Nunes Says Source is Executive Branch?

originally posted by: UKTruth

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...

Your fake news narrative pushed with zero evidence about the reasons for the Public hearing postponement is just more propaganda.

Oh..Why did Nunes cancel Yates Testimony?
You said postponement...What date was it re-scheduled for?

...I read your "postponement" lie as a continuation of your propaganda...

Regardless...The SENATE Investigation Panel kicks off this week...and they don't have a corrupt Trump Monkey heading it...and members have already said they will have yates testify..

So it seems we will get hear what Trump doesn't want us to hear soon...

Sally Yates to testify before Senate panel — even if she doesn’t appear before House committee
www.rawstory.com...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

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" ..

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

For permission...

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.

That's a lie...they never responded.

They instead had Nunes cancel the hearing in which she would testify.

Spicer explained they did not respond to her because the hearing was conveniently cancelled..

a reply to: Indigo5

Nice moving the goal posts. So you admit there was no threatening letter and the WH did not prevent Yates from testifying?

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

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...

Your fake news narrative pushed with zero evidence about the reasons for the Public hearing postponement is just more propaganda.

Oh..Why did Nunes cancel Yates Testimony?
You said postponement...What date was it re-scheduled for?

...I read your "postponement" lie as a continuation of your propaganda...

Regardless...The SENATE Investigation Panel kicks off this week...and they don't have a corrupt Trump Monkey heading it...and members have already said they will have yates testify..

So it seems we will get hear what Trump doesn't want us to hear soon...

Sally Yates to testify before Senate panel — even if she doesn’t appear before House committee
www.rawstory.com...

No, I actually used the words provided in the press conference. "Postponed".
It helps to be factual.

You are making up your own fantasy scenario and pushing it as fact. Propaganda.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Indigo5

Nice moving the goal posts. So you admit there was no threatening letter and the WH did not prevent Yates from testifying?

If by "testifying"...You mean appearing ...then the WH did not tell Yates she could not appear.

If by "testifying". You mean "testifying"...then yes, the WH house via the Deputy Attorney General told her what she would likely be asked about was considered "Executive Privilege" and she would need permission from the WH (Consult with them) prior to testifying.

And yes...Telling someone that their testimony would be considered illegal disclosure "executive privilege" is considered a threat of legal consequence.

Your molestation of semantics is now boring...

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Indigo5

Nice moving the goal posts. So you admit there was no threatening letter and the WH did not prevent Yates from testifying?

If by "testifying"...You mean appearing ...then the WH did not tell Yates she could not appear.

If by "testifying". You mean "testifying"...then yes, the WH house via the Deputy Attorney General told her what she would likely be asked about was considered "Executive Privilege" and she would need permission from the WH (Consult with them) prior to testifying.

And yes...Telling someone that their testimony would be considered illegal disclosure "executive privilege" is considered a threat of legal consequence.

Your molestation of semantics is now boring...

Utter nonsense. She was given good legal advice and sought approval from the Whitehouse.
The Whitehouse is not stopping her testifying or appearing.
Your partisan narrative is not based on any facts at all.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Indigo5

Nice moving the goal posts. So you admit there was no threatening letter and the WH did not prevent Yates from testifying?

Many Thanks to you and UKTruth.

For a few minutes while reading this thread I thought I'd lost what was left of my mind---"threatening letter" source posted and I couldn't find any threats---said to be from the WH and yet the letterhead said otherwise----I thought I'd slipped into a parallel universe.

It is true that my degrees aren't in English but even I can read and understand that letter. Watching the anti-Trump folks squirm and reach and grab at things is a bit like watching a big beetle that finds itself on its back. Or one of those rodeo clowns that pretends to try to grab a bucking bull only to be thrown aside time after time. It's kind of a sad comedy.

My guess nothing happens because it is way to political now.Meaning the MSM is becoming major dangerous.

Hm.
Interesting development.
White House aides shared intelligence files with Nunes

Two White House aides have emerged as sources for a top House Republican who said earlier this month that Trump transition team members were incidentally caught up in surveillance conducted on foreign targets after the presidential election.

www.foxnews.com...

a reply to: Indigo5
IKR...I heard there are letters showing trump telling Yates she's not allowed to testify because of executive privilege or something.
And that she decided she was going to anyway. Then oh look ...sorry we have to cancel. Indefinitely postponed...no reschedule in sight.

Visual= duck
Audio= duck
V + A is logically a duck.

a reply to: Phage

Psssst here take this...pretend we didn't give it to you. Come back tomorrow and make a big show of it.
Announce to the media that you have exculpatory evidence that vindicates the president in this debacle and then pretend to present this info to the Whitehouse as an act of working in the presidents best interest.
You know cuz he's having a bad day..ur week...ur month..ur presidency...

If it wasn't so tragic at its core this could be funny.

a reply to: Phage

how pathetic, he's so focused on avoiding apologizing for his lie, he's still trying to sell this obvious disinfo conspiracy.

The U.S. intelligence official who “unmasked,” or exposed, the names of multiple private citizens affiliated with the Trump team is someone “very well known, very high up, very senior in the intelligence world,” a source told Fox News on Friday.

www.foxnews.com...

Schiff, after reviewing the reports which Nunes fetched to Trump:

While I cannot discuss the content of the documents, if the White House had any concern over these materials, they should have been shared with the full committees in the first place as a part of our ordinary oversight responsibilities," Schiff said in a statement.

"Nothing I could see today warranted a departure from the normal review procedures, and these materials should now be provided to the full membership of both committees," he said.

thehill.com...

The White House still has some explaining to do.

"The White House has yet to explain why senior White House staff apparently shared these materials with but one member of either committee, only for their contents to be briefed back to the White House," Schiff said Friday.

I find it funny that people are questioning the Chair of the IC. So he was briefed and it was a high ranking leaker...that suggests it was from the prior administration. To think it's a noob from from last 3 months is ridiculous.

Keep on with the spin y'all....i can't wait until this all plays out. This is literally the swamp draining we were told about....Trump and his team are a completely new kind of animal in this game and they play on a much higher level because they are not trained by the longstanding political dogma....

It is similar to a private civilian contractor training soldiers....they aren't in the military, but their tactics are not known to the military so they have an advantage. Politicians as we know them are long overdue for a change and have been using the same tactics since they started their terms eons ago.

I am looking forward to the next revelation that comes.

March 31, 2017

Today, Representative Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, released a statement, after viewing the documents that Chairman Nunes saw last week.

Instead of commenting on the content of the documents, he's now back to being butt and ego-hurt, because he didn't see them first, or something like that.

Check out Shiff's facial expression. Looks like he's seen a GHOST...or worse!
www.foxnews.com...

a reply to: Phage

Didn't they share it with the Chairman of the committee? Isn't that fairly normal? If you want members of a committee to get information, you give that info to the chairman. Is there some rule saying that each member of this committee must get copies of every document, no matter if it pertains to their issue or not?

He's seen the information and yet he's still whining. I guess he needs the camera time.

originally posted by: carewemust
March 31, 2017

Today, Representative Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, released a statement, after viewing the documents that Chairman Nunes saw last week.

Instead of commenting on the content of the documents, he's now back to being butt and ego-hurt, because he didn't see them first, or something like that.

Check out Shiff's facial expression. Looks like he's seen a GHOST...or worse!
www.foxnews.com...

The ultra partisan Schiff seems more focused on who got what and when even questioning how the Whitehouse were able to get the documents 'in the normal course of business', whatever that means. Shame he is not actually focused on investigating the crime committed.

We'll have to rely on Nunes to actually do the job, as Schiff has proven himself incapable of being objective.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: carewemust
March 31, 2017

Today, Representative Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, released a statement, after viewing the documents that Chairman Nunes saw last week.

Instead of commenting on the content of the documents, he's now back to being butt and ego-hurt, because he didn't see them first, or something like that.

Check out Shiff's facial expression. Looks like he's seen a GHOST...or worse!
www.foxnews.com...

The ultra partisan Schiff seems more focused on who got what and when even questioning how the Whitehouse were able to get the documents 'in the normal course of business', whatever that means. Shame he is not actually focused on investigating the crime committed.

We'll have to rely on Nunes to actually do the job, as Schiff has proven himself incapable of being objective.



Schiff is a stooge. Nunes is the Chair of the IC. Of course he is going to see the documents first. If this issue came about from the former administration and the leaker was from there and is someone high in the ranks that everyone knows, then I understand why Nunes would want to keep the meeting quiet and same with the White House. While they want the person out, their intention is likely NOT to make it extremely public. Putting someone up on the block for leaking information makes everyone look bad and makes the US look weak in global eyes....it is infighting and creates internal chaos allowing other entities to distract.

Anywho...looking forward to what we hear about all of this. Schiff looks like he is about to do some backtracking and CYA maneuvers.

Another quote from that video posted earlier with Schiff is off as well...suggests he did see something that he didn't like and is about to backtrack.

Schiff:

I trust that your staff will also fully cooperate with our Committee in ascertaining how these materials were found in the ordinary course of business and why such a circuitous method may have been utilized to provide them.

Bold is mine. But that is a really telling piece of this. He is more focused now on how they found these docs, as if that is the issue, not that they exist and show what Trump claims, just how they found them. Why does that matter?

I see some serious CYA coming from Schiff and the Dems very soon. The only reason he could possibly have for being so upset is there is something to it and it does show something from a former administration.

I wish they would just get on with it and release the hounds already. This slow motion train wreck is killing me.