It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nunes Says Source is Executive Branch?

page: 11
27
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 12:06 PM
link   
This is beginning to look like a rampart is being built around the WH. I believe it has been taken over by foreign agents. Dear God.




posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: carewemust
BRAVO to Devin Nunes...

""Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said Tuesday that he’ll never reveal the source behind his claim that members of Donald Trump’s team had indirectly come under surveillance by U.S. intelligence agencies. 

“We will never reveal sources and methods,” Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said to ABC News’ Mary Bruce on Tuesday.""
Source: www.huffingtonpost.com...


--ALSO--

Slate, Huffington-Post, NBC, & CNN are calling for him to "recuse" himself from the huge Russian-Election-Trump-Clinton-DNC-Obama investigation.

As a result, Devin Nunes is saying that he WILL NOT recuse himself. No way!
Source: www.nytimes.com...

When those publications ask you to do something...do EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE, and you'll be in great shape. Once again... BRAVO to Congressman Nunes!



Yes, Nunes should be congratulated and I hope it continues the trend of ignoring whining Democrats who keep calling for people to be removed from their jobs if they don't say and do what they want.


If Nunes was heading an official investigation as a lead investigator for the FBI and was sharing evidence and working with the subject of the investigation the way he has been with Trump...He would have been arrested immediately and his office and house would be raided by the FBI as we speak.


He isn't a lead investigator for the FBI. Trump can also see what he likes from the FBI.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Olivine

What interests me recently is the potential Sally Yates testimony.

She was the Acting AG when Flynn was forced to resign and was the one that shared with Team Trump that Flynn was corrupt and possibly an agent of a foreign government and had lied to the public and VP etc. etc.

When the committee asked her to testify and scheduled an open hearing...

The WH sent her a threatening letter saying they considered her testimony to be covered by "executive privilege"?

She said she would still testify...And if the WH wanted to press on the "Executive Privilege" blocker they would be required to explain how her testimony was privileged....an explanation they obviously did not feel confident making to a judge.

So then what happened? NUNES cancelled her hearing...

Nunes is at some point going to go from Committee Chair to subject of an investigation himself..The halls of power change, and with each obstruction and corrupt move he is amassing a list of questions he will one day have to answer under oath.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Can you post the threatening letter the Whitehouse sent Sally Yates...



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

The WH sent her a threatening letter saying they considered her testimony to be covered by "executive privilege"?

I would love to see this letter, source it please.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Indigo5

Trump is not under investigation, as far as I know. Comey never said Trump is under investigation.




"I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI is investigating Russia's interference in the US election," Comey added,

which "includes whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russian efforts. This will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed. I can not say more about whose conduct we are investigating."

www.businessinsider.com...

Are you saying that Trump was not part of the Trump Campaign?
Or that Trump Campaign members did not become Whitehouse officials...like Flynn et al?

That would seem an odd, if not desperate, attack upon reality.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: FlyingFox
It's ironic how big of a deal Dems are making out of a procedural bit of protocol compared to the huge transgression which is the IC working against the president elect.


The Democrats are inflicting long-term mortal wounds upon themselves by focusing on these non-issues, while the Trump Administration continues to add fuel to America's economic engine.




non-issues? mortal wounds?

ya, keep telling yourself that. lol

you guys are somethin else.

fbi arrested 10 associates of the bonanno crime family. apparently, they have ties to the Russian mafia and felix sater. wonder what they know, or if they'll squeal.. yikes.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Indigo5

Trump is not under investigation, as far as I know. Comey never said Trump is under investigation.




"I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI is investigating Russia's interference in the US election," Comey added,

which "includes whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russian efforts. This will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed. I can not say more about whose conduct we are investigating."

www.businessinsider.com...

Are you saying that Trump was not part of the Trump Campaign?
Or that Trump Campaign members did not become Whitehouse officials...like Flynn et al?

That would seem an odd, if not desperate, attack upon reality.



I can not say more about whose conduct we are investigating.


Pretty self explanatory.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

While it is likely Trump is part of it, it does not state EVERYONE in the campaign, so that statement does not necessitate Trump under investigation.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Indigo5

The WH sent her a threatening letter saying they considered her testimony to be covered by "executive privilege"?

I would love to see this letter, source it please.


Here you go...


Full docs here
apps.washingtonpost.com...



Former acting attorney general Yates warned that testimony could be barred

A letter from the Justice Department indicated that much of Yates' possible testimony could be covered by presidential privilege, said a government official speaking on condition of anonymity because officials were not authorized to speak publicly. Yates' attorney was then referred to White House counsel Donald McGahn. On the day that McGahn was notified of Yates' intention to testify, Nunes canceled the hearing.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer acknowledged the sequence of events, but asserted that the White House took no action to block Yates' testimony.

www.usatoday.com...



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Indigo5

The WH sent her a threatening letter saying they considered her testimony to be covered by "executive privilege"?

I would love to see this letter, source it please.


Here you go...


Full docs here
apps.washingtonpost.com...



Former acting attorney general Yates warned that testimony could be barred

A letter from the Justice Department indicated that much of Yates' possible testimony could be covered by presidential privilege, said a government official speaking on condition of anonymity because officials were not authorized to speak publicly. Yates' attorney was then referred to White House counsel Donald McGahn. On the day that McGahn was notified of Yates' intention to testify, Nunes canceled the hearing.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer acknowledged the sequence of events, but asserted that the White House took no action to block Yates' testimony.

www.usatoday.com...




So, no threatening letter then...and the Whitehouse never responded to the follow up from Yates attorney which informed the Whitehouse that non response would be taken as consent.
WaPo have already been pulled up for their fake news BS.
Oh, and there is no evidence whatsoever that Nunes lied about the reason for the postponement of the Public Hearing. That's just more speculation.

This thread started with CNN fake news and now we have WaPo fake news being propagated.
edit on 29/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Trump is under investigation implies the Trump campaign is under investigation. The Trump campaign is under investigation does not imply Trump is under investigation. It's like, if a number is an even number then that number is a natural number, if a number is a natural number it is not necessarily that number is an even number. This is not an if and only if relation.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

You posted a letter NOT from the white house that does NOT prevent her from testifying.

Please source what you actually claimed or don't make the claim.

Yates was told she can testify and was not blocked.
edit on 29-3-2017 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Indigo5

The WH sent her a threatening letter saying they considered her testimony to be covered by "executive privilege"?

I would love to see this letter, source it please.


Here you go...


Full docs here
apps.washingtonpost.com...



Former acting attorney general Yates warned that testimony could be barred

A letter from the Justice Department indicated that much of Yates' possible testimony could be covered by presidential privilege, said a government official speaking on condition of anonymity because officials were not authorized to speak publicly. Yates' attorney was then referred to White House counsel Donald McGahn. On the day that McGahn was notified of Yates' intention to testify, Nunes canceled the hearing.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer acknowledged the sequence of events, but asserted that the White House took no action to block Yates' testimony.

www.usatoday.com...




So, no threatening letter then...


Right there? You OK? Able to read and all?



and the Whitehouse never responded to the follow up from Yates attorney which informed the Whitehouse that non response would be taken as consent.


They chose to have Nunes cancel the hearing in which she would testify, nullifying the need to respond further...



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Indigo5

The WH sent her a threatening letter saying they considered her testimony to be covered by "executive privilege"?

I would love to see this letter, source it please.


Here you go...


Full docs here
apps.washingtonpost.com...



Former acting attorney general Yates warned that testimony could be barred

A letter from the Justice Department indicated that much of Yates' possible testimony could be covered by presidential privilege, said a government official speaking on condition of anonymity because officials were not authorized to speak publicly. Yates' attorney was then referred to White House counsel Donald McGahn. On the day that McGahn was notified of Yates' intention to testify, Nunes canceled the hearing.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer acknowledged the sequence of events, but asserted that the White House took no action to block Yates' testimony.

www.usatoday.com...




So, no threatening letter then...


Right there? You OK? Able to read and all?



and the Whitehouse never responded to the follow up from Yates attorney which informed the Whitehouse that non response would be taken as consent.


They chose to have Nunes cancel the hearing in which she would testify, nullifying the need to respond further...


For those that can read there is no threat at all.
Your fake news narrative pushed with zero evidence about the reasons for the Public hearing postponement is just more propaganda.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

I read. There is no threatening letter, or any letter from the WH. Can you read?



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Indigo5

I read. There is no threatening letter, or any letter from the WH. Can you read?


Apparently finding something through strange interpretation of the English language is OK now, as long as it underpins some phoney narrative you want to push.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Indigo5

You posted a letter NOT from the white house that does NOT prevent her from testifying.

Please source what you actually claimed or don't make the claim.

Yates was told she can testify and was not blocked.


It is a letter from Trump's Deputy Attorney General (Since Sessions had to recuse himself) telling her that her testimony would be considered "Executive Privilege" ..

Is it your contention that the Deputy Attorney general is not representing the Executive Branch in this matter?

Right...They didn't tell her she could not appear...they just told her she could not answer questions...



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

A letter from the AG with zero threats informing Yates how to proceed so she can testify is now a THREATENING letter from the WH blocking testimony?

Is this how far we have fallen?



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

It is a letter from Trump's Deputy Attorney General (Since Sessions had to recuse himself) telling her that her testimony would be considered "Executive Privilege" ..

False. It does not say that. Nor does it threaten. Nor does it block her from testifying.

What it does say is you need to contact the White House.

So now the questions are .. did she, and did they block her?

The answer is yes she did, and no they did not, they allowed her to testify.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join