• 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!

Grassley wants 'gag order' lifted for FBI informant allegedly 'threatened' by Obama DOJ

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,099
Reaction score
33,418
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Grassley wants 'gag order' lifted for FBI informant allegedly 'threatened' by Obama DOJ | Fox News

A top Senate Republican is calling for the Justice Department to lift an apparent “gag order” on an FBI informant who reportedly helped the U.S. uncover a corruption and bribery scheme by Russian nuclear officials but allegedly was “threatened” by the Obama administration to stay quiet.


Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, is focusing on the informant amid scrutiny of the 2010 approval of a controversial uranium deal with a Russian company. He’s raising questions about potential “conflicts of interest” for Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration, and especially wants to know whether the committee that approved the deal was aware of the FBI probe involving a subsidiary of the same Russian firm.
There shouldn't be gag order placed on witnesses.
 
You have to wonder if Sessions knows how to run his department. Seems like his underlings are doing their own thing with no supervision. Seems like Trump placed too much emphasis on loyalty over competence.

Well if he'd stop recusing himself from everything, and take control we wouldn't have all these leaks.
 

In my line of business I've had to enter into NDAs a number of times, but as far as I know, most have a sunset clause of three years or less. Even if the informant's NDA did not have a sunset clause, I'm almost positive the NDA cannot force him to keep a crime a secret. An NDA is a contract and in order to be enforceable, must be legal in all aspects.

But what really interests me is that the DOJ would threaten to prosecute. How do you prosecute a civil matter? Isn't prosecution for criminal actions? Breaking a NDA contract isn't a crime, only a civil infraction, and only then if the other party to the NDA chooses to file suit. This is a very interesting turn of events because it appears on the surface to be that the DOJ might have been complicit in forcing an NDA that wasn't legal to begin with.

I hope we hear more about this.
 
I support lifting this gag order, I'm super tired of politicians from all sides confusing national security with their own job security. If there was a hint of wrongdoing lets investigate, and punish whoever did it. Even if it means I have to listen to another thousand "But Hillary" every time Trump does something just as corrupt. I don't care if Hillary goes to jail, nor do I care if Obama's legacy is damaged by a cover-up. I already think it's not so great from all the civilian casualties incurred from his drone strikes. What I do care about is accountability for those in power, we can clearly see right now where not holding politicians accountable leads. And yes I'm talking about the Orange Buffoon currently using our highest office to supplement his business.
 
You have to wonder if Sessions knows how to run his department. Seems like his underlings are doing their own thing with no supervision. Seems like Trump placed too much emphasis on loyalty over competence.

I'd love to see Trey Gowdy in there. As it stands now our justice system is that of a "failed state". Most of our congressional leaders are dirty and are afraid of being exposed, so they are slow walking everything waiting for the statute of limitations to run out and they can stop holding their breath.
 
Lets put this "uranium cover-up" into perspective. we had 8 investigations into Benghazi. What's preventing an investigation into this? Until you realize your conservative masters are lying to you, they will never stop lying to you.
 

It is informative
Grassley slams FBI for not complying with Judiciary The Hill, 09/26/17

...
Grassley said that the FBI's claim that nondisclosure agreements prevented testimony at a hearing on codifying the special counsel in the Russia investigation was not valid and not permitted under the Constitution. He referred to the agreements as attempts at de facto "gag orders."
...

So now he's saying it's an actual gag order. And remember, this is Trump's FBI making this argument.
 
Lets put this "uranium cover-up" into perspective. we had 8 investigations into Benghazi. What's preventing an investigation into this? Until you realize your conservative masters are lying to you, they will never stop lying to you.

Ive got a better idea. Lets post a link to The Hills latest story on this growing scandal

Bill Clinton asked State Dept for permision to meet with Russian Nuclear Officials during Obama Uranium deal
Bill Clinton sought State?s permission to meet with Russian nuclear official during Obama uranium decision | TheHill

Apparently Bill Clinton met with Putin at his home in Russia, and had a list of Russians that he requested meetings with including a Russian that sat on the board of Rosatom, the Russian State Nuclear regulatory body
 
If he's stop perjuring himself, he might not have to recuse himself.

Really simple stuff.

Really, I don't think he'd been confirmed if the Senate believed that.
 
Lets put this "uranium cover-up" into perspective. we had 8 investigations into Benghazi. What's preventing an investigation into this? Until you realize your conservative masters are lying to you, they will never stop lying to you.
Correct.
What about those donations from Russia to the Clinton Foundation?

The New York Times reported in 2015 that “as the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation.”

It is virtually impossible to view these donations as anything other than an attempt to curry favor with Clinton. Donations alone do not, however, prove that Clinton was actually influenced by money to vote in favor of the Uranium One sale — or to overlook the FBI investigation. Again, there is no evidence that she even knew about the investigation.

Similarly, it is virtually impossible to view foreign dignitaries' habit of lodging at Trump's Washington hotel as anything other than an attempt to curry favor with the president. Reservations and room service alone do not, however, prove that Trump's foreign policy is actually influenced by money.
Some people willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt are denying Clinton the same courtesy.
 
I question the legality of silencing a witness.

From the article I linked in your post:
"Why is the FBI so focused on keeping Congress in the dark?" (Grassley) asked.

Why indeed. Remember, this is Trump's FBI.
Would the FBI act at crossroads to their bosses?
If the answer is no, many interesting questions follow.
 

Of-course the NYTs is running interference for Hillary, theyre as corrupt as she is

Holder was on the Council too, and I guarantee he knew about the investigation.
 
Of-course the NYTs is running interference for Hillary, theyre as corrupt as she is

Holder was on the Council too, and I guarantee he knew about the investigation.
First, the link was the Washington Post. Second, keep on believing that a premier newspaper, that has a reputation to uphold, is shilling for someone who isn't even a candidate for anything.
 
First, the link was the Washington Post. Second, keep on believing that a premier newspaper, that has a reputation to uphold, is shilling for someone who isn't even a candidate for anything.

The NYTs shilled for Harvey Weinstein, and the WaPo's or the NYTs motivation to protect the Clintons is a bit obvious.

The Trump Russian Collusion narrative has switched to the Russia Obama Clinton scandal, and there's plenty of evidence to pull focus away from Trump
 
First, the link was the Washington Post. Second, keep on believing that a premier newspaper, that has a reputation to uphold, is shilling for someone who isn't even a candidate for anything.

The NYT today ain't your grandma's NYT; just forgetaboutit! They're a leftwing rag now, and they don't even pretend not to be.
 
The NYT today ain't your grandma's NYT; just forgetaboutit! They're a leftwing rag now, and they don't even pretend not to be.
Do you read the Times or are you just parroting what you heard? I read it everyday and know you are off base.
 
Do you read the Times or are you just parroting what you heard? I read it everyday and know you are off base.

I'm not surprised, you being a liberal.
 
Do you read the Times or are you just parroting what you heard? I read it everyday and know you are off base.

I like the "ah, yeah, well the NYT used to be a right-wing rag" argument better, especially since you carry the Liberal lean.
 

I'm curious, have you ever wondered why even with Republican control of Congress and now complete control of government no one ever gets charged for these constant scandals that pop up on Fox News? Republicans even hold hearings and investigate over years.

I know a sucker is born every minute but you think "well...geeze...maybe they are just riling me up over nothing"
 
Back
Top Bottom