Donald trump blocks sally yates from testifying about russia to congress

Mach said:

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.

Click to expand...

Who said the GOP refuses to investigate?

I ask again...did you watch Comey's testimony?

VanceMack said:

Can you produce anything that shows Donald Trump, as per the OP, blocked Sally Yates from testifying?

Click to expand...

I just told you that i apparently can't understand what they say because i don't have the mystical decoder ring or whatever the **** President Trump is using to project what he really means that is in direct conflict with his literal words into the minds that inexplicably continue to support him.

VanceMack said:

Who said the GOP refuses to investigate?
I ask again...did you watch Comey's testimony?

Click to expand...

Yes, I watched as Comey stated that Trump's tweet about wiretaps had no evidence in support of it from FBI, or from the Justice Dept. (All just part of Trump's inability to identify and/or communicate reality apparently)

And that FBI is investigating the Russia involvement in the election and that includes communications between some of Trumps staff, etc.
FBI is not Republicans.

Nunes, Republican House Chair, blocking Yates, is what the thread is about.

But it wasn't just that, it's his erratic behavior in general that looks to some to either be incompetent, or he's trying to run interference for the WH.
Republican L. Graham: “He put his objectivity in question at the very least,” “The problem he’s created is he’s gone out on a lark by himself, sort of an Inspector Clouseau investigation here"

Dems:

The open partisan split within the powerful intelligence committee came as Schiff complained that members of the panel continue to wait for Nunes to present them with documents ostensibly relating to intelligence collected on Trump days after he had briefed the president. The embattled committee chairman raised further questions when he said he had no choice under classification rules except to view the sensitive intelligence at the White House, a statement likely to intensify speculation that the Trump administration fed Nunes the material.

Click to expand...

In his statement on Monday night, Schiff tore into the chairman’s explanation. “There was no legitimate justification for bringing that information to the White House instead of the committee,” he said, adding: “That it was obtained at the White House makes this departure all the more concerning.”

Click to expand...

Spicer repeatedly refused to offer any details about why Nunes was on the White House grounds and whom the California congressman was meeting with. “

Click to expand...

Mach said:

Yes, I watched as Comey stated that Trump's tweet about wiretaps had no evidence in support of it from FBI, or from the Justice Dept. (All just part of Trump's inability to identify and/or communicate reality apparently)

And that FBI is investigating the Russia involvement in the election and that includes communications between some of Trumps staff, etc.
FBI is not Republicans.

Nunes, Republican House Chair, blocking Yates, is what the thread is about.

But it wasn't just that, it's his erratic behavior in general that looks to some to either be incompetent, or he's trying to run interference for the WH.
Republican L. Graham: “He put his objectivity in question at the very least,” “The problem he’s created is he’s gone out on a lark by himself, sort of an Inspector Clouseau investigation here"

Dems:

Click to expand...

If you actually watched Comey's testimony and not just the line that somehow you think proves a point, you will recall seeing him refuse to answer around 100 questions posed by both dems and reps in an open hearing. If you read Nunes comments you will understand his statement that there is no value in proceeding until they can actually hear Comey's testimony in a closed hearing. You may have also heard Nunes today tell NBC that for all the bull**** from the dems, none of them (including Schiff) have accessed and read the documents provided. Because this is all a dog and pony show.

VanceMack said:

If you actually watched Comey's testimony and not just the line that somehow you think proves a point, you will recall seeing him refuse to answer around 100 questions posed by both dems and reps in an open hearing. If you read Nunes comments you will understand his statement that there is no value in proceeding until they can actually hear Comey's testimony in a closed hearing. You may have also heard Nunes today tell NBC that for all the bull**** from the dems, none of them (including Schiff) have accessed and read the documents provided. Because this is all a dog and pony show.

Click to expand...

Oh stop.
Justice notifies Yates her testimony is off-limits because they are protected by attorney-client privilege or presidential priv. (obstruction)
Yates attorney meets with Justice and challenges it, Justice responds that its probably covered by presidential privilege.
Yates attorney informs WH that its his understanding presidential privilege was waived (per WH letter documented), and that she would testify.
The day she goes to testify, Nunes cancels it.(obstruction)
Nunes claims it's so he can meet with Comey first...what?
Nunes originally planned to have Comey and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers testify in private Tuesday, but he canceled the meeting Monday. (quoted)(obstruction)

No, nothing to see here, we're open and transparent. WH didn't block her, no, the obstructed until they could hand it off to Nunes to obstruct it not once but twice...but also pet with WH going around the bi-partisan house committee...!!!,

but really no one is obstructing see?

Mach said:

Oh stop.
Justice notifies Yates her testimony is off-limits because they are protected by attorney-client privilege or presidential priv. (obstruction)
Yates attorney meets with Justice and challenges it, Justice responds that its probably covered by presidential privilege.
Yates attorney informs WH that its his understanding presidential privilege was waived (per WH letter documented), and that she would testify.
The day she goes to testify, Nunes cancels it.(obstruction)
Nunes claims it's so he can meet with Comey first...what?
Nunes originally planned to have Comey and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers testify in private Tuesday, but he canceled the meeting Monday. (quoted)(obstruction)

No, nothing to see here, we're open and transparent. WH didn't block her, no, the obstructed until they could hand it off to Nunes to obstruct it not once but twice...but also pet with WH going around the bi-partisan house committee...!!!,

but really no one is obstructing see?

Click to expand...

The DOJ notified Yates she would need consent from the WH but otherwise they had no problems with her testifying. Her attorney sent a letter to the WH stating that unless they heard otherwise from the WH by COB Monday they would take that as a green light. The WH said party on.

You are speculating and assigning motivation to Nunes just like you were told to like a good little parrot. You know precisely dick about his actual motivation. You arent stupid enough to believe they arent holding further hearings...I know you arent. You also NOW Comey refused to give answers to nearly 100 questions ased in an open hearing and Nunes himself has said they will have closed hearing so they can actually get answers to their questions.

Seriously..you want MORE of this?

VanceMack said:

The DOJ notified Yates she would need consent from the WH but otherwise they had no problems with her testifying. Her attorney sent a letter to the WH stating that unless they heard otherwise from the WH by COB Monday they would take that as a green light. The WH said party on.

Click to expand...

I just wrote that, but included what happened BEFORE that, and AFTER that, so you could see that it's a string of related events, and not the talking point Fox wants you to focus on (can you drop the partisan BS.? else I have to include it and its pointless) Surely you prefer to see your talking point, in context?

You are speculating and assigning motivation to Nunes just like you were told to like a good little parrot. You know precisely dick about his actual motivation. You arent stupid enough to believe they arent holding further hearings...I know you arent. You also NOW Comey refused to give answers to nearly 100 questions ased in an open hearing and Nunes himself has said they will have closed hearing so they can actually get answers to their questions.

Click to expand...

Why is the senate having no issue with this? Are liberals harassing the Senate? Are they harassing FBI/NSA/CIA?

Hmm, it's only Nunes, who even REPUBLICANS have criticized, for his erratic behavior. Pressure will be on Nunes and the WH until that's resolved.

I don't really care whath is motivations are, his behavior is sufficiently disruptive such that he could either explain himself, which he refuses to do, or he could move aside, which he refuses to do.
How could we know his motiviations, if they aren't transparent, by his own specific actions to make them, and keep them, transparent? When his lack of transparency to back his bizarre behavior that appears to look like obstruction and WH coordination, is what the issue is with Nunes IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Mach said:

I just wrote that, but included what happened BEFORE that, and AFTER that, so you could see that it's a string of related events, and not the talking point Fox wants you to focus on (can you drop the partisan BS.? else I have to include it and its pointless) Surely you prefer to see your talking point, in context?



Why is the senate having no issue with this? Are liberals harassing the Senate? Are they harassing FBI/NSA/CIA?

Hmm, it's only Nunes, who even REPUBLICANS have criticized, for his erratic behavior. Pressure will be on Nunes and the WH until that's resolved.
Pressure is not on the senate which seems to have a clue for now, and fbi/cia/nsa is behaving normally as well.

I don't really care what is motivations are, his behavior is sufficiently disruptive such that he could either explain himself, which he refuses to do, or he could move aside, which he refuses to do.
How could we know his motiviations, if they aren't transparent, by his own specific actions to make them, and keep them, transparent? Good grief.

Click to expand...

Did the senate question Comey in an open hearig ad get answers to their questions? IYou claim to have seen the testimony gien. What value added do you find to that testimony? DO you want more of the same?

ARE you stupid enough to believe that because he cancelled the open hearings until they can get Comey in for the closed meeting that they are done and there will be no more testimony?

You are right. You dont know his motivation. You DO have his words...but you would rather parrot the rat talking points. Notice the thread title...Donald Trump blocs Sally Yates testifying. Did he?

VanceMack said:

Did the senate question Comey in an open hearig ad get answers to their questions? IYou claim to have seen the testimony gien. What value added do you find to that testimony? DO you want more of the same?

Click to expand...

So WH is blocking Yates? Or is it just Nunes who APPEARS to be doing it with the WH?

Because of course Trump doesn't want Yates to testify. But then, Benghazi set a nice precedent didn't it.

ARE you stupid enough to believe that because he cancelled the open hearings until they can get Comey in for the closed meeting that they are done and there will be no more testimony?

Click to expand...

Are you stupid enough to believe that Nunes couldn't just explain his behavior without having to release any classified information, to settle all this if he so chose?
Are you stupid enough to believe the WH appears to be working with Nunes to block it, yet neither want to talk about?
Why not remove the "Are you stupid" nonsense.

You appear to believe they don't want Yates to testify, and while they are obstructing her, and while Nunes and the WH are tight lipped about their own odd behavior, that this is entirely unrelated.
Then you appear to think that delaying tactics on the bad PR that will undoubtedly arise from Yate's testimony, has no value.

Surely keeping it out of the news, even if just for weeks, has no benefit if its bad news....I can't imagine that...it's just so unreasonable.

Nunes: House Intel Committee invites Comey to testify - CNNPolitics.com
Nunes: house invites invites Comey to testify (3/28)
Comey: I was not invited (3/29)
Nunes: Um. I was wrong. I didn't formally invite him, even though he won't testify without a formal invitation.

Schiff says Nunes agreed to bring in Comey, Yates, etc., in a public hearing.
Then Nunes only wanted Comey in a closed hearing.
Schiff didn't sign off.

If you've been following Spicer and Nunez, this is not a surprise. It's either consistent bungling, or evasion, which is worse?

Mach said:

So WH is blocking Yates? Or is it just Nunes who APPEARS to be doing it with the WH?

Because of course Trump doesn't want Yates to testify. But then, Benghazi set a nice precedent didn't it.


Are you stupid enough to believe that Nunes couldn't just explain his behavior without having to release any classified information, to settle all this if he so chose?
Are you stupid enough to believe the WH appears to be working with Nunes to block it, yet neither want to talk about?
Why not remove the "Are you stupid" nonsense.

You appear to believe they don't want Yates to testify, and while they are obstructing her, and while Nunes and the WH are tight lipped about their own odd behavior, that this is entirely unrelated.
Then you appear to think that delaying tactics on the bad PR that will undoubtedly arise from Yate's testimony, has no value.

Surely keeping it out of the news, even if just for weeks, has no benefit if its bad news....I can't imagine that...it's just so unreasonable.

Click to expand...

Do you have proof the WH is blocking Yates? DO you have proof that ANYONE is blocking Yates? Nunes cancelled open hearings because tey were worthless. you have the video proof that they were worthless. But you want there to be some sort of scandal. Cuz they told you there was.

Comey had access to intel. Comey went to Obama and briefed him. Comey refused to answer questions in open hearings about what he briefed Obama on. That makes sense to you.
Nunes had access to intel. Nunes briefed someone in the WH. Nunes has refused to divulge his sources of the intel but has revealed the intel to the democrat members of the committee. Nunes, after hearing Comey state he cant testify in open hearings has cancelled the open hearings and is rescheduling them in a closed setting to get answers. SCANDAL!!! COVERUP!!!!

Ridiculous.

Mach said:

Nunes: House Intel Committee invites Comey to testify - CNNPolitics.com
Nunes: house invites invites Comey to testify (3/28)
Comey: I was not invited (3/29)
Nunes: Um. I was wrong. I didn't formally invite him, even though he won't testify without a formal invitation.

Schiff says Nunes agreed to bring in Comey, Yates, etc., in a public hearing.
Then Nunes only wanted Comey in a closed hearing.
Schiff didn't sign off.

Click to expand...

Read what you just wrote.

Comey refused to testify in an open hearing. Nunes wants a closed hearing SO THAT COMEY CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS. Schiff wont sign off on a closed hearing.

Who is obstructing the investigation?

VanceMack said:

Read what you just wrote. Comey refused to testify in an open hearing. Nunes wants a closed hearing SO THAT COMEY CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS. Schiff wont sign off on a closed hearing. Who is obstructing the investigation?

Click to expand...

That's not what it says
It says Comey wouldn't accept unless the invitation was offical/formal. It says nothing about Comey refusing because it's open. Link it if you see different.

Mach said:

That's not what it says
It says Comey wouldn't accept unless the invitation was offical/formal. It says nothing about Comey refusing because it's open. Link it if you see different.

Click to expand...

I didnt say Comey refused to testify. I pointed out your statement that SCHIFF wont sign off on a closed hearing. That WAS your statement...correct?

"Schiff says Nunes agreed to bring in Comey, Yates, etc., in a public hearing.
Then Nunes only wanted Comey in a closed hearing.
Schiff didn't sign off."

Schiff only wants a public hearing...and you KNOW how worthless those were. So why wont Schiff consent to closed hearings where the witnesses can actually respond to the questions? Why is Schiff obstructing the investigation?

The story unfortunately is that Nunes, through incompetence or calculation, once again kicked the can on this issue. He came out to reporters stating he invited Comey. Comey says he was not going to attend, because he was not formally invited. Then the next day had to clarify that he did NOT invite Comey, oops

VanceMack said:

I didnt say Comey refused to testify.

Click to expand...

Actually you did.

VanceMack said:

Comey refused to testify in an open hearing

Click to expand...

Which is false. Comey refused to attend the hearing, if he was not formally invited by the House.

I pointed out your statement that SCHIFF wont sign off on a closed hearing. That WAS your statement...correct?

Schiff only wants a public hearing?

Click to expand...

See above post. And not only that, according to Schiff, Nunes had earlier agreed to invite to the public, only after his WH shenanigans did he reverse that.

Mach said:

Actually you did.


Which is false. Comey refused to attend the hearing, if he was not formally invited by the House.

I pointed out your statement that SCHIFF wont sign off on a closed hearing. That WAS your statement...correct?



See above post. And not only that, according to Schiff, Nunes had earlier agreed to invite to the public, only after his WH shenanigans did he reverse that.

Click to expand...

Comey testified...he refused to answer questions. Dont play stupid games. You have hours of Comey refusing to answer questions in open hearings. And you have Schiff refusing to sign of on closed hearings. So who is it that doesnt want the investigation to go forward?

VanceMack said:

Comey testified...he refused to answer questions. Dont play stupid games. You have hours of Comey refusing to answer questions in open hearings. And you have Schiff refusing to sign of on closed hearings. So who is it that doesnt want the investigation to go forward?

Click to expand...

Yes, but the OP is why Republicans (WH, Nunes) won't let Yates testify, because Nunes now wants Comey in private THEREFORE Yates can't testify as was planned, in public? Say it ain't so.
Maybe he'll require someone else to accompany them who can't testify in private, and then oh boy Nunes will have done all he could to allow Yates to testify!

So WH delays, then right before they would have to formally reject it, Nunes steps in and cancels it.

Then Nunes wants Comey to appear, but lies about having invited him.
Then Nunes only wants Comey to appear in private, but requires this before Yates can give public testimony?

The guess by former intelligence is that Yates has some new information to share, that is not classified, and it could be important for us to hear so we can help kick off further investigations, etc.
Things that may not happen if its done behind closed doors with Nunes leading the crew.
After all, we're talking about an investigation that is tied at least in collected surveillance, to the WHITE HOUSE/President. Can you imagine if maybe we want to hear what she has to say?

It was Yates that pointed out Flynn was lying to the VP/the public about his dealings with Russia. What else does she know...curious minds.