What I heard this morning were very carefully crafted responses that threaded the eye of the needle

[Stinky The Clown]

To be sure, there was some protecting Donnie Two Scoops, but mostly, when you actually parse their answers, they confirmed a few things we already knew:

Donnie Two Scoops asked each of them to do things that, if not illegal, were unethical.

Donnie Two Scoops attempted to obstruct.






I would need the transcript to illustrate, but that's what I heard, admittedly, though my own filters and shaped by my own biases.

[RKP5637]

1. Yep! The way they answered the questions and tried to deflect what you say IMO is 100% true.

The entire hearing demonstrated them trying to hide something and IMO they were far from forthright and honest. There is definitely something going on, absolutely!!!

[asiliveandbreathe]

2. yup!! just WOW! - and if the Gen. Rogers wants to take the helm of a

destroyer - by all means general...take the helm..by by now!!!!

[dumbcat]

8. Generals drive ships?

Who knew?????

[asiliveandbreathe]

9. admirals do - thanks for setting me straight - genlarmy same rank admiralnavy

....duh!!! - ...so glad to have you watch my back...always good to have correctors here...

[dumbcat]

13. No problem

I just had a vision of Gen. Betrayus at the wheel of a ship and it made me chuckle.

(Forty year Army guy here.)

[FM123]

3. I hope you are right

At first it looked like they were all protecting trumpy, but at second glance I wondered if they were setting up the shot for the closed door session at 2:00.

[GallopingGhost]

4. The answers are beautiful.

The cookie is missing. Did you eat the cookie?

Honest answer- No, I did not eat the cookie.

Cover-up answer- I will not say whether I ate the cookie.

Makes them all look guilty as fuck, which they are. Either way, this won't be good for Trump.

[anneboleyn]

16. Haha! Like the new episodes of Twin Peaks! "Something's missing..."

[nocalflea]

5. "More questions than answers" doesn't do Trump a damn bit of good.

He wants all this to go away. Oops.

[redstatebluegirl]

6. I think they are being careful what they say in public because they know they are going to be

in court at some point. They don't want what they say to bite them when the time comes.

[BumRushDaShow]

7. Here is the CSPAN recording with transcript

https://www.c-span.org/video/?429451-1/senators-express-frustration-national-security-officials-answers-russia-probe

[dixiegrrrrl]

19. Thank you!

I downloaded the hearing this afternoon from Youtube, for closer watching, cause body language is important. but, I am more of a reader than a listener and love transcripts.

[beachbum bob]

10. deflected on several occassions of giving an answer to direct questions.

being asked to stop or deflect an investigation is not the same as "feeling pressured" to stop or deflect an investigation.....until officials are under oath and giving testimony in a real hearing, these witnesses can deflect and not answer

which of course brings more question up and makes it appear a conspiracy and or coverup is underway

[hedda_foil]

21. Exactly. It looks like a conspiracy to cover up obstruction of justice, led by fake president.

[MedusaX]

11. Simply an exercise in determining what is by identifying all which is not

Virtually the equivalent of

Q: Is person X guilty of a crime?

A: No one involved died.

A: Person Y was not seriously injured.

A: Not at liberty to discuss anything related to the weapon involved in the interaction which took place between persons X&Y until the investigation is completed.


Some will declare that there is no proof of crime
Because no one explicitly stated "a crime was committed".

When in reality, the answers clearly establish that
1. X & Y were involved in an interaction...
2. There was a weapon present in that interaction...
3. The weapon is of some significance to the ongoing investigation
4. X is not guilty of murder...
5. Y sustained an injury as the result of an act by X, involving a weapon, which took place during the confirmed interaction.

So, at the very least there was an
injury caused
Possibly due to negligence
Possibly assault....
possibly attempted murder....
and depending upon the context of the interaction
it could be
aggravated assualt with a deadly weapon during the commission of another crime.

[anneboleyn]

17. Exactly MedusaX! Thank you for a superb breakdown of what the language did/did not establish.

I am a literature person (academic), and I am often surprised by the ways in which people will miss the REAL DETAILS revealed explicitly or implicitly in testimony for example and instead focus on relatively meaningless details or be completely distracted by a side point. This is a great, incisive breakdown of what was actually stated today.

[dixiegrrrrl]

12. By not answering a lot of questions relative to the investigations

they avoided giving Trump an excuse to fire them, and avoided giving the Republicans information on the investigation.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

15. Yes, also avoided compromising Mueller's investigation & possible later prosecutions of Trumpians.nt

[Duppers]

18. "they avoided giving Trump an excuse to fire them."

You nailed it, imho.


Congresswoman Jackie Speier just now said that on Chris Hayes.

[mcar]

14. I said similar to SO as we watched

"They are walking a fine line."

[calimary]

20. Jeffrey Toobin says it's obstruction of justice.

I saw his tweet.