it goes along)
Surely there would be a link by someone raising holy heck if he kept anyone from the Intelligence Committee out of any Committee meeting.
HPSCI Minority Members | Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Here are the members. I don't remember seeing any of them being barred from entering the SCIF. I guess if there's not a link it didn't happen.
Yes, many raised holy heck about what Schiff did with his secret room in the basement Let Me Google That
None of that indicates that he did what you said - "barr committee members from attending their committee meetings". That's all about him being corrupt and mean and not fair. That may be correct. But that's not what you laid out as a fact set.
Although Kent, despite being being in charge of the Ukraine desk, said he had never heard of Crowdstrike. I am dubious of that claim.
Here's your quote: "No, relevant committee members who tried to attend were not allowed entry per Schiff"
