Flagpole wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Maguire is doing a good job of protecting himself.
Before this hearing, there was a question about whether he broke the law by not forwarding the whistleblower complaint to congress in a prompt manner.
I find his explanation to be credible. Maguire makes the argument that, legally, he was stuck between a rock and a hard place. He had to try to comply with both the whistleblower law and the laws concerning executive privilege. So he tried to get clearance on the privilege matters then complied with the whistleblower law as promptly as he could.
As long as Maguire is telling the truth, any reasonable judge and jury would sympathize with his situation and conclude that he acted in good faith.
And the most interesting thing about this hearing is that Maguire appears far more concerned with following the law than protecting the president. That is the thing that is most telling. And I'm glad to see it.
I agree with this. We probably need a change to the law so that it is clear it is not necessary to go to an accused to get permission on whether a complain should be sent to Congress or wherever its destination lies.
Maguire may have defended himself from legal jeopardy. However his responses at the end to Schiff's line of questions where he would not agree that credible accusations of soliciting foreign assistance, and hiding and altering electronic recordings should be investigated indicated his level of compromised judgement due to bias.
Also questions revealing how dependent Ukraine was on the United States and how none of our military or security agencies could not understand why Trump help up the 400 million dollar payment that Ukraine needed was very incriminating. The dots are hard not to connect here. One has to really deny reality to pretend nothing is there.
Newly appointed Maguire was not ready nor had the confidence to fulfill his role.