• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House, Nunes blocked ex-acting AG from testifying

Because any time that an AG or acting AG disagrees with an order from the chief executive, they do not go public, they resign from their post and await oversight to report what they have seen and heard or why they took action. Its called loyalty to the office and ethics. You should understand they do not owe loyalty to the President, they owe loyalty to the office and the people that put him there. If they disagree, they can do so by resigning not by having a hissy fit and trying to give the executive branch a PR black eye. Professionalism, try it.

I know what professionalism is thank you very much. And ass kissing a person that isn't fit to sit in the oval office isn't it.
 
Last edited:
Yates will go all 5th Amendment on everyone even if she did testify.

Riiiiiiight. :lamo

And the trump admin is so confident of this they don't want her to testify. Got any more good ones? :lamo
 
Thats rhetoric. He has answered all of those allegations. The reality is...dems want this to be a scandal. Its going to be their MO for the next 4 years.

Please stop insulting my intelligence.
 
Wrong, and transparently, laughably so.

House intel panel chief Nunes says he will not divulge his sources | Reuters

That poor, out of his depth Nunes won't disclose his sources even to other members of the committee. It's clear to any rational adult with a shred of intellectual honesty that he's running interference for Trump.
Its not at all wrong. He answered all of those questions. He did not reveal his intel source. Further, he has committed to providing the entirety of the data to the committee.
"Nunes, it should be said, has a history of cultivating independent sources inside the intelligence community. He made contact, for example, with the U.S. intelligence contractors who ended up saving most of the Americans stuck in the Benghazi outpost when it was attacked on Sept. 11, 2012. More recently, Nunes has reached out to his network of whistleblowers to learn about pressure inside the military's Central Command on analysts to write positive reports on the U.S. campaign against the Islamic State.

In this case, Nunes had been hearing for more than a month about intelligence reports that included details on the Trump transition team, and had been trying to view them himself. He told me that when he finally saw the documents last Tuesday evening, he made sure to copy down their identifying numbers so he could request access to them formally for the rest of the committee."

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-27/devin-nunes-explains-his-white-house-visit

But you go ahead and read a one sentence snippet from a pool article and go on and think you know whats what. Rats love you.
 
the whole situation looks shady as hell.
 
And yet...there has been a concerted attack from the democrats and numerous media outlets claiming coverup and scandal. It was almost...orchestrated you might say. Almost like they are trying to get left leaning folks everywhere clamoring over Watergate claims. And even now in that CNN story presented with the reality that there is no evidence that she was being prevented from testifying, they are STILL claiming "they didnt want her to testify." Buolding news stories based on speculation designed to make the administration look bad. Huh...thats pretty much the EPITOME of 'fake news'...right?

The left is doing everything they can to try and paint Nunes and the committee as scandalous. Meanwhile...the witnesses called forth to testify claimed they couldnt answer questions due to classification. So what is the value of holding unclassified hearings where the intel agency wont provide actual answers?

Holy **** your post is way out there. Are you reading the same thread i am?

Nunes canceled the hearing. Do you understand what that means?
 
Please stop insulting my intelligence.
Oh baby...thats something you do all on your own. You and several others here know precisely dick about any of this and yet you are all in and think you know whats what. Rats rely on your very existence. But Im not insulting your intelligence. I dont believe you need any help in that realm. Thats a self inflicted wound.
 
Riiiiiiight. :lamo

And the trump admin is so confident of this they don't want her to testify. Got any more good ones? :lamo

As has been pointed out, the Trump Administration hasn't stopped her from testifying...it can't, actually.
 
Holy **** your post is way out there. Are you reading the same thread i am?

Nunes canceled the hearing. Do you understand what that means?

What does it mean?
 
Because any time that an AG or acting AG disagrees with an order from the chief executive, they do not go public, they resign from their post and await oversight to report what they have seen and heard or why they took action. Its called loyalty to the office and ethics. You should understand they do not owe loyalty to the President, they owe loyalty to the office and the people that put him there. If they disagree, they can do so by resigning not by having a hissy fit and trying to give the executive branch a PR black eye. Professionalism, try it.

Why don't you take your whining about Yates to a thread where its actually relevant?

This is about Nunes blocking Yates testimony by canceling the hearing at the last minute just after the WH heard that the executive privilege had been waived.
 
Its not at all wrong. He answered all of those questions. He did not reveal his intel source. Further, he has committed to providing the entirety of the data to the committee.
"Nunes, it should be said, has a history of cultivating independent sources inside the intelligence community. He made contact, for example, with the U.S. intelligence contractors who ended up saving most of the Americans stuck in the Benghazi outpost when it was attacked on Sept. 11, 2012. More recently, Nunes has reached out to his network of whistleblowers to learn about pressure inside the military's Central Command on analysts to write positive reports on the U.S. campaign against the Islamic State.

In this case, Nunes had been hearing for more than a month about intelligence reports that included details on the Trump transition team, and had been trying to view them himself. He told me that when he finally saw the documents last Tuesday evening, he made sure to copy down their identifying numbers so he could request access to them formally for the rest of the committee."

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-27/devin-nunes-explains-his-white-house-visit

But you go ahead and read a one sentence snippet from a pool article and go on and think you know whats what. Rats love you.

Yes, it's quite wrong. Nunes' little array of stunts isn't fooling anyone except the True Believers who want to, if not need to be fooled.

His explanation falls utterly flat and simply isn't believable, again, to any rational adult.

I don't have to rely on a single snippet to come to that conclusion. If you'd have been following this along since his little sideshow started and how he's walked so much of it back and won't be specific on the rest, you'd know that. He is simply not credible nor believable.

But, again, that requires intellectual honesty.
 
the whole situation looks shady as hell.

Unless it's a Democrat AG that is protected by executive privilege to refuse to answer a Congressional subpoena. Then it's ok.
 
Please stop insulting my intelligence.

Oh believe me, this is not an insulting position for our side. Look at the depth of defenses in this thread: most are just dishonest deflections and partisan rhetoric. They cannot actually defend what Nunes has done.

For the fifty millionth time, the right has found itself on the wrong side of the facts. The question is how much lying, political corruption, and lack of transparency will the American public stand for? The right is surprisingly adept at cowering from reality.
 
Yes, it's quite wrong. Nunes' little array of stunts isn't fooling anyone except the True Believers who want to, if not need to be fooled.

His explanation falls utterly flat and simply isn't believable, again, to any rational adult.

I don't have to rely on a single snippet to come to that conclusion. If you'd have been following this along since his little sideshow started and how he's walked so much of it back and won't be specific on the rest, you'd know that. He is simply not credible nor believable.

But, again, that requires intellectual honesty.

It's only wrong because you people hate President Trump.
 
Oh baby...thats something you do all on your own. You and several others here know precisely dick about any of this and yet you are all in and think you know whats what. Rats rely on your very existence. But Im not insulting your intelligence. I dont believe you need any help in that realm. Thats a self inflicted wound.

What the **** are you talking about?

Nunes did, in fact, cancel the hearing. That's a fact. That is true. Do you dare to contest that already-linked fact?
 
Holy **** your post is way out there. Are you reading the same thread i am?

Nunes canceled the hearing. Do you understand what that means?
Yes. It means the hearing will be rescheduled, probably in a classified setting, so that Comey can actually answer questions before they proceed.

Did you watch the hearings last week? (if not, I posted 15 minutes of Comeys testimony with Gowdey...you should watch it, since...you know...you really want to know the truth). Did you happen to count how many times witnesses refused t answer questions? When is a hearing not a hearing?
 
What the **** are you talking about?

Nunes did, in fact, cancel the hearing. That's a fact. That is true. Do you dare to contest that already-linked fact?
DO you think the committee is done...finished...no more testimony? Or do you think the hearings will be rescheduled? Which do you think is more likely?

Did you watch the hearings last week?
 
Yes, it's quite wrong. Nunes' little array of stunts isn't fooling anyone except the True Believers who want to, if not need to be fooled.

His explanation falls utterly flat and simply isn't believable, again, to any rational adult.

I don't have to rely on a single snippet to come to that conclusion. If you'd have been following this along since his little sideshow started and how he's walked so much of it back and won't be specific on the rest, you'd know that. He is simply not credible nor believable.

But, again, that requires intellectual honesty.
HIs only explanation so far is that he wont reveal his source...no the data. But you are committed to your rhetoric.

The DOJ idnt bar Yates from testifying. The WH is on record saying they encourage the testimony. Yet the left is beside themselves claiming he WH blocked her. So...where is the evidence that the WH did ANYTHING to bar her testimony? It should be simple for you to produce..right? A cease and desist letter from WH counsel maybe? A response to her attorneys letter? Something?
 
What does it mean?

Yates had briefed the Trump administration on Flynn's lying long ago, but the Trump administration tried to bury it.

Now Nunes is helping to bury the investigation into it.

This is like trying to put out a grease fire with more water. It's a desperate move. If there was nothing wrong, there is no chance that he would have done this.
 
Yates had briefed the Trump administration on Flynn's lying long ago, but the Trump administration tried to bury it.

Now Nunes is helping to bury the investigation into it.

This is like trying to put out a grease fire with more water. It's a desperate move. If there was nothing wrong, there is no chance that he would have done this.
FFS...If you werent so invested in your rhetoric...
CNBC...they arent FOX NS...right? Leftists generally trust NBC products...right?

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/20/fbis...mment-but-warns-them-not-to-read-into-it.html

"Our ability to share details with the Congress and the American people is limited when those investigations are still open, which I hope makes sense," Comey said. "We need to protect people's privacy. We need to make sure we don't give other people clues as to where we're going. We need to make sure that we don't give information to our foreign adversaries about what we know or don't know."

Here are the questions that Comey declined to answer in full.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.: "Was there any request made by the FBI or Justice Department to wiretap Donald Trump, turned down by a court?"
Schiff: "Are you aware that [Roger Stone] was a partner of Paul Manafort?" (Stone has been an advisor to Trump. Manafort was the Trump's campaign chairman until he resigned in August.)
Schiff: "Do you know how Mr. Stone would have known that Mr. Podesta's emails were going to be released?" (John Podesta was chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.)
Schiff: "Do you know that Mr. Podesta has said that at the time he was not even aware of whether his emails that had been stolen would be published?"
Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Ala.: "Can you say with any specificity what kind of coordination or contacts you're looking at in your investigation generally when confronted with something like this?"
Sewell: "Can you discuss whether or not there was any knowledge by any Trump-related person and the Russians?"
Sewell: "Can you characterize what the nature of your investigation generally — when you do an investigation of this sort — can you talk a little bit about the process, generally?"
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.: "Do you know whether Director Clapper knew the name of the U.S. citizen that appeared in The New York Times and The Washington Post?"
Gowdy: "Did you brief President Obama on any calls involving Michael Flynn?"
Gowdy: "Director Comey, there's been some speculation this morning on motive. I'm not all that interested in motive. First of all, it's really hard to prove. Secondarily, you never have to prove it. But I get that people want to know. I get the jury always wants to know why. I think you and I can agree there are a couple of reasons that you would not have to unlawfully, feloniously disseminate classified material. It certainly wasn't done to help an ongoing criminal investigation, because you already had the information, didn't you?"



Yes...Nunes cancelled todays Public hearing. Why should hey continue when THIS is the result of Public hearings?
 
No, it's not wrong and that's not why.

Please try again with a reality-based answer.

You're crying foul because it's a Republican administration. No other reason.
 
Yates had briefed the Trump administration on Flynn's lying long ago, but the Trump administration tried to bury it.

Now Nunes is helping to bury the investigation into it.

This is like trying to put out a grease fire with more water. It's a desperate move. If there was nothing wrong, there is no chance that he would have done this.

How could Yates know General Flynn lied?
 
HIs only explanation so far is that he wont reveal his source...no the data. But you are committed to your rhetoric.

Wrong and, again, laughably so. He's changed his story several times now on both what he found out, what it was about, etc... That's not rhetoric, that's reality.
The DOJ idnt bar Yates from testifying. The WH is on record saying they encourage the testimony. Yet the left is beside themselves claiming he WH blocked her. So...where is the evidence that the WH did ANYTHING to bar her testimony? It should be simple for you to produce..right? A cease and desist letter from WH counsel maybe? A response to her attorneys letter? Something?

I haven't never claimed that the White House said that, nor did I ever mention her. Please try and respond to what was stated, not what you need to have heard.
 
You're crying foul because it's a Republican administration. No other reason.

No, I'm crying foul because there is a Mt. Everest of circumstantial evidence that you're running away from and are frightened by.

Please try again with a reality-based answer.
 
Back
Top Bottom