E B
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2005
- Messages
- 9,491
As a rational, thinking person, I could see Nunes - aside from his stated reasons for needing to cancel (other 2 witnesses unavailability) - being that he may have wanted to afford time for Yates' attorney to receive a response to his letter to the WH (re: invoking EP). That letter gave EOD Monday as a deadline and the hearing (now for one person) was the next morning ... that's of course assuming Nunes knew about Yates' lawyer's letter to the WH, which I do not know IF he knew about it or not. But if it were me, to bring that many people together for a hearing, I would want to get as much 'testimony bang' for my scheduling buck as possible.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
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.
As a rational, thinking person, I could see Nunes - aside from his stated reasons for needing to cancel (other 2 witnesses unavailability) - being that he may have wanted to afford time for Yates' attorney to receive a response to his letter to the WH (re: invoking EP). That letter gave EOD Monday as a deadline and the hearing (now for one person) was the next morning ... that's of course assuming Nunes knew about Yates' lawyer's letter to the WH, which I do not know IF he knew about it or not. But if it were me, to bring that many people together for a hearing, I would want to get as much 'testimony bang' for my scheduling buck as possible.
People with 'witch-hunt' motives will likely opine otherwise, though, I'm sure.[/QUOTE]
If this were Clinton would you think the same? It's all suspicious to me until we hear the testimony, we have all seen witch hunts on Clinton a la Benghazi.
When there is a common sense, rational, reasonable likelihood or explanation for something, yes; I would certainly give that person - anyone - the benefit of the doubt.If this were Clinton would you think the same? It's all suspicious to me until we hear the testimony, we have all seen witch hunts on Clinton a la Benghazi.
oh god I just saw this and I'm losing it. No one has taken him up on the offer. Which means that he either has nothing (which would be horrifying), or they don't need him to make their case. I'm praying hard for option 2.
I just pasted the conclusion of the article. I think the entire article is worth a read and is not all that lengthy. Highly critical of Democrats but also critical of Republicans.
Russia is a hostile regime whose intelligence operations — from cyber to propaganda to political assassination to promotion of rogue regimes and factions — are formidable. Many of us were warning against Putin while George Bush was gazing into his eyes for a “sense of his soul,” the Bush administration was imagining Russia as a “strategic partner,” Hillary Clinton was resetting our path to cozy relations, Barack Obama was appeasing Putin in desperation to keep the perilous Iran nuclear deal on track, and Donald Trump was “bromancing” the dictator. So if Democrats have suddenly decided the Kremlin is a malign force, we should welcome them and fight the urge to ask, “What took you so long?” Russia did not “hack our election.” But Russia is our “number-one geopolitical foe” — to quote Mitt Romney’s bull’s-eye assessment, the object of such media-Democrat scorn. Putin’s anti-American operations in the run-up to the election — which were directed, according to our intelligence agencies, against both political parties — should be a matter of serious concern to all Americans, as should Russian machinations in the Obama years, the Bush years, in Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere. Yet, rather than encourage a responsible evaluation of what we’re up against, Democrats and their media allies are promoting a fraud: If you take the Russian threat seriously, it means Russia stole the election and, ergo, that Donald Trump is an illegitimate president. Since that is not what happened, Republicans — who should be pushing Trump toward a harder line against Moscow — will be constrained to refute the Democrats’ allegations. The Democrats will demonize Trump, while Trump sympathizers sound like Putin’s defense lawyers. In the Kremlin, they’ll be smiling.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...residential-election-republicans-donald-trump
I just pasted the conclusion of the article. I think the entire article is worth a read and is not all that lengthy. Highly critical of Democrats but also critical of Republicans.
Russia is a hostile regime whose intelligence operations — from cyber to propaganda to political assassination to promotion of rogue regimes and factions — are formidable. Many of us were warning against Putin while George Bush was gazing into his eyes for a “sense of his soul,” the Bush administration was imagining Russia as a “strategic partner,” Hillary Clinton was resetting our path to cozy relations, Barack Obama was appeasing Putin in desperation to keep the perilous Iran nuclear deal on track, and Donald Trump was “bromancing” the dictator. So if Democrats have suddenly decided the Kremlin is a malign force, we should welcome them and fight the urge to ask, “What took you so long?” Russia did not “hack our election.” But Russia is our “number-one geopolitical foe” — to quote Mitt Romney’s bull’s-eye assessment, the object of such media-Democrat scorn. Putin’s anti-American operations in the run-up to the election — which were directed, according to our intelligence agencies, against both political parties — should be a matter of serious concern to all Americans, as should Russian machinations in the Obama years, the Bush years, in Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere. Yet, rather than encourage a responsible evaluation of what we’re up against, Democrats and their media allies are promoting a fraud: If you take the Russian threat seriously, it means Russia stole the election and, ergo, that Donald Trump is an illegitimate president. Since that is not what happened, Republicans — who should be pushing Trump toward a harder line against Moscow — will be constrained to refute the Democrats’ allegations. The Democrats will demonize Trump, while Trump sympathizers sound like Putin’s defense lawyers. In the Kremlin, they’ll be smiling.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...residential-election-republicans-donald-trump
I posted an article with commentary. So what? There are plenty of facts stated, not simply opinion. I can't say 100% that every fact is clearly stated, but certainly I know most are as I remember the events. National Review is a respected source.
Different points of view often lead to different conclusions, but which of the facts presented are in dispute?
Just as I don't believe Clinton killed Vince Foster or Obama is. Muslim, I don't believe Trump is controlled by Putin. Investigate--fine, but until I see proof, I'll be skeptical.
AnnaH I put this in the surveillance thread.
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...trump-intel-surveillance.229815/#post-4147713
Of course politics. I mean how often was Obama's legitimacy questioned? Many Republicans even claimed that he wasn't American -- based on nothing. Most mainstream Democrats are still just calling for an investigation. Sure, they're hoping they find something with the investigation, but they're keeping it civil for now.Actually, Rep. Lewis, I believe, from Ga. stated that Trump is illegitimate and was supported by others. Certainly, Democrats have questioned Trump's legitimacy in various ways. Politics.
Okay, we know what the Trump campaign investigation is about -- there is enough material to support an FBI investigation. But what did the Democrats supposedly do that requires investigating -- it would be nice to have something more than Trump's unsubstantiated accusations on twitter.Both sides of the aisle are more focused on investigating the other side. Not just a Republican problem. Again, politics.
Trump's indignant tweets suggests Flynn would have remained as National Security Advisor had he not been exposed.Flynn is gone, and I don't miss him.
I'm not implying anything about you. I try to argue the facts and not get personal. I'm mostly interested in folks having the correct information (not alternative facts). If they interpret it differently from me, that's fine.You ask if I see a disconnect. Not sure, but I guess you think I have a disconnect. If that's your point, then the answer is no.
I wouldn't expect much this quickly. Kenneth Starr took 4 years to investigate Whitewater, and after all the smoke, he concluded that there was no fire. Same could happen with Trump.I agree that there must be investigation of what the Russians did and are doing and whether or not Trump was involved. Presently, I believe there are at least three investigations. Trump has been investigated for maybe close to a year with nothing to show for it.
What dealings are you talking about exactly?tc, the author criticized both Democrats and Republicans. Are you comfortable with the previous administration's dealings with Russia?
I've made no claim on the purity of their motive. I applaud that they are erring towards investigations and openness, but I can see that the Democrats hope they find something actionable against Trump. What they want to do with it I'm not so sure -- like I said before, a recall would be a can of worms, impeaching him would bring uber social conservative Mike Pence to the Presidency, which might not benefit the Democratic Party as seems easier to run against the Trump craziness. Would it affect Republicans? I don't know. Republican support is so hardened that I doubt anything would shake them (as Trump said, he could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue, shoot someone, and not lose voters).Do you find the Democrat's motives in all of this so pure?