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.

 

U.S. House committee votes to release Trump-Russia transcripts

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Well, some of them.

The Democrats have been pushing for the release of all the transcripts, in full. The Republican panel decided to go against that and leave out some interviews and transcripts, such as the interview with James Comey, Admiral Mike Rogers and they refused to release the transcripts to the Special Counsel, but will release it to the public.

Any of this making sense? We are for transparency -- but only on the things we allow you to see and hear. The public has a right to know! But the government investigator does not.

Why can't we know what Comey said? Rogers? Why is transparency not really transparency? And who is dumb enough to fall for this crap and support it?


The House Intelligence Committee voted unanimously to send transcripts of 53 interviews to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which will scrub them of classified information before they are made public.

However, committee Democrats said Trump’s fellow Republicans, who hold a majority in the House and thus control the panel, refused their request to immediately release all of the transcripts to Robert Mueller, the federal special counsel investigating Russia, Trump and the election.

Adam Schiff, the committee’s top Democrat, told reporters after the meeting that Republicans refused to make some of the most important transcripts public, including interviews with fired FBI Director James Comey and Admiral Mike Rogers, the former National Security Agency director.


The funniest thing for me out of the article is the Republican rebuttal and calling the Democrats conspiracy theorists, as if that was the worst of the insults. Schiff says the Republicans have no interest in transparency, as is evident, and do not wish to release any information that could be damaging to the President. To which, this insane reply follows:


Asked for a response to Schiff’s comments, Jack Langer, a Republican committee spokesman, said in an emailed statement, “It’s amusing to see the Democrats continuing to promote their never-ending chain of absurd conspiracy theories.”


It is a fact they have not released ALL transcripts, it is a fact they are withholding information -- and the best reply he can come up with is -- they are conspiracy theorists! Is that the new go to when caught lying, or obstructing or hiding things -- conspiracy theorist!

How do these people get voted in? Are we really this stupid as a population?

Reuters

Most important question I would like answered by those who comment, if you comment on anything, please answer this first:

What is transparency? And can cherry picking on what is released and what is not be called transparency?




posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Of course you can't pick and choose what to release as it relates to transparency. I believe they should release it all.

Same applies to the FISA documents and warrants that the Democrats and Schiff in particular do not want released.

I can see both sides here as the documents are involved with current investigations, current litigation, and future litigation. We do need full disclosure of all so that we can move ahead



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Maybe those transcripts are being used as evidence in an on going investigation?



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: theatreboy
Maybe those transcripts are being used as evidence in an on going investigation?




However, committee Democrats said Trump’s fellow Republicans, who hold a majority in the House and thus control the panel, refused their request to immediately release all of the transcripts to Robert Mueller, the federal special counsel investigating Russia, Trump and the election.


I don't know why he wouldn't already have these, but it would appear he doesn't.



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron

Bring it on. I dont think there will be anything more devastating than giving 20% of a stake in uranium to Russia.



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron

If he wanted them he would have them. He has subpoena power. And pretty sure the same individuals all sat for at least an interview with someone from the Special Councils team



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 06:31 PM
link   
When they are publicly released, he has access to them. Same as the public. He just doesn’t get a hand delivered copy.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join