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 Congressional Investigators Will Go To DoJ Thursday To Get Documents

page: 2
23
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

More empty rhetoric and BS from Nunes. He has been threatening people for some time now with charges of contempt and such, even though the DoJ has been working with the committee to release information to them as possible.

What Nunes is trying to do is create the appearance that the FBI/DoJ is stonewalling and refusing to cooperate, but that is not the truth of the matter and is doing so to cast doubt on the integrity of the investigations.

And all these people are falling for it.




posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Wait so refusing to appear before congress and withholding documents from people with clearance to see them isn't stone walling?

How do I get back to the right side up? Its scary in the upside down...
edit on 13-12-2017 by RickyD because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   
After going through the Ethics Committee process and coming to this:


"While I appreciate the Ethics Committee's work, I need to reiterate that the allegations against me were obviously frivolous and were rooted in politically motivated complaints filed against me by left-wing activist groups," Nunes said. "I respect the ethics process, but I remain dismayed that it took an unbelievable eight months for the Committee to dismiss this matter." www.cnn.com...


I imagine he'll go after all the information with renewed vigor! His ire at the incompetence of the system will push him to roll over stone walling attempts and wade through the BS quickly.
edit on 13-12-2017 by StoutBroux because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite


I hope you're right. Something BIG is being hidden by the "deep state".



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Nice sound bite I really hope they actually do something this time rather than just fade away.



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: introvert

Wait so refusing to appear before congress and withholding documents from people with clearance to see them isn't stone walling?

How do I get back to the right side up? Its scary in the upside down...


No one has refused, as far as I have seen.

The problem is that it takes time for the FBI and the DoJ to get their ducks in a row in order to provide congress the things they request. Nunes knows this and that is why he is pushing so hard, even though the DoJ is willing to cooperate.

He is purposefully trying to create the atmosphere that lends credence to the idea that they are stonewalling, but it is nothing more than propaganda to cast doubt on the DoJ, the FBI and the investigation.

Many people are falling for it.
edit on 13-12-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

So you believe the "routine scheduling error"?? So they're so inept over there they routinely have scheduling errors? That really inspires confidence...wonder what the next excuse will be. On the other hand if I found myself in his position I might have one of those routine scheduling errors too so I had time to double check my ducks before I was about to be grilled on something that from all appearances looks pretty bad for him. Guess we will see...but it sure looks like the usual excuses to avoid a thing they don't want to do. Its not like he is just going to say nah I'm good...he has to make it at least look legit right?



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: RickyD



So you believe the "routine scheduling error"?? So they're so inept over there they routinely have scheduling errors?


I don't have to believe anything. Rescheduling an appearance is not proof of anything nefarious whatsoever. Unlike many, I do not automatically cry conspiracy when something like this happens.

The Right is saying it's because McCabe has a "Ohr" problem, but we have no idea what caused it.

So I think it would be wise to get more info before you push the nonsense you are pushing.



That really inspires confidence...wonder what the next excuse will be. On the other hand if I found myself in his position I might have one of those routine scheduling errors too so I had time to double check my ducks before I was about to be grilled on something that from all appearances looks pretty bad for him.


That's the problem. Too many of you are not concerned with actual facts. You only care about how it "appears".



Guess we will see...but it sure looks like the usual excuses to avoid a thing they don't want to do. Its not like he is just going to say nah I'm good...he has to make it at least look legit right?


Usual excuses?

Do you just make things up as you go along?

Do you even have a legitimate argument here? It doesn't seem like it.
edit on 13-12-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


That's the problem. Too many of you are not concerned with actual facts. You only care about how it "appears".


Apparently, the government itself is also concerned with how things appear:


Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating the law or the ethical standards set forth in this part. Whether particular circumstances create an appearance that the law or these standards have been violated shall be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts

...

Appearance of Impropriety


An employee shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that the employee is violating the law or the ethical standards set forth in this part.

5 CFR 2635.101(b)(14)

...

Most Employees May:*

- Express opinions on political subjects and candidates.

*In DOJ, political appointees, career SES, ALJs, explosives enforcement officers in the ATF, and employees of the Criminal Division, the FBI, and the National Security Division are further restricted with regard to political activities, and may NOT engage in many of these actions. These employees should seek specific guidance from their ethics official before engaging in any partisan political activity.


Ethics Handbook for On and Off-Duty Conduct

I'm not certain, but it sure appears as though Strzok, Page, and others may be in violation of these statutes.



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical



I'm not certain, but it sure appears as though Strzok, Page, and others may be in violation of these statutes.


Of course you're not certain. We have very little facts surrounding this case. That is why we need to wait.

As of now, people are concerned about appearances and not facts.

Nunes and friends are taking advantage of that.

It's important to note that it appears that at least Strzok was within his right to express his opinion on politics and candidates.



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert


That's the problem. Too many of you are not concerned with actual facts. You only care about how it "appears".


Apparently, the government itself is also concerned with how things appear:


Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating the law or the ethical standards set forth in this part. Whether particular circumstances create an appearance that the law or these standards have been violated shall be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts

...

Appearance of Impropriety


An employee shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that the employee is violating the law or the ethical standards set forth in this part.

5 CFR 2635.101(b)(14)

...

Most Employees May:*

- Express opinions on political subjects and candidates.

*In DOJ, political appointees, career SES, ALJs, explosives enforcement officers in the ATF, and employees of the Criminal Division, the FBI, and the National Security Division are further restricted with regard to political activities, and may NOT engage in many of these actions. These employees should seek specific guidance from their ethics official before engaging in any partisan political activity.


Ethics Handbook for On and Off-Duty Conduct

I'm not certain, but it sure appears as though Strzok, Page, and others may be in violation of these statutes.


I'm curious....how were these texts obtained in the first place?



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert


That's the problem. Too many of you are not concerned with actual facts. You only care about how it "appears".


Apparently, the government itself is also concerned with how things appear:


Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating the law or the ethical standards set forth in this part. Whether particular circumstances create an appearance that the law or these standards have been violated shall be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts

...

Appearance of Impropriety


An employee shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that the employee is violating the law or the ethical standards set forth in this part.

5 CFR 2635.101(b)(14)

...

Most Employees May:*

- Express opinions on political subjects and candidates.

*In DOJ, political appointees, career SES, ALJs, explosives enforcement officers in the ATF, and employees of the Criminal Division, the FBI, and the National Security Division are further restricted with regard to political activities, and may NOT engage in many of these actions. These employees should seek specific guidance from their ethics official before engaging in any partisan political activity.


Ethics Handbook for On and Off-Duty Conduct

I'm not certain, but it sure appears as though Strzok, Page, and others may be in violation of these statutes.


I'm curious....how were these texts obtained in the first place?


I think I can answer my own question after thinking on it for a sec....posting in appropriate thread.




top topics



 
23
<< 1   >>

log in

join