FBI: Russia DID interfere with US election ... now what?

[E B]

Jenn, did you read the WaPo story past the headline? It says just what the documents I posted above said, and noted the timing of Nunes' cancellation as...interesting. Schiff, too. I'm not reading in this article that the White House shut down the briefing- Nunes did that, but the WH did try to block her testimony by saying she needed permission to testify.

Glad to see Spicer's on record as saying they're allowing it, though! That's peachy. Warner from the Senate Intelligence Committee says despite Nunes torpedoing all he can in the HIC, she'll be testifying openly before them.

 

[lovedogs]

Jenn, did you read the WaPo story past the headline? It says just what the documents I posted above said, and noted the timing of Nunes' cancellation as...interesting. Schiff, too. I'm not reading in this article that the White House shut down the briefing- Nunes did that, but the WH did try to block her testimony by saying she needed permission to testify.

Glad to see Spicer's on record as saying they're allowing it, though! That's peachy. Warner from the Senate Intelligence Committee says despite Nunes torpedoing all he can in the HIC, she'll be testifying openly before them.

Apparently the WaPo released the article about them trying to block her from testifying, waited until Moron Spice denied it, and then released the letters. Which is my favorite because they essentially just gave dummies enough rope to hang themselves with.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,


MY understanding of this is that Yates attorney informed the WH that she planned to testify. He also informed them that they could not exercise EP because the events had already been discussed in the media by third parties and therefore they could not claim EP. The WH was told. I do not remember the sequence of events.

Annette

 

[bunnycat]

Um, well, the hearings were cancelled. So Nunes is grinding the investigation to a halt of his own accord? Hmmm...and no one from his own party sees anything wrong with it? Hmmm...

Seems to me like the corrupt protecting the even more corrupt.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Letter dated 3/14 -- HIC invites Yates to testify on March 28th.

Letter dated 3/23 -- Yates lawyer letter to DOJ, citing that his interpretation of DOJ concerns (no letter shared citing these alleged 'concerns') are overly broad, that she won't release classified info, etc. and if they have concerns about her testifying, to provide those for review.

A meeting seems to have taken place on 3/23 with Yates' attorney at DOJ to review related documents.

Letter dated 3/24 -- DOJ to Yates lawyer, advising them the WH would be the person to invoke executive privilege, so go ask them.

Letter dated 3/24 -- Yates lawyer letter to WH, citing DOJ letter, asking 'permission' for her to testify, or to state objection by 3/27.

White House does not respond to the letter.

Nunes noted either last night or night before that the other two people to testify were not available, and thus the meeting needed to be rescheduled, and that due to the potential sensitive/classified nature of the material, it needed to be a closed session.

So, exactly how is the DOJ or WH preventing Yates from testifying?

 

[bunnycat]

Ummm....how 'bout I point my finger at Nunes, since he's the one running the show and so far seems to have no problem going on the "sly" to meet with people and then pretty much attempt to cover up that he had done so....

If Nunes was the one to cancal, and Nunes is deeply involved with the trump team...well, it stands to reason that the WH wouldn't have had to anything "openly" with the head of the investigation a known ally.

Like I said, I smell BS and the smell is emanating from the pro Trump pasture. There are plenty of middle of the road Conservatives that are disgusted and are doing more than Towing the Party Line just because T is president, like thinking past their party at reality.

 

[E B]

Nunes noted either last night or night before that the other two people to testify were not available, and thus the meeting needed to be rescheduled, and that due to the potential sensitive/classified nature of the material, it needed to be a closed session.

So, exactly how is the DOJ or WH preventing Yates from testifying?

This is moving the goalposts. Spicer/WH said the WaPo article was "entirely false," and it isn't, as evidenced by the letters the WaPo posted for this reason. That the DoJ backed off (by not responding?) doesn't mean that there wasn't an attempt.

The hearing that Nunes claims was "too sensitive" to have publicly was agreed upon beforehand by the committee- Nunes included- and cancelled without consulting the committee. There is nothing transparent or 'by the rules' about what he did, which is why he's been called upon to recuse- and, essentially, scolded by members of his own party for his actions.

 

[E B]

 

[E B]

What's up with the HIC still not receiving the documents from Nunes' 'intel source'? Or that Schiff, ranking member of the HIC, still doesn't know who supplied them? Pretty odd.

 

[ruby59]

Speak what truth? He himself has said that what he was given by an "intel source" (at the White House, lol) doesn't back up Trump's claims whatsoever.

I know what Nunes originally said. And I have seen how the dems have gone after his scalp.

So due to all the heat he is taking now, what is the truth - what he said before or what he is being forced to say now.

 

[the_mother_thing]

This is moving the goalposts. Spicer/WH said the WaPo article was "entirely false," and it isn't, as evidenced by the letters the WaPo posted for this reason. That the DoJ backed off (by not responding?) doesn't mean that there wasn't an attempt.

The hearing that Nunes claims was "too sensitive" to have publicly was agreed upon beforehand by the committee- Nunes included- and cancelled without consulting the committee. There is nothing transparent or 'by the rules' about what he did, which is why he's been called upon to recuse- and, essentially, scolded by members of his own party for his actions.

Okay, so where's the proof? The letters don't show anything barring her from testifying; just that consideration was needed with regard to some concerns DOJ had, which were resolved on 3/23.

As for him canceling and not consulting the committee first, if 2/3 of the witnesses are not available, does that really warrant a consult? I wouldn't think so. I cancel/reschedule meetings all the time when critical and/or a majority of the decision makers are not able to make it. And I adjust the audience at times depending on the nature of the meeting, to include excluding some previously invited.

I just don't see rescheduling it that big a deal personally.

 

[E B]

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...licans-blew-up-the-house-russia-investigation

 

[the_mother_thing]

That's not news ... Nunes said that the other night, that they did not formally invite them (aside from Yates), thus the need to reschedule.

 

[E B]

Okay, so where's the proof? The letters don't show anything barring her from testifying; just that consideration was needed with regard to some concerns DOJ had, which were resolved on 3/23.

As for him canceling and not consulting the committee first, if 2/3 of the witnesses are not available, does that really warrant a consult? I wouldn't think so. I cancel/reschedule meetings all the time when critical and/or a majority of the decision makers are not able to make it. And I adjust the audience at times depending on the nature of the meeting, to include excluding some previously invited.

I just don't see rescheduling it that big a deal personally.

I think you and I may be looking at two different sets of documents. The letter from the DOJ saying that her testimony may be 'owned' by the president and that she needs to consult with the WH first is dated the 24th, and then a letter from her lawyer essentially saying, "I don't think so, and here's why..." followed by...silence from the WH. And just after, purely by coincidence, Yates' hearing is cancelled by Nunes and Nunes alone because the meeting that was agreed upon to be public now cannot be.

He's ranking member of an investigatory committee and was once a member of the Trump transition team, so the answer is no, he should not be making these decisions by himself, especially with such tenuous reasoning. It's a bipartisan committee for a reason.

 

[E B]

Running my kids to swim lessons but I haven't seen anything about a rescheduled date- just cancellations (and Nunes claiming they're trying to reschedule). Did I miss something? (Genuinely.)

Nunes can't be trusted to be impartial at this point on optics alone (assuming all else is innocent, which seems incredibly unlikely), and that should be obvious, no matter your party affiliation.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I think you and I may be looking at two different sets of documents. The letter from the DOJ saying that her testimony may be 'owned' by the president and that she needs to consult with the WH first is dated the 24th, and then a letter from her lawyer essentially saying, "I don't think so, and here's why..." followed by...silence from the WH. And just after, purely by coincidence, Yates' hearing is cancelled by Nunes and Nunes alone because the meeting that was agreed upon to be public now cannot be.

He's ranking member of an investigatory committee and was once a member of the Trump transition team, so the answer is no, he should not be making these decisions by himself, especially with such tenuous reasoning. It's a bipartisan committee for a reason.

The letters do not appear in chronological order as posted on WaPO, possibly creating confusion about who did/said what when. You have to look at the dates on each letter. That's why I summarized them earlier and put in date order. Yates was invited to testify, her lawyer met with DOJ who punted (via Yates' lawyer) the 'exec privilege' question to the WH; Yates lawyer sends letter to WH about EP; Nunes cancels hearing due to witness availability; WH gets Yates' lawyer letter, doesn't give a flip about what Yates might say, so doesn't bother to respond.

IF Yates really had something earth shattering to explode Chump's administration/presidency, etc., don't you think one of his staff (many of whom are lawyers) might have said "whoa Sally" on her lawyer's letter by the deadline to shut her down?

 

[E B]

IF Yates really had something earth shattering to explode Chump's administration/presidency, etc., don't you think one of his staff (many of whom are lawyers) might have said "whoa Sally" on her lawyer's letter by the deadline to shut her down?

If they legally can't, which it appears, then no. I think the first attempt was half-assed because they knew they didn't have grounds.

As for Nunes, was it witness availability or sensitivity of information? Because he agreed to the terms of the first open meeting and all of a sudden, he decides it must be cancelled for said reasons without discussing it with the rest of the committee, member Schiff especially. And it just so happened to be on THE SAME DAY, actually, that the WH receives the notice that Yates can- and will- testify after all. Coupled with the shady stunt he pulled running to the subjects of an investigation with possibly classified information again before consulting anyone else in the committee? If this was done on Hillary's behalf, your heads would have exploded.

What's the justification for this, I wonder? Not only his sources, but the information he received. Obstruction of justice, I HOPE. He needs to have recused himself yesterday, but he refuses to. And I knew he would and said so in another thread-- someone has to be there to warn the administration.

 

[E B]

I've said it before and I'll say it again as many times as it's warranted- thank GOD for investigative journalism. It's pretty much the only thing forcing this admin to be honest, if you can even say that. It really has no choice.

 

[E B]

FWIW, the letter about presidential privilege is dated the 24th.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I guess I am still confused by what exactly it is you/others think the administration is alleged to have been dishonest about here regarding Yates & the hearing. I don't mean this to come across sarcastic, but what exactly is so shocking about the letter to the WH being dated the 24th? It makes sense to me: Yates' lawyer was directed by DOJ to the WH for permission to testify, so they wrote to the WH the same day (given the hearing was 4 days out, time was of the essence), and the WH did not object nor prevent her from testifying.

 

[E B]

I guess I am still confused by what exactly it is you/others think the administration is alleged to have been dishonest about here regarding Yates & the hearing. I don't mean this to come across sarcastic, but what exactly is so shocking about the letter to the WH being dated the 24th? It makes sense to me: Yates' lawyer was directed by DOJ to the WH for permission to testify, so they wrote to the WH the same day (given the hearing was 4 days out, time was of the essence), and the WH did not object nor prevent her from testifying.

First, I don't think that in and of itself is a big deal. It's in keeping with not-exactly-innocent behavior, but combined with the fact that Nunes happened to cancel the hearing the same day the WH learned Yates would be testifying, it stinks. A lot of stuff stinks around this topic- this is but one- of the smaller, I'll admit- facets, but one nonetheless.

I don't think the White House is happy about nor would be so "encouraging" of her testifying if this news hadn't come out. And this happens a lot with this admin. Flynn, anyone?

 

[jaaron]

Truthfully--other than the destruction of truth, honour and all democratic norms---I don't think any of it matters. The house committee is a bunch of bluster (although IMO, Schiff is distinguishing himself as a grownup in all of this). The notably absent Mike Flynn has almost certainly cut a deal and the buck will stop with the DOJ and FBI, who will be calling whoever they want and putting them under oath.

 

[E B]

Truthfully--other than the destruction of truth, honour and all democratic norms---I don't think any of it matters. The house committee is a bunch of bluster (although IMO, Schiff is distinguishing himself as a grownup in all of this). The notably absent Mike Flynn has almost certainly cut a deal and the buck will stop with the DOJ and FBI, who will be calling whoever they want and putting them under oath.

Very, very true. I do continue to be surprised by the boldness of Nunes' actions, though. And it's a pretty plausible theory re: Flynn.

 

[the_mother_thing]

You know who else has been interestingly 'absent' for awhile?

Rudy Giuliani



Ever since his interview where he called the travel ban a 'muslim' ban.

 

[Calliecake]

Giuliani was in the news yesterday. He is going to be defending an alledged Iranian money launderer. I believe the article was in the NYT.

 

[Tekate]

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/do...s-was-blocked-from-testifying-on-russia/2390/

I don't know how Spicer can say the White House did not try to block her testimony.

 

[the_mother_thing]

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/do...s-was-blocked-from-testifying-on-russia/2390/

I don't know how Spicer can say the White House did not try to block her testimony.

That was all hashed out already (read the thread/posts). her lawyer asked the WH, the WH did not object.

 

[Tekate]

Do you have a pointer to where her lawyer was responded to? Also, it is clear from the letters that the Justice Department informed her that some of her responses may be not be allowed under Executive Privilege. That is a roadblock. No matter what is said afterwards the first letter is clear in their belief that she may be limited in her testimony.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Do you have a pointer to where her lawyer was responded to? Also, it is clear from the letters that the Justice Department informed her that some of her responses may be not be allowed under Executive Privilege. That is a roadblock. No matter what is said afterwards the first letter is clear in their belief that she may be limited in her testimony.

I posted the 'pointer' earlier; the WH ignored it because they didn't care if she testified or not ... in other words, have at it, Sally!

And of course the DOJ expressed concerns about possible exec-privilege - they are the attorneys for the administration; they advise on such matters. They wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't. That'd be like a divorce attorney not suggesting to their client to consider claiming half their spouses retirement plan.

So DOJ met with Yates' lawyer, didn't see an issue, but said 'check with the WH' who has the final say.

When you look at the letters chronologically, it is all quite logical and common sense.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,
I think EP is the right of the executive branch and all Pres use it if they feel it is to their advantage.
This time however they found they could not exercise EP, and while they did not respond, Mr. Nunes cancelled the meeting to stall the testimony. While, I doubt it is anything incriminating it looks bad for the Pres. in that he did not fire Flynn for several weeks. It brings it out in the open.

I did see a credible interview with Roger Stone who has volunteered to come to the committee and answer all questions. He requested an open meeting so that everyone could hear it.

Nunes has been part of the cover-up. His behavior is unprecedented.

Annette