• 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!

Donald trump blocks sally yates from testifying about russia to congress

Excon said:
Lame.
You have been here long enough to know that some information is privileged.
Click to expand...

... and some information is suppressed if it's not what some people want too hear. ;)
 
Vetplus40 said:
If Trump had a core principle of firing anyone who lied, the FIRST person that he would have to fire is himself.
Click to expand...

LOL.... Kinda funny, but He was elected by the nation......um if the greater portion of the nation agreed with you they would not have elected him or he could be fired by the nation now....

With that being said..... partially the reason why he is sitting on top is because his opponent was no better than him and we were stuck choosing between 2 evils.

Here is an interesting question, if HRC was sitting in the hot seat, would she fire, people on HER staff that was no good? doubt it, probably keep them to keep her agenda alive.


Will to fire a person period for NOT being capable of supporting their job be it, NSA Director, or Acting AG, given an order by the POTUS and disregarding it. There is a right way and a wrong way. the Yates could have followed orders and then contested in the proper manner, look how quickly the fed courts, shut down the first EO and then the second. Was it worth losing her JOB? Kind silly when you look at it objectively.... Just saying...
 
smartguy said:




we will never know what she had to say
Click to expand...
At 1:34 on the video there's a tweet at the bottom that says...


"JUST IN: A 3/24 letter from DOJ to Sally Yates states she must get authorization from WH to testify about convos w/WH. CBS News can confirm."​


I suspect that in order to get authorization from the WH she had to submit a list of things she was going to say...and no sooner had the WH seen her list that the committee hearing was canceled by Nunes.

This definitely has the appearance of a coverup.
 
Moot said:
At 1:34 on the video there's a tweet at the bottom that says...


"JUST IN: A 3/24 letter from DOJ to Sally Yates states she must get authorization from WH to testify about convos w/WH. CBS News can confirm."​


I suspect that in order to get authorization from the WH she had to submit a list of things she was going to say...and no sooner had the WH seen her list that the committee hearing was canceled by Nunes.

This definitely has the appearance of a coverup.
Click to expand...
iLOL No.


Mycroft said:
People really need to stop watching and listening to this Mainstream Media crap. It rots their brains...slowly...and they don't even notice it happening.

In a statement, the White House said it “has taken no action to prevent Sally Yates from testifying and the Department of Justice specifically told her that it would not stop her and to suggest otherwise is completely irresponsible.”

White House denies trying to block Sally Yates from testifying on Russia - Washington Times
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
This is why the pubic hearing was cancelled...IMO

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

FBI Director James Comey warned the House Intelligence Committee on Monday he would not be able to share all of the information he has about Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election.

"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."
 
Excon said:
Lame. You have been here long enough to know that some information is privileged.
Click to expand...

Lame, that's what Nixon said and we know how that turned out... ;)

I do believe we will hear what Yates has to say, just have to put a snake oil salesman in his place... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
Lame, that's what Nixon said and we know how that turned out... ;)
Click to expand...
Not a relevant reply.
But I will bite.
The same way that it did for Obama in Fast and Furious; It doesn't apply in some circumstance.
Yet it does in others.




notquiteright said:
I do believe we will hear what Yates has to say,
Click to expand...
We very well may, and according to Spicer, the White House welcomes her testimony.


notquiteright said:
just have to put a snake oil salesman in his place...
Click to expand...
Hyperbolic nonsense.
 
Excon said:
Not a relevant reply. But I will bite. The same way that it did for Obama in Fast and Furious; It doesn't apply in some circumstance.
Yet it does in others. We very well may, and according to Spicer, the White House welcomes her testimony. Hyperbolic nonsense.
Click to expand...

Ahhh how the rabid right twists things. Nixon is very relevant and you should know that President Obama did turn over the F&F records- executive privilege didn't work there either.

Now why would the White House claim executive privilege if according to alternate facts Spicer the White House 'welcomes' her testimony???? :doh

The snake oil salesman comment holds up quite well... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
Ahhh how the rabid right twists things.
Click to expand...
I see you are confused and are instead projecting.

notquiteright said:
Nixon is very relevant ...
Click to expand...
No he isn't relevant one bit.

notquiteright said:
and you should know that President Obama did turn over the F&F records- executive privilege didn't work there either.
Click to expand...
:lamo More confusion on your part as that is what I related.



notquiteright said:
Now why would the White House claim executive privilege if according to alternate facts Spicer the White House 'welcomes' her testimony???? :doh

The snake oil salesman comment holds up quite well... :peace
Click to expand...
More confusion. Figures.

Please quote the White House claiming executive privilege. I will be waiting.

As Spicer stated. The report in the Washington Post is 100% false.
Next.

As for the salesman part? You need to find a new snake oil to peddle.
 
Moot said:
Why would she need to get the WH permission to testify in the first place?
Click to expand...

As Spicer stated. The report in the Washington Post is 100% false.
 
Excon said:
As Spicer stated. The report in the Washington Post is 100% false.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that she didn't need the WH permission to testify based solely on what Spicer said? How do you know he's not lying?
 
Moot said:
At 1:34 on the video there's a tweet at the bottom that says...


"JUST IN: A 3/24 letter from DOJ to Sally Yates states she must get authorization from WH to testify about convos w/WH. CBS News can confirm."​


I suspect that in order to get authorization from the WH she had to submit a list of things she was going to say...and no sooner had the WH seen her list that the committee hearing was canceled by Nunes.

This definitely has the appearance of a coverup.
Click to expand...

Didn't you read what I said? This Mainstream Media crap will rot your brain.
 
Moot said:
So you're saying that she didn't need the WH permission to testify based solely on what Spicer said? How do you know he's not lying?
Click to expand...

The answer in post #40 applies to you too.

The permission was tacit in the non-response.
 
VanceMack said:
Cant say for sure..but perhaps it had to do with the need for a classified/closed hearing since FBI Director Comey and others have all refused to answer questions in an unclass setting.
Click to expand...
Why could he not just say that? Intentionally yanking our chain? That's' it, bait the liberals (and general population) and then bemoan them when they react...how childish?
 
Mach said:
Why could he not just say that? Intentionally yanking our chain? That's' it, bait the liberals (and general population) and then bemoan them when they react...how childish?
Click to expand...
I dont know. Ask him. Did you watch Comeys testimony? Do you see a value in repeating that charade in public hearings?


Oh wait...turns out...he did.

"The announcement that the committee would not hold a closed-door meeting on Tuesday as expected with James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director; and Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency — a briefing Mr. Nunes insisted needed to happen before the committee could move forward with its public hearings — startled some Democrats. They added that the cancellations went further, including a regular meeting later in the week."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/us/politics/devin-nunes-house-intelligence-committee-russia.html
 
Mach said:
Why could he not just say that? Intentionally yanking our chain? That's' it, bait the liberals (and general population) and then bemoan them when they react...how childish?
Click to expand...

There's some strange mysticism at play because President Trump, Nunes, Conway; these people somehow say something, but mean something completely different. I wish i had the clairvoyance to decipher their encoding, because it really is strange when President Trump claims he's going to provide healthcare that covers "everybody", and then his proposal covers tens of millions fewer Americans than Obamacare.
 
Socrates1 said:
More liberal BS . WH said she is more than welcome to testify . Sounds like C linton N ews N etwork lies again ! :lol:
Click to expand...

That brians williams guy. Hes been knows to toss out a delusion or two.

“That’s Brian being Brian” became the newsroom shorthand.

The List: 32 Lies and Disputed Stories NBC News Let Brian Williams Tell For a Decade - Breitbart

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/storytelling-ability-connected-williams-with-his-viewers-but-also-led-to-his-downfall/2015/02/14/def95228-b3a4-11e4-854b-a38d13486ba1_story.html?utm_term=.3a48a4045578
 
Absentglare said:
There's some strange mysticism at play because President Trump, Nunes, Conway; these people somehow say something, but mean something completely different. I wish i had the clairvoyance to decipher their encoding, because it really is strange when President Trump claims he's going to provide healthcare that covers "everybody", and then his proposal covers tens of millions fewer Americans than Obamacare.
Click to expand...
Can you produce anything that shows Donald Trump, as per the OP, blocked Sally Yates from testifying?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
That does not answer my question.

Why should I believe Spicer and disregard the story in the Washington post?
Click to expand...
Yes it would answer you question.
Spicer is on point in what he said regarding the available information, the Post is not.
You could have easily ascertained that from reading the article and then watching the video denying the allegation.
 
VanceMack said:
I dont know. Ask him. Did you watch Comeys testimony? Do you see a value in repeating that charade in public hearings?
Click to expand...
Reporters did, he didn't answer...

Not sure you're aware but all of this could be put to rest if Republicans agreed to investigate. They refuse, so you'll see the pressure continue until they agree. We could have Flynn up under oath telling us what happened, etc., but they block all of that, so we'll put pressure (the people, not just liberals) until this is resolved.

Look, wouldn't it be nice to get Russia behind Trump instead of it dragging out? Why is it dragging out, if they have nothing to hide? Put it to rest...but they won't. So either they are hiding things, or they are making a huge gamble that the eventual coup of showing liberals were on a witch hunt outweighs the negative PR they have gotten on this for the last few months.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom