Warner of Senate Intel: why he hesitates on independent commission (it's much slower)- video

[Amaryllis]

Interview with Mark Warner, vice chair Senate Intel on Meet the Press today.

Todd says,"You've hesitated on endorsing an independent commission. John McCain has been the biggest proponent."

Warner: "First you have to pass a bill. Then the president has to sign it; then there’s a big debate on who’s going to be on it. We’ve got bipartisan support on our committee. All republicans on the committee are saying we’re going to go where the intel leads."

He feels he can trust Burr now and they/the committee are working well together.

Senator Wyden said at his town hall last month something similar; that it takes a lot longer with an independent commission. He said he wouldn't hesitate to push for an independent commission if it became clear that Senate Intel couldn't do a bipartisan investigation but implied it would be preferable to continue with the Senate Intel one.

Can't they do both? Obviously we want whatever is faster and will still get the job done. House Intel is a different story as long as Nunes is in charge.

THey will start public hearings this week.

Article summary of interview:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/russia-probe-most-important-thing-i-ve-ever-done-senate-n738666

[tblue37]

1. A bipartisan select committee would be faster and more effective. nt

[pnwmom]

2. And if the independent commission is like the one after 9/11, they'll never make most of it public.

We just got a summary of the results, and I want more than that this time.

[Honeycombe8]

3. I don't think the Repubs will EVER find against Trump.

They don't crap on their own. Bush, when he lied about the WMDs for the Iraq War, and Wolfowitz even admitted it in a hearing before Congress? Nothing.

Clinton was impeached as a result of an INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION. Clinton approved the independent investigation. (I don't see Trump doing that.)

Reagan - a congressional investigation resulted in finding that (shocker!) Reagan didn't know anything, so he was free and clear. It found several underlings guilty of some things, but couldn't press charges because (surprise!) the White House wouldn't declassify the documents needed to do that. So they were given light sentences for lesser offenses, then pardoned by Bush Sr., the incoming Republican President.

I don't see any Republican, except McCain and Graham, voting to find one of their own guilty of anything serious. I think they'll decide that stopping this from happening again is enough, so their consciences will be clear. Only if there's some big political risk would they find Trump guilty of something serious, if the evidence is there. Like a risk of Trump not being re-elected because of the scandal. Or..I think they'd arrange to have Trump step down graciously (like LBJ and Nixon), rather than face being impeached. I don't think Trump will be held legally accountable, if he colluded with the Russians, under any investigation run by Republicans in Congress. As we've seen with the actions of Nunes.

So what is the goal? Fast and probably no accountability matching the seriousness of the crime, if proven? Or slow and ultimate accountability for colluding with a foreign enemy and being a Russian puppet, if proven, and hiring foreign agents to run our country, if proven?