,
11 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
I have many questions about Maguire's handling of the whistleblower complaint, but his ability to maintain professional poise while handing Nunes his ass is duly noted.
So far, this hearing is striking me as a perfect example of the dilemma faced by dedicated career officials.
Did Maguire operate a bit outside of the law in order to keep Trump placated? Likely yes.
But would we better off if he'd resigned in protest instead? Most likely not.
Did Maguire operate a bit outside of the law in order to keep Trump placated? Likely yes.
But would we better off if he'd resigned in protest instead? Most likely not.
We can't, and shouldn't, expect to have a government run by civil servants who are willing to sacrifice their entire careers at the moment they're confronted with a choice like the one that was presented to Maguire. I guess that's why Trump has made it this far.
Maguire's defense of his conduct is "I didn't follow the law but I did do other things, and the right thing happened in the end." It's less of a defense, and more of an invitation to overlook the transgression by finding that his intentions were in the right place.
Maguire, asked if he believes that the whistleblower was acting on our country's side, dodges and says he believes they were doing what they believed to be the right thing.
Asked by Rep. Quigley what exactly is Giuliani's role in all of this anyway, Maguire laughs and says he will defer to the White House. Quigley doesn't let up, though, finally getting Maguire to acknowledge everything he knows about Giuliani's role comes from media reports.
I know there's criticism over Democrats spending time on Maguire's conduct rather than the contents of the complaint, but it's misguided.
Reluctant capitulation to the President's unlawful demands should have costs. This is one of the few days where it's been shown that it does.
Reluctant capitulation to the President's unlawful demands should have costs. This is one of the few days where it's been shown that it does.
I think Democrats are striking the right tone. Their rebukes of Maguire's conduct are paired with regret for a diligent civil servant who wanted to do the right thing, but who, when presented with a dilemma that he never should have faced, came up short in how he handled it.
Under questioning by Schiff, Maguire is giving a remarkable display of cowardice. As DNI, Maguire says, he has no authority or responsibility to take any position whatsoever on the President's misconduct or criminal acts.
Maguire himself said that foreign interference that undermines the credibility of our elections is the single biggest threat the US faces.
But if it is the President himself who solicits the foreign interference, then that conduct exists outside of the DNI's universe.
But if it is the President himself who solicits the foreign interference, then that conduct exists outside of the DNI's universe.
Acting DNI Maguire, encountering evidence that a President is plotting to vaporize the United States:
