The half-truths and deceptively edited sections of leaked transcripts presented the media scribes trying to quickly summarize it for their readers a lot of material for a political narrative, but not much context or guidance for understanding the facts.
"Friend told the subcommittee in his testimony that he had objected because the men had indicated they would cooperate with the FBI, but he didn’t mention that to his supervisor at the time."
However, the claim: “he didn’t mention that to his supervisor at the time” was false.
In fact, he testified repeatedly about telling his supervisor the subject expressed a willingness to cooperate—under questioning from both Chair and Ranking Member staff.
After we pointed out the error, the Post really *meant* to report @HouseDemocrats silly swipe at @RealStevefriend about the declaration he submitted to various oversight authorities.
See, it failed to list the subject's willingness to cooperate among his reasons for concern.
It doesn't cite lots of other things that are true and for which there is corroborating evidence as well.
So what? It's supposed to start an investigation, but the @HouseDemocrats have publicly announced they are only interested in stopping one.
Resorting to this kind of back-bending and rhetorical sleight of hand to attack #whistleblowers is a tell.
So is leaking partial transcripts so quickly.
A few witnesses, no documents, and they've already drawn conclusions?
It smells of fear about what an inquiry might reveal.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
#1 The Constitution requires a recorded vote if sought by 1/5th.
#10 Members-elect can make motions and propose resolutions.
So any Member could seek recognition and move that, for example, the Clerk be empowered to swear-in Members-elect. Then 1/5th (87) could force a vote.
If a majority supported the motion, the Clerk could then swear-in Members-elect.
By the same procedure, other basic business could be conducted to temporarily organize the body, alter procedures/timing for the Speaker's election, even pass key legislation.
"Mr. Grassley told The Times on Monday that Mr. Thibault’s departure from the FBI would not resolve questions about his political bias impacting federal investigations."
"Mr. Thibault’s blatant partisanship undermined the work and reputation of the FBI. This type of bias in high-profile investigations casts a shadow over all of the bureau’s work that he was involved in...
..., which ranged from opening an investigation into Trump based on liberal news articles to shutting down investigative activity into Hunter Biden that was based on verified information,' Mr. Grassley said in a statement to The Times."
The FBI’s recent history of mishandling controversial investigations into Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump has undermined public trust and polarized views of the Bureau along political lines.
Following the unprecedented FBI raid of President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home, Vice President Harris said she had “full confidence that the Department of Justice will do what the facts and the law requires.”
Why? Nearly half the country is much more skeptical, and with good reason.
1. You can't find what you won't look for. The @FBI sought no warrant for the Clinton laptops. Instead it negotiated and agreed not to look at the most important stuff.
2. What's the basis for the warrant? Let's see the affidavit. Is there a filter team to segregate things not related to a narrowly scoped investigation negotiated with the target's attorneys—as was done with Clinton?
3. Why the runaround on the Qs about Biden/foreign gov't bank records and the declassified Crossfire Hurricane documents?
2. He sidelined NARA's independent watchdog on paid admin leave for 2 years, a needless waste of taxpayer money that also ensured less oversight of his agency at the time.
3. Here is Mr. Ferriero's letter to @ChuckGrassley from September 2015 responding to Qs about what he did (or didn't do) about Hillary Clinton's secret, offsite email server.