rokkerkory
Member
There's nothing to hide guys
He's the best
He said he'll never lie to us
He's the best
He said he'll never lie to us
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
WaPo: Trump admin sought to block Sally Yates from testifying to Congress on Russia
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
- Status
smokeymicpot
Beat EviLore at pool.
Fmr Justice Dept Spokesman @matthewamiller on intel Russia investigation: it has to be taken out of Chairman Nunes hands @MSNBC #AMR
https://twitter.com/mitchellreports/status/846760030313594880
https://twitter.com/mitchellreports/status/846760030313594880
RustyNails
Member
Its an elaborate cover up.
1. Yates wants to testify.
2. Yates' lawyer (O' Neil) sends letter to Ramer (Acting AG, Justice Dept) saying as much, and that Yates will not discuss classified info.
3. Scott Schools (Justice Dept) responds to O'Neil by saying presidential immunity applies to Yates testimony. She needs to talk to White House.
4. O'Neil sends a letter to McGahn (WH counsel), saying presidential immunity does not apply because Yates will only discuss publicly available info. If they dont hear back, Yates will continue.
5. SAME DAY, Nunes cancels the hearing.
6. Now WH says they never blocked Yates. But they didn't respond to O'Neil and had Nunes pull the hearing.
7. Nunes says "no comment" whether WH told him to pull the hearing.
Its absolutely clear what happened. Washington Post's report is 100℅ acfurate that Whitehouse tried to block Yates. They did.
Beer Monkey
Member
She had the gall to try to start single payer healthcare, that bitch. The GOP had to choice but to try to take her down with two decades of smear campaigns.
TheOfficeMut
Unconfirmed Member
Nixon>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Trump>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>H.Clinton>GWB>Reagan>B.Clinton
To illustrate what you're suggesting.
The same logic could also be applied in the following example:
Five people take an exam. Charlie, one of the examinees, scored the thirst worst grade.
Okay, so what does that mean? What if all of them scored in the 99th percentile and he happened to fall short of the other two ahead of him by just a fraction? That doesn't mean he did bad by any means, but because it was phrased that way, it suggests he must have done terribly.
To suggest that Clinton, in your opinion, was the most corrupt candidate behind Trump since Nixon is meaningless nonsense, when Nixon set the bar at 100 stories and you have Trump matching or exceeding it at this very moment. By comparison, everyone else is near ground level.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Thank. God.
Not that you aren't wrong, because you are, but at this point who the fuck cares? Clinton is irrelevant. This is Trump's bullshit we're wading through now, and there is no point in bringing her up or trying to shift attention/blame to her.
The election is over.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Doesn't mean it will.
smokeymicpot
Beat EviLore at pool.
Still doesn't mean they will do it. It is a former worker.
The letter to the White House can be found here.
There doesn't appear to be a response, except some unknown directive to Nunes to cancel the hearing.
minor effort
Banned
They probably won't be able to delay Yates from testifying altogether, but I think their messy strategy at this point is to discredit and derail the House investigation to the point that it looks like a shambling, inept mess, beyond repair. They're probably aware Nunes stunts over the past week have only intensified the calls for an independent investigation, but they're planning to ignore those as best they can and let the current House investigation run itself off the tracks.
Not to them! It never ends. Theyre playing it over and over in their heads like it is still happening.
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
Exactly.
I'm still reading primary talk in 2017. It's dead and buried. Move the hell on.
Fuck.
Who are we talking about, because it sounds like you are referencing Hillary supporters with your last two posts, and I want to give you the benefit of the doubt that you really aren't that much of an idiot
Doesn't mean much though... "former" employees don't have much say.
Edit beaten badly.
In the 2020 debates no matter who the Dem candidate Trump will bring up Hillary more than he does his opponent.
Yeah I missed that part, I'm a dummy dumb dumb.
That is funny.
March 14: Initial invitation to Yates to testify before House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence - Devin Nunes and Adam Schiff
March 21: Nunes makes his night run to the White House, supposedly seeing information of incidental information regarding Trump's transition team.
March 22: Nunes meets with President Trump, holdings morning press conference regarding his findings
March ??-23: Letter sent from Ramer to Yate's lawyer (not included in the material sent to the WaPo)
March 23: O'Neil responds to Ramer, saying the DoJ position regarding confidentiality interests concerning events and requests consent to disclose information.
March 24: Essentially gets OK from Associate Deputy AG, just need to check with the White House as there is no need of a separate consent from the Department
March 24: (O'Niel): Writing to McGahn, reiterates the position that Yates should not be obligated to refuse to provide non-classified information.
Sorry, I should included sources, but this is the gist of it, baring the date Nunes canceled the meeting for today (my Google skills are failing)
Edit: I am having trouble keeping up with this fuckery.
March 21: Nunes makes his night run to the White House, supposedly seeing information of incidental information regarding Trump's transition team.
March 22: Nunes meets with President Trump, holdings morning press conference regarding his findings
March ??-23: Letter sent from Ramer to Yate's lawyer (not included in the material sent to the WaPo)
March 23: O'Neil responds to Ramer, saying the DoJ position regarding confidentiality interests concerning events and requests consent to disclose information.
March 24: Essentially gets OK from Associate Deputy AG, just need to check with the White House as there is no need of a separate consent from the Department
March 24: (O'Niel): Writing to McGahn, reiterates the position that Yates should not be obligated to refuse to provide non-classified information.
Sorry, I should included sources, but this is the gist of it, baring the date Nunes canceled the meeting for today (my Google skills are failing)
Edit: I am having trouble keeping up with this fuckery.
If you read that as me referencing Hillary supporters then I dont know what to say...
We are about 70 days into the presidency of Trump and he is still going on and on about Hillary and the election almost every chance he gets. Which is so fucking stupid and pointless it hurts.
QUOTE=ahoyhoy;232919783]In the 2020 debates no matter who the Dem candidate Trump will bring up Hillary more than he does his opponent.[/QUOTE]
Yup. He is still salty about the popular vote. But this is off-topic. But thanks for at least reading my post the way it was intended.
BlastProcessing
Member
That seems likely. Nunes is the kid that pulled the fire alarm to get out of taking the test he hadn't studied for.
Snowybreak
Member
He's talking about the people who come in and deflect Trump's corruption by blaming Hillary.
Nunes does resemble a scared and confused kid.
Or more accurately, he's the loser who was conned into pulling the fire alarm for the dumb bully who needed to escape the exam.
Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
Everytime I have nothing to hide I act as suspicious as possible. Common sense, really.
It's umm like, reverse phycology, right?
BlastProcessing
Member
My bad, following on from the other poster I guess my mind was in a hostile place already.
I'm trying to think of ways this is wrong, but I'll be damned if I can think of a one.
Tannen wasn't a puppet of Russia. That's about it.
As long as Republicans control everything and continue to put party over country, nothing will change - no matter how many Democrats or former government officials demand something be done.
I really think that something like this would be the straw that breaks the camel's back, even among Republicans. They all figure it's better to discredit and ignore her, and keep shouting 'FAKE NEWS' to convince others that there's no "there" there.
dskillzhtown
keep your strippers out of my American football
We will see if it happens. Nunes is running interference for Trump and not sure anything can be done about it. It seems to me, someone is going to have to give an exclusive interview with WaPo or 60 Minutes to get the ball rolling. All official channels seem to be just as corrupt as what they are supposed to be investigating.
Reverend Funk
Comfy Penetration
My guess is they are trying to buy enough time to complete the ritual.
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
To catch everyone up to speed ^^^
Nunes' latest statement claims he had zero contact with the white house about cancelling the open hearing where Yates was going to testify.
Make of it what you will.
BlastProcessing
Member
Ahh, I see you haven't seen my spec script for Back to the Future 4.
I would def be eating at places where I can see them make my food the entire time. Pretty much subway and chipotle lol.
Mineshaft_Gap
4077th
Let's look at the top stories on Fox News Dot Com
Guys, they seem to have missed the scoop
I bet their news editor is pissed.
Guys, they seem to have missed the scoop
I bet their news editor is pissed.Nazgul_Hunter
Member
Sean Spicer gave a pretty good answer to this in his press conference. Sally Yates' letter said "If you say nothing, I assume you waive privilege on this" and they did not respond.
They now have an easy "FAKE NEWS" thing to point to muddy the Russia waters even more.
They now have an easy "FAKE NEWS" thing to point to muddy the Russia waters even more.
A Serious Man
Member
They knew invoking privilege would make them look guilty as fuck, hence having Nunes cancel the hearing.
How would it? Ryan said no, Nunes said no.. who's gunna make him? Sucks that it seems completely up to republicans.
The Jackdog
Member
until there is evidence otherwise, thems the facts. sucks, but shit thats the case right?
This was the expected answer from the WH and why they didn't state executive privilege in the first place.
The real underlying question in this mess is whether the White House told Nunes to cancel the committee meetings so Yates couldn't testify when he snuck over there last week (i.e., the WH way of avoiding the testimony and also not invoking presidential privilege).
TheOfficeMut
Unconfirmed Member
Yates should just send an email with all the material she has to testify that mysteriously becomes intercepted and released to the internet.
Nunes is trying to disable the fire alarm so people don't know there is a fire.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked