Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe[W:266]

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

JasperL said:

Can you explain his behavior last week and defend it as appropriate in his role as head of the investigation? Seems like going to WH for secret briefing, the briefing the potential target (Trump) or his associates in a private meeting, this person who Nunes served during the campaign and transition, and refusing to share that info with ANYONE, is just on its face disqualifying.

Click to expand...

As always there are two ways to look at anything. He was contacted by a whistleblower. He met with the whistleblower at the White House because the congress doesn't have the equipment necessary to see the information the whistleblower wanted him to see. If so, should he have told the committee members about the whistleblower? Yes but he should not have shared the whistleblower's name or the information seen. Should he share it with anyone else other than the president? No. So he missed some proper protocol. That is about all there is. His major mistake was talking to the press. Now he should complete his investigation.

jmotivator said:

You are the one building a straw man. As stated by Nunes, the information in the documents was not the subject of the investigation, but was actually more the subject of the leaks that should be investigated.

Click to expand...

What leaks and investigated by whom? I KNOW part of the task of the Intelligence Committee is to investigate leaks, and we know this because during the hearing with Comey that's about all the republicans focused on. So explain why the supposed evidence of leaks isn't relevant to the committee's investigation, when they are clearly investigating leaks.

Also, Nunes has made claims all over the map on those documents - first it was evidence of surveillance on Trump people, collected legally, but improperly unmasked. Then a whole day later we find out that maybe the names weren't unmasked at all but that readers can figure out who they are. And we've never heard any explanation about who saw these docs or why disseminating them was improper, and neither has anyone else on the committee - only Trump. Finally, Nunes is now saying he hopes to identify the documents for the rest of the committee perhaps this week, but why not right now if they have nothing to do with the investigation? And if they truly are not relevant, fine, no problem giving Schiff the identifiers and he can go see for himself how relevant they are and whether Nunes' partisan spin on what he saw holds up.

So this story you're spinning just falls apart with the slightest bit of scrutiny.

And I am not saying that they believe that revealing classified data is criminal, I said that they are treating these documents as evidence in a criminal investigation.

Click to expand...

BS - House committees don't do criminal investigations. The Democrats are treating those documents as potential evidence in the House INVESTIGATION because they might be. Hard to tell when no one is allowed to see them. All we know at this point is some muddled claims by Nunes that change from day to day. But "criminal" is another of your straw men.

Slyfox696 said:

Part 2
It was your metaphor, not mine. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Again, you state a falsehood as a fact. You changed the metaphor to try and prove a point, I ask you how your added details correlate to the Nunes case and obviously you can't do it.

You mean the facts you just confirmed were facts? Do you have any idea how ridiculous your argument is?

Click to expand...

No, the statements you made that you believe are facts that aren't. The three facts in this story we agreed on from the start (though your screwed up the order in which they happened).

Partisanship is cute, but it leads one to say dumb things.

Click to expand...

You don't need to clarify that which you so readily embody.

When I said earlier in this thread that when Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton it looked bad, was that because there was a "D" beside their name? Not everyone is blatantly partisan, some of us have integrity and consistency in our positions.

Click to expand...

No, it was because there was an ACTUAL Criminal investigation and she was ACTUALLY the Attorney General. If there was an active investigation into Trump and if Sessions were to be visiting with Trump that would actually be a violation of the rules. But, again, you make many unfounded assumptions just trying to correlate the two stories.

I REALLY think you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not accusing Nunes of being guilty of anything. I'm saying his actions look bad. Do you really not understand the difference?

Click to expand...

More false assumptions on your part. But that is to be expected from you by now.

How did I lose? I didn't vote for Hillary in the election. I didn't support her in the election.

Click to expand...

If you walk like a duck, and quack like a duck...

This is what I'm talking about. Partisanship is blindly you to reality. I have stated facts, facts you agree are facts, yet you still claim I'm making them up. You claim that I "lost" and that I only thought it looked bad because Nunes is a Republican, when I'm not a Democrat, didn't vote for Clinton and have said the same thing about Lynch meeting with Clinton.

Click to expand...

Again, no you haven't. Your manufacturing facts by gluing together bits of data based on your own suspicions and presenting them as facts.

Stop letting partisanship ruin the discussion.

Click to expand...

LOL. I'm only here to address your partisan talking points.

No I didn't. I never said anything about Nunes explicitly visiting the President. I said Nunes met with the press and the President claimed he was vindicated.

Click to expand...

HAHAH!! False. Again you make stuff up and present it as fact.

By stating things which are not true? How exactly does that work in your mind?

Click to expand...

I am stating the truth, you are the one lying.

And if Republicans are claiming the optics don't look good, it is not a partisan position to claim the optics don't look good.

Click to expand...

I don't based my opinion on what Republicans think. They suffer the same delusion you do.

If you aren't capable of following the conversation in the thread, you probably ought to stop posting.

I didn't formulate my opinion based on what others said, I proved you wrong by showing you that claiming it didn't look good is not a partisan position.

Click to expand...

LOL!! Literally just laughed out loud. You have been trying to justify your opinion based on the opinions of other people... and now you claim you don't formulate your opinion based on others? Good Grief, Slyfox, show a little self awareness, please.

Take the partisan blinders off. It'll make this discussion go much better.

Click to expand...

*sigh* Physician heal thyself.

JasperL said:

What leaks and investigated by whom? I KNOW part of the task of the Intelligence Committee is to investigate leaks, and we know this because during the hearing with Comey that's about all the republicans focused on. So explain why the supposed evidence of leaks isn't relevant to the committee's investigation, when they are clearly investigating leaks.

Click to expand...

Because the Democrats didn't ask a single question about the leaks of IC documents. They don't want to investigate the IC leaks. The documents Nunes read were of incidental surveillance not connected to an investigation. It was precisely that type of information that was released about General Flynn.

Also, Nunes has made claims all over the map on those documents - first it was evidence of surveillance on Trump people, collected legally, but improperly unmasked. Then a whole day later we find out that maybe the names weren't unmasked at all but that readers can figure out who they are.

Click to expand...

Maybe one day you will understand that none of those claims are mutually exclusive.

And we've never heard any explanation about who saw these docs or why disseminating them was improper, and neither has anyone else on the committee - only Trump.

Click to expand...

Because it is these documents that have been fueling the claims by "anonymous officials", and was precisely the kind of data leaked on General Flynn.

Finally, Nunes is now saying he hopes to identify the documents for the rest of the committee perhaps this week, but why not right now if they have nothing to do with the investigation? And if they truly are not relevant, fine, no problem giving Schiff the identifiers and he can go see for himself how relevant they are and whether Nunes' partisan spin on what he saw holds up.

Click to expand...

Because the committee is suddenly interested in the documents when this far the Democrats didn't give a **** about the last minute Obama changes to the IC document sharing policy that flooded the IC with these incidental intelligence data.

So this story you're spinning just falls apart with the slightest bit of scrutiny.

Click to expand...

Then I am still waiting for the slightest bit of scrutiny...

BS - House committees don't do criminal investigations. The Democrats are treating those documents as potential evidence in the House INVESTIGATION because they might be. Hard to tell when no one is allowed to see them. All we know at this point is some muddled claims by Nunes that change from day to day. But "criminal" is another of your straw men.

Click to expand...

No, you are right, they don't. THat is why you should stop treating a meeting between Nunes and the President like it is an improper meeting between a prosecutor and a suspect.

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

Fishking said:

Yes. How else would there be transcripts? They would have to be written up and entered into some database or another.

Click to expand...

I think you might be confusing "valid" with "official". I am asking you to confirm that the information contained within the reports is, according to you, " having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent" concerning Mike Flynn and his actions.

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

Slyfox696 said:

I repeat: Which is supposedly going to happen later this week. It has NOT been provided to Congress yet, to the best of my knowledge.

Click to expand...

Right...but why not just go to the agencies themselves and look to see what they have immediately? You act like the only option is to sit back and wait for a neat little dumbed down brief to be brought to them is the only option.

You have not provided a single piece of evidence to support the argument that any member of Congress can demand access at anytime they desire. Which is the discussion we're having.

Until you present that evidence, your comment that "they are lazy" is merely nonsense.

Click to expand...

I already provided that evidence. Their position entitles them access to all of the information, by law. Do you think they are not on the access rosters of the various agencies? What happens if they walk to the door? You think they get turned away?

Have they even tried? So far, I've seen no evidence they've even tried.

Oh, I get it. You're joking. Yes, how could ANYONE think the secretive nature by which Nunes arrived in the White House, cleared by a staffer who is still yet to be named, who read this information and, rather than share the information with his colleagues, rushed to a press conference after which the President (who had Nunes on his transition team, mind you) claimed vindication.

Yes, how could ANYONE question whether THAT was all on the up and up.

Click to expand...

Again with the curiosity over the identity of the person involved. Either the reports Nunes got are valid or they are not. If Nunes fails to ever produce anything to back up what he claimed, then that will become an answer in itself. So far we know of one person who was improperly unmasked and then information was leaked, and that was Flynn.

I find it very strange that the identity of an individual who shared intel in a legal manner perks more interest than the intel that was leaked in a felonious.

Agreed. But you post on these forums...you know what happened when Nunes held that first press conference and Trump tweeted about it. You know the point which is being made.

Click to expand...

Yes, Trump said he felt partially vindicated but that shouldn't detract from Nunes' statement. It was unequivocally clear in denouncing Trump's tweet as false. Trump is a bull****ter that will take hold of anything he can and exaggerate and lie. Nunes can't control what Trump does.

Click to expand...

Have they tried? I see no evidence that they have. That's a pretty low bar to hurdle. Then they can come out and say, "Hey...we requested access to their secured facility to view x, y, z information and were not granted access. By law we are entitled to said access."

Did they do that? Nope. That's lazy. It's 2.1 miles away.

Again, you're deflecting from the issue those upset about the situation are having. The discussion you and I had about "lazy" is different than the discussion being had in Washington about the improper behavior of Nunes. Don't try to conflate the two.
He could have briefed them on what he read. He could have not called a press conference and shared what he read with the press before he shared it with his fellow colleagues. He could have not said anything to the press until the information was officially available to the other members of the committee. He did none of that.

Again, keep your eye on the point.

Click to expand...

With everyone else spinning and grinning, Nunes doing the same thing is hardly a distinction. Schiff said that he saw evidence that is more than circumstantial that Trump was in collusion with Russia but wouldn't actually say there is solid evidence. Can't worry about the integrity and optics that doesn't exist. And that statement applies to all levels of the government.

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

humbolt said:

Any viewing won't be public, but Schiff has already been briefed on the content of the intercepts generally. Naturally Schiff wouldn't admit such a thing. That would undermine his whining, which is precious.

Click to expand...

That is complete nonsense. With, of course, not a single citation.

You're upset because your party isn't in control of events.

Click to expand...

No, it's that Nunes was unable to maintain the required neutrality and impartiality demanded by the role. Despite initial displays of neutrality, and decades of bipartisan cooperation by this committee, he has gone off the rails since Comey's testimony. He has compromised his own ability to do the job.

It's been evident for some time that this investigation requires a special prosecutor. Nunes is just making things worse with his partisan behavior.

You're just upset because the political right is acting as partisan as the political left. That's exactly how this stuff is designed, and intentionally so.

Click to expand...

In case you missed it? The whole point of a special prosecutor is to try and avoid exactly those kinds of partisan disputes interfering with investigations.

Since you appear to view the situation as too polarized, you should agree that a special prosecutor should be appointed.

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

jmotivator said:

No, I am describing how a SCIF works. The NSA official in question worked at the White House complex, so they use the White House SCIF. SCIFS, being compartmentalized (that is what the C stands for) are not interlinked with other locations in a way that would make their data easily shareable between SCIFs, it is part of the security features of a SCIF. One SCIF breech is not supposed to mean a breech of all SCIFs, just the one and whatever was housed there, and access to one SCIF doesn't mean you can access all of the data available to all SCIFs.

Think of them more like office networks. If you work at a company that uses Verizon internet that doesn't mean you have access to all networks that use Verizon. SCIFs are like that, only even more secure, making it a heavy lift even to move things between SCIFs on SIPR. Since this kind of security is in place it is much easier for you to walk down the street and access data in the White House SCIF than to jump through the hoops to get access to the data in the Capitol SCIF.

Click to expand...

That doesn't preclude that the information cannot be in the form of paper, taken to a Congressional SCIF, and shared with the Committee.

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

upsideguy said:

So you intend to enlighten us all with something on a website with the tagline "... a rag tag bunch of conservative misfits..."? That is your idea of the "truth" or "objectivity"?. You might not understand why that won't fly on DP, but most of the other posters here have a different idea of who, in fact, is confused.

Find a mainstream source for the point you are trying to make or spend some time pondering why you can not....

Given that 1) Manafort and Flynn are knee deep in money, money laundering and other nefarious acts with our vodka guzzling brethren and 2) Trump has never once denounced Putin (he will throw the US government and entire intelligence community under the bus before he has a bad word about Russia) I think their is enough probable cause to feed all kinds of conspiracies, some of which are possibly true.

Click to expand...

The conservative Tree House is a sewerpit of racism, foulness, and even doxing.

They showed their colors pretty explicitly with the Zimmerman trial. Best not to go there to even have their cookies dropped on you for even a second. If you do, be prepared to take a shower after.

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

humbolt said:

It isn't complex unless you ignore the lack of evidence propelling the IC investigation. Then when questioned about that lack of evidence, which should be on public display during the course of public hearings, you defer to the FBI investigation. Cute.

Click to expand...

Or, I'm actually paying attention to the situation.

Oh, I think it's on your mind, because otherwise there doesn't appear to be any evidence for congressional hearings.

Click to expand...

Except for the numerous items I cited, which isn't even an exhaustive list of the issues.

Heh. If the above concerns you then why in the hell aren't you clamoring for an investigation into the Clinton campaign on the very same grounds?

Click to expand...

Why gosh, I don't know. Maybe it's because:

• She didn't hire a campaign manager who is involved in shady deals with pro-Putin Ukrainian politicians
• She didn't have a campaign staffer who was working for RT, or doing business deals with Russians
• She hasn't done millions of dollars of real estate deals with Russians who are close to Putin
etc
etc

Of course the FBI made it known there was an investigation. How else would Comey be able to walk out and announce in October they were re-opening one?

Click to expand...

1) There was no investigation of the Clinton Foundation, as you claimed.

2) There was no official acknowledgement of FBI investigations into Clinton's email until it was over. What happened was the FBI was required to file a court document about it, and that document was released under a FOIA request.

3) Comey did not make a public statement about reviewing Weiner's emails. What he did was notify Congress -- who leaked it. Which, of course, they weren't supposed to do.

From his letter to Congress: ""We don't ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations," Comey told his agents in an email later that day. Nevertheless, he said, "I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed."

4) What Comey did in July was say "We were investigating Clinton's emails; we didn't find anything prosecutable." He didn't reveal any information about active investigations; what he did was say "the investigation is over." And again, he never said anything about any investigations into the Clinton Foundation.

So again... The FBI does not discuss active investigations. Even if everyone knows there's an active investigation, they don't officially admit or discuss it. Just admitting that there was an investigation into Russian election interference was extraordinary -- as Comey himself admitted.

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

bubbabgone said:

Just trying to help. Your information wasn't accurate.
Sheesh ... some people ... you try to help 'em ... what thanks do ya get.

Click to expand...

didn't realize that contradictory info was "helpful".

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

Fishking said:

He can, at best, delay it, if the Democrat members can't make it happen then they should all resign.

Click to expand...

The only mechanism they have is public pressure, and you're whining about Democrats using public pressure. Make up your mind.

Skip the subpoena, get off their butts, and go to the agencies themselves and have them look up what they have on the Trump transition team. That should be narrow enough of a criteria.

Click to expand...

Now you're effectively arguing that a House committee investigating the Trump transition team doesn't even need subpoena power to conduct a thorough investigation into actions by people now in the Executive branch AND that any information they need is right there in a communications intercept. There is no need to talk to anyone or get any actual testimony from an uncooperative person in the Executive branch or the private sector!!

Of course Congress assumed the power to compel testimony a couple hundred years ago because without it they cannot do their oversight job.

It's not even a sure bet that an otherwise willing person would testify or give evidence without being compelled to do so, just as an exercise in protecting themselves, or to submit to being questioned by first Schiff, then later Nunes, and perhaps a third time before the entire committee in a formal hearing. Why would anyone agree to that?

At its core, you are asserting that the Chair of a House committee cannot effectively wield power. That's just obvious nonsense.

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

bubbabgone said:

Oh. It wasthe jumping out of the car. You're concerned about his safety.
He got an email about the material in the car and he believed it was important enough to see it then because, well, that's his job.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you accept the story as true.

And yes, it was shown to be false because he didn't get access to the material at the White House. It was in the Eisenhower Building (the NSC) where he was seen.

Click to expand...

...which is, as you admit, on the White House grounds. Someone from the White House had to let him in. I.e. you're splitting hairs.

So you're off the "Trump Blocked Yates" narrative and instead you've settled on a "Nunes Blocked Yates by cancelling the testimony" narrative? Are you committed to that one?

Click to expand...

Dude. My statements are consistent.

So if the testimony happens you'll say ... what?

Click to expand...

That he bowed to political pressure.

Has it been rescheduled yet, by the way? No? Not yet, you say? Not even a closed hearing? Even though there doesn't seem to be any reason for canceling the hearing? How curious.

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

bubbabgone said:

All those things turned out to be false.

Oh dear ... where to start.
1) I don't know why the time of day would matter to you so much but it wasn't a late night disappearance. Even your Daily Beast link said it was evening and Nunes said the sun was still out.
2) Nunes said he met his source on the White House grounds. The NSC is housed on the White House grounds in the Eisenhower Office Building and it's considered a secure location.
3) Yates wasn't blocked from testifying. Her attorney was told she needed permission from the prez to testify. In a letter to the WH counsel's Office on March 24, her attorney said if he didn't get a response by
March 27 he'd assume she could testify and he didn't get that response. That was actually in The Hill link you yourself posted. Didn't you read it?

You see, all of what I just told you was available to both me and you. You chose to selectively believe and stop with the source that reinforced what you wanted to believe. Daily Beast? Please.

Click to expand...

I get a chuckle out of reading some of the posts. Like those claiming this investigation is a non partisan investigation. Any honest person would admit congressional investigations by their very nature are partisan.

I don't know if you have seen this or not but this top aide to Obama admits they were spying on the Trump campaign and the transition team.



It's amazing here they are trying to tar and feather Nunes for reporting he had viewed intelligence that proved the Obama administration was spying on Trump through a legal FISA warrant during the transition period while abusing its purpose by unmasking citizens names and declassifying the information so it could be read by many in the government leaking it to the press. This is a felony yet the media doesn't seem to care.

I like what Trey Gowdy said, It didn't matter if Nunes viewed the material at the White House or the Waffle House.

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

Nunes at this point is making it look like there is something there by the way he acts. I mean seriously if there is nothing there, Nunes is doing a terrible job selling it.

jmotivator said:

Because the Democrats didn't ask a single question about the leaks of IC documents. They don't want to investigate the IC leaks. The documents Nunes read were of incidental surveillance not connected to an investigation. It was precisely that type of information that was released about General Flynn.

Click to expand...

Wait, so it's relevant to the investigation, you're just claiming there is no need to share it with Democrats cause they don't care? Similarly, the GOPers on the committee didn't seem to give a damn about the Russian attempts to influence the election and whether Trump's people were involved, so anything that Schiff finds out about it need not be shared with the republicans....

BTW, you're repeating claims by Nunes, but for some reason he won't let Schiff or anyone else verify his unsupported claims. That's the issue...

Maybe one day you will understand that none of those claims are mutually exclusive.

Click to expand...

Until then, I know his story changes nearly daily, and he's never claimed that the intercepts were unlawful or even that sharing them was unlawful. He's made very vague claims about them revealing info about U.S. persons in a way that might or might be unlawful, but we don't know because the claims are vague enough to be worthless and no one else on the committee can see these intercepts.

Because it is these documents that have been fueling the claims by "anonymous officials", and was precisely the kind of data leaked on General Flynn.

Click to expand...

These documents? Which ones? Have you seen them? Who are the U.S. persons, and who were they talking to? Please share! And are you saying if the calls of the Ambassador include those with Flynn, that users should NOT know that the guy he's talking to about sanctions is the incoming NSA? That's at least highly debatable!

Because the committee is suddenly interested in the documents when this far the Democrats didn't give a **** about the last minute Obama changes to the IC document sharing policy that flooded the IC with these incidental intelligence data.

Click to expand...

OK, that's nothing more than "Democrats suck, that's why."

No, you are right, they don't. THat is why you should stop treating a meeting between Nunes and the President like it is an improper meeting between a prosecutor and a suspect.

Click to expand...

Goodness - the committee is at least potentially hostile to Trump and/or some of his people in exactly the same way a prosecutor would be. If they find a credible link and evidence of collusion, that is potentially an impeachable offense, and if not that then HIGHLY politically damaging - disastrous is more likely. So your asserting that because it's not a CRIMINAL investigation, it is therefore not inappropriate for Nunes to keep the target looped in, is BS, obviously.

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

upsideguy said:

So you intend to enlighten us all with something on a website with the tagline "... a rag tag bunch of conservative misfits..."? That is your idea of the "truth" or "objectivity"?. You might not understand why that won't fly on DP, but most of the other posters here have a different idea of who, in fact, is confused.

Find a mainstream source for the point you are trying to make or spend some time pondering why you can not....

Given that 1) Manafort and Flynn are knee deep in money, money laundering and other nefarious acts with our vodka guzzling brethren and 2) Trump has never once denounced Putin (he will throw the US government and entire intelligence community under the bus before he has a bad word about Russia) I think their is enough probable cause to feed all kinds of conspiracies, some of which are possibly true.

Click to expand...

Why on earth do you want a "mainstream source"?? They are the places that give you your numbered conspiracy talking points. Me...I'd rather use a source that gives facts...like the one I provided.

And yes...I will stack the truth and objectivity of that rag tag bunch of conservative misfits against your mainstream sources any day of the week and be confident I'm getting reliable information instead of something from unnamed sources.

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

Gimmesometruth said:

I think you might be confusing "valid" with "official". I am asking you to confirm that the information contained within the reports is, according to you, " having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent" concerning Mike Flynn and his actions.

Click to expand...

I'm having a hard time figure out what, exactly, you're asking. I'm saying that whatever report that exists is a factual recording of a real event that happened. I just don't know if there is anything incriminating in there. I'm thinking no, because there has been no evidence of anything presented, and no claims of wrongdoing have been made by anyone. There have been enough fingers in the pie there for someone to have worked it out and Clapper didn't think there was anything wrong.

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

bubbabgone said:

I've long suspected that the original denial of criminal acts would eventually have to give way to claims that it had to be done to save the Country.
Accompanying the confession, I think we just saw the start of the change in narrative.

Click to expand...

That tape of Farkus Con knees are dragging around today is a month old.

:lol

OOOPs

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

Fishking said:

Right...but why not just go to the agencies themselves and look to see what they have immediately? You act like the only option is to sit back and wait for a neat little dumbed down brief to be brought to them is the only option.

Click to expand...

LOL. Nunes made incredibly vague claims of impropriety, and it's not the job of Democrats to fish in a huge ocean of data to find the evidence. It would be like me making a claim of fact, then referring you to google.com for the evidence of it. He said he has the document identifiers - just hand over the slip of paper, or a copy.

Again with the curiosity over the identity of the person involved. Either the reports Nunes got are valid or they are not. If Nunes fails to ever produce anything to back up what he claimed, then that will become an answer in itself. So far we know of one person who was improperly unmasked and then information was leaked, and that was Flynn.

Click to expand...

Actually we don't know that Flynn was improperly unmasked. Very likely not because the fact that Russian Person A was allegedly talking to the incoming NSA (as opposed to some random U.S. person) about sanctions is likely necessary to understand the context and import of the communications. The information was leaked but we don't know by whom.

Have they tried? I see no evidence that they have. That's a pretty low bar to hurdle. Then they can come out and say, "Hey...we requested access to their secured facility to view x, y, z information and were not granted access. By law we are entitled to said access."

Did they do that? Nope. That's lazy. It's 2.1 miles away.

Click to expand...

An even LOWER bar is, "I made this claim, here is my evidence that supports this claim" versus, "I made this vague claim, I will not provide the evidence for it, if you want to see the evidence, go fish. There are only a few thousand or tens of thousands of docs to look through - best get started now!"

With everyone else spinning and grinning, Nunes doing the same thing is hardly a distinction. Schiff said that he saw evidence that is more than circumstantial that Trump was in collusion with Russia but wouldn't actually say there is solid evidence. Can't worry about the integrity and optics that doesn't exist. And that statement applies to all levels of the government.

Click to expand...

Of course there is no indication Schiff is hiding that evidence from the rest of the committee - pretty relevant distinction.

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

JasperL said:

The only mechanism they have is public pressure, and you're whining about Democrats using public pressure. Make up your mind.

Click to expand...

Both sides are playing the public opinion game. I would prefer neither side did it, to include Nunes, but that's not the reality of the political world we live in today.

Now you're effectively arguing that a House committee investigating the Trump transition team doesn't even need subpoena power to conduct a thorough investigation into actions by people now in the Executive branch AND that any information they need is right there in a communications intercept. There is no need to talk to anyone or get any actual testimony from an uncooperative person in the Executive branch or the private sector!!

Click to expand...

No, I'm arguing that they need to figure out a way to get stuff done, if things aren't going their way. We have a saying in the Army, "Improvise, adapt, and overcome." If dumb 'ol grunts can figure out a way around an obstacle, I would hope that those appointed to one of the highest and most exclusive committees in the world can as well.

Of course Congress assumed the power to compel testimony a couple hundred years ago because without it they cannot do their oversight job.

It's not even a sure bet that an otherwise willing person would testify or give evidence without being compelled to do so, just as an exercise in protecting themselves, or to submit to being questioned by first Schiff, then later Nunes, and perhaps a third time before the entire committee in a formal hearing. Why would anyone agree to that?

At its core, you are asserting that the Chair of a House committee cannot effectively wield power. That's just obvious nonsense.

Click to expand...

None of this is new. Holder was held in contempt of Congress for refusing to supply documentation and testimony. Hillary deleted tens of thousands of emails yet someone didn't get charged with obstruction of justice. We didn't arrive to this point out of thin air. You're applying ideal standards that don't exist in today's environment. I'm pointing out that this is how the game is played now so people need to play it.

Ultimately, I don't think either side actually cares about "the thing". They care about how they can use "the thing" for political gain.

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

The New York Times -- the day before that segment aired:

"In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.
— New York Times, 3/1/17




"Granted, getting a former administration to come right out and say what many of us have been told by President Trump and has been conveniently dismissed by the liberal media was an interesting chapter in the ongoing story. We’ll only start getting to the truth once we have hearings and hopefully Farkas will be added to the short list of those who’ll testify.



But this is NOT breaking news. It’s old news, maybe even #FakeNews because what Vargas said isn’t really an admission but a corroboration of a New York Times story that was written “according to three former American officials who requested anonymity in discussing classified intelligence”.


But as long as websites and news organizations can garner clicks on something said almost a month after the fact, that’s all that matters."

Evelyn Farkas: New Trump Wiretap Admission or Old #FakeNews Clickbait?

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

'If the investigation of Russiagate turns up no link between Trump and the pilfered emails, Democrats will
have egg all over their faces. And the Democratic base will have to face a painful truth.

Vladimir Putin did not steal this election. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama lost it. Donald Trump
won it fair and square. He is not an “illegitimate” president. There will be no impeachment.
They were deceived and misled by their own leaders and media. They bought into a Big Lie.

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

Fishking said:

I'm having a hard time figure (sic) out what, exactly, you're asking. I'm saying that whatever report that exists is a factual recording of a real event that happened.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry to read that you are confused about the meaning of the werdz yer using.

I just don't know if there is anything incriminating in there. I'm thinking no, because there has been no evidence of anything presented, and no claims of wrongdoing have been made by anyone. There have been enough fingers in the pie there for someone to have worked it out and Clapper didn't think there was anything wrong.

Click to expand...

Well, YOU were not getting into if the report(s) contained "incriminating" evidence, I was just trying to get you to confirm a claim you made previously that the reports were "valid". Again, if you don't know what "valid" means, look it up since you did not accept the common meaning I just provided.

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

HOW THE WHITE HOUSE AND REPUBLICANS BLEW UP THE HOUSE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION

Since FBI Director Comey and NSA Director Rogers testified in an open hearing last Monday (a bad day for Trump), hearing Chairman Devin Nunes (R/CA) and the White House have done everything in their collective power to stymie the House investigation. Secret White House meetings involving Nunes, legal roadblocks thrust at potential hearing witnesses, cancelled hearing meetings with former Obama officials, secret SCIF meetings, withholding/concealing potential evidenciary materials, cancelled closed door hearing with FBI Director Comey, Nunes publicly putting forth investigative conclusions without also presenting their basis. etc, etc, etc.

In short, distraction upon distraction by Nunes/WH after the damaging Comey testimony of last Monday (3/20/17).