"Yes," said Swalwell.

[Miles Archer]

“You were in the room for Fiona Hill’s closed-door deposition today,” said Blitzer. “How helpful do you believe her testimony to your investigation will be?”

“Incredibly helpful, Wolf,” said Swalwell, who serves on the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. “Also helpful that she showed up, and, like some others, has chosen to defy orders from the president and the State Department to not show up. And when witnesses actually just show up, it advances our investigation.”

“We’ll wait until she’s done, and I’m going to head back there before we characterize what she said,” continued Swalwell. “But the arrows continue to point in just one direction, which is that a crime was committed — extortion, bribery, soliciting campaign help,” said Swalwell. “It was confessed to by the president, and there’s an active coverup going on right now.”

“Let me just back up for a moment,” said Blitzer. “You’re saying the president of the United States actually committed a crime?”

“Yes,” said Swalwell. “Extorting your taxpayer dollars, $300 million — $390 that was supposed to go to [Ukraine], holding that over their heads unless they investigated his political opponent the Bidens, and went back and exonerated Russia for their role in the 2016 election. In exchange for that … Ukraine would get a presidential visit and Ukraine would get security assistance. The president has frankly admitted to that.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/intel-democrat-says-trumps-russia-advisers-testimony-was-incredibly-helpful-for-impeachment/

[NoMoreRepugs]

1. Yes Wolf, a frickin' crime was committed, and it's not the first.

[ancianita]

2. Wolf doesn't even know the law, or that what 45 did is against that law.

[Sherman A1]

3. I suspect he was asking the question to make it clear to viewers

and of course for the CNN dramatic affect.

[Nitram]

17. I agree. That is a reporter's job.

[yaesu]

6. I think he asked that, like most news hosts do, to make it clear to viewers who are too stupid to

figure it out. They sound stupid because they need to bring out the obvious for all to hear.

[calimary]

12. Sometimes it's an interview technique. You play dumb so your

interview subject might feel they need to confirm and explain.

Also, if you sound incredulous, then your subject may view that as - 1) he can frame this HIS way if he’s the first to tell you; or 2) he takes your incredulity as a signal that you can’t believe this is true and you’re coming from a position predisposed to give him the benefit of the doubt. mean, SURELY Wolf Blitzer has seen enough as a leading CNN anchor by now after three years of covering this lying scheming CONman that this ISN’T the first time he’s heard any such thing.

An interviewer sometimes will take such an approach to soften the interview subject and draw him or her out. If you seem nonthreatening, you might get more out of an interview subject who you rendered not so reluctant to talk to you because your behavior reassured them that you’re sympathetic to them and it’s safe to cough something up.

[ancianita]

14. I know the approach.Always have. But in THIS case, viewers have to know that he also knows, and that

Wolf explicitly states that it's against the law, as in, "are you saying his action is against the law?"

This was weak sauce. Another reason I think CNN is too weaselly.

I don't believe that an interviewee is loath to tell the truth or they wouldn't appear. So...

Because until it's said explicitly, most of his viewers still will believe 45 over CNN.

Thanks for the posts

[NJCher]

13. In communication

It’s called a paraphrase. It’s done on occasion to feed back what the listener heard. In this case it also serves the purposes described in the posts above—emphasis, clarity.

[ancianita]

15. I'm aware. I studied communications, even taught media. I just wanted another paraphrase from Wolf,

like "Mr. Swalwell, are you saying that asking for foreign help in an election is breaking the law? "

I guess I should be content with this, but I just wanted a harder hitting paraphrase' "crime" is good, adding "breaking the law" is better.

[NJCher]

16. yeah, that would have been better

eom

[ancianita]

20. I hear you. I just posted off the top of my head. Sorry.

[EveHammond13]

4. Denny Heck said she appears to have an eidetic memory

[WheelWalker]

5. John Dean.

[maxsolomon]

18. He actually said "eidetic"?

Pelosi trots out words that send me to the dictionary, too.

[triron]

7. Hell, Trump is a fucking traitor supreme. Putin directs the motherfucker.

[SergeStorms]

8. I wonder if Fiona Hill shed any light.....

on Trump's connection to Putin? I wonder if she's overheard some of Trump's calls to Vlad, his case agent? That could prove very interesting in connecting some of Mueller's unconnected dots. I'd dearly love evidence of Trump's selling our country out to his 'top', if you catch my drift.

[triron]

9. More 'diirect' evidence. Seems like there is quite a lot of circumstantial evidence.

[Captain Zero]

10. oh yeah

that would be as good as dad jeans and a tan coat...

[dchill]

11. Yes. First Wolf has heard of it, though.

[Blue Owl]

19. Get thee to your Situation Room, Wolf...

We have a story... a MAJOR story...