Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe[W:266]

[Gimmesometruth]

Yeah, so?

FFS...you need his reversal explained?

 

[bubbabgone]

FFS...you need his reversal explained?

No joke. I really think you have a reading problem.
Where does it say Nunes revealed his sources?

 

[JasperL]

Nunes said he wouldn't identify his sources. He didn't.

He told Eli Lake the sources were not WH staff, and they were. I've linked to the story already: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-30/devin-nunes-and-the-tragedy-of-the-russia-inquiry

Last week, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Devin Nunes, announced dozens of intelligence reports that inappropriately included details on President Donald Trump's transition. This week, he told me that his source for that information was an intelligence official, not a White House staffer.

It turns out, he misled me. The New York Times reported Thursday that Nunes had two sources, and both worked for the White House. This distinction is important because it raises questions about the independence of the congressional investigation Nunes is leading, which may lead to officials at the White House.

Most of us would say, "he lied to me" but Lake is a better reporter than that and is trying to make a bigger case there. The article is outstanding and I think you'd agree with much of it. He concludes:

Sadly, the merits of this case are undermined by how the White House and Nunes have made it. The chairman is better than this. By misrepresenting how he obtained information worthy of investigation he has handed his opposition the means to discredit it. That's rough justice for Nunes, and a tragedy for the country.

If you've read much of Eli Lake, it's clear he's no Obama apologist, and he confirms it in the article.

That IS the issue, all right. But what makes you think that practice can never be demonstrated? Or that people who know about them will never step forward. There could easily be evidence that even guys like Schiff wouldn't have the balloons to deny.

I'm sure if it happened and was abusive it CAN be demonstrated - it's just not likely to be by the House, with Nunes in charge, which is the issue. At the very least, having a Trump WH shill heading it up is a hurdle that's unnecessary and can be easily avoided - Nunes steps down or an independent body is appointed. Pretty simple.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

No joke. I really think you have a reading problem.
Where does it say Nunes revealed his sources?

It says he is sorry for not sharing the info he has with the committee....and will do so...ergo, your premise is moot....as is your previous argument that his pursuit of the info was outside the bounds of the investigation.

 

[Mach]

Being part of the POTUS' Executive Office, the NSC is who had the information so that's who told Nunes about it and that's where he went.
It's the information that matters and they had it. Not the time of day or who let him onto the grounds or who saw it first.

Nonsense. Whitehouse and Nunez denied working together on this at the time (as Nunes was clearly running cover for Trumps' wiretap tweet).
The it comes out that the two sources were indeed WH.

What it boils down to is that, preemptively, you don't believe what Nunes said or what he saw and no matter what Schiff sees, if it's at all suggestive of surveillance on Trump you won't believe it.

No, for the tenth time you don't understand what you are being informed of.

Nunes behavior was improper REGARDLESS of the content of the information.
The content of the information is JUST AS IRRELEVANT as the President's tweet that Obama wiretapped him. If it had been included in the investigation at that time, they never would have had a press release at that time the way Nunes "leaked" it. He played the white houses game obviously.

Why does Trump, our President, Tweet this way at all?
Why does Trump, our President, Tweet an accusation at Obama without ANY evidence?

To try and give the faithful a lifeline to cling to. If Obama is the devil, yeah, all this bad stuff see...it was Obama!

It was a great distraction, unfortunately the President, and Nunes, both lost more credibility as a cost.

 

[bubbabgone]

He told Eli Lake the sources were not WH staff, and they were. I've linked to the story already: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-30/devin-nunes-and-the-tragedy-of-the-russia-inquiry



Most of us would say, "he lied to me" but Lake is a better reporter than that and is trying to make a bigger case there. The article is outstanding and I think you'd agree with much of it. He concludes:



If you've read much of Eli Lake, it's clear he's no Obama apologist, and he confirms it in the article.



I'm sure if it happened and was abusive it CAN be demonstrated - it's just not likely to be by the House, with Nunes in charge, which is the issue. At the very least, having a Trump WH shill heading it up is a hurdle that's unnecessary and can be easily avoided - Nunes steps down or an independent body is appointed. Pretty simple.

The NSC can be considered WH staff because they answer to the prez and the NSC works for the prez from another building on the grounds.
Yet one of the "staff" in question was an intel official, whether he notified WH lawyers of what he found or not.
Saying his source was just a WH staffer could be dismissed too easily.
Eli may have felt misled but it sounds like what he was told was true.
Not sure about that body blow comment by Eli.

I don't want to open old wounds but did you notice this paragraph ...
Nunes is leading a double investigation of sorts. His committee is probing ties between the Trump campaign and Russia's influence operation against the 2016 election. It's also looking into whether Barack Obama's White House inappropriately spied on Trump's transition.


That second investigation is why Nunes was there.

 

[bubbabgone]

It says he is sorry for not sharing the info he has with the committee....and will do so...ergo, your premise is moot....as is your previous argument that his pursuit of the info was outside the bounds of the investigation.

so where did Nunes reveal his sources?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

His committee is probing ties between the Trump campaign and Russia's influence operation against the 2016 election. It's also looking into whether Barack Obama's White House inappropriately spied on Trump's transition.
[/I][/B]

That second investigation is why Nunes was there.

wait, you objected for days to this claim....and it is not a "second investigation", it is part of the current committee activity.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

so where did Nunes reveal his sources?

where? your argument is "when". that is already answered, unless you want to call either house member a liar.

 

[bubbabgone]

wait, you objected for days to this claim....and it is not a "second investigation", it is part of the current committee activity.

Everybody but you knows it is.

 

[JasperL]

The NSC can be considered WH staff because they answer to the prez and the NSC works for the prez from another building on the grounds.
Yet one of the "staff" in question was an intel official, whether he notified WH lawyers of what he found or not.

They were both political appointees, one in the OLC and one in NSC. No one trying to be accurate would refer to either as an "intelligence official."

Saying his source was just a WH staffer could be dismissed too easily.

But they were WH staff, political appointees. He intentionally misled at least Eli Lake about that, which I linked to.

Eli may have felt misled but it sounds like what he was told was true.
Not sure about that body blow comment by Eli.

True but intentionally misleading? Perhaps, but either way mostly irrelevant because they weren't whistleblowers and there was no need to use Nunes as a cutout for either of those guys to get information to POTUS - that exercise was a charade.

I don't want to open old wounds but did you notice this paragraph ...
Nunes is leading a double investigation of sorts. His committee is probing ties between the Trump campaign and Russia's influence operation against the 2016 election. It's also looking into whether Barack Obama's White House inappropriately spied on Trump's transition.


That second investigation is why Nunes was there.

Don't care.

 

[bubbabgone]

where? your argument is "when". that is already answered, unless you want to call either house member a liar.

Okay, when and to whom did Nunes reveal his sources?

 

[bubbabgone]

They were both political appointees, one in the OLC and one in NSC. No one trying to be accurate would refer to either as an "intelligence official."


But they were WH staff, political appointees. He intentionally misled at least Eli Lake about that, which I linked to.



True but intentionally misleading? Perhaps, but either way mostly irrelevant because they weren't whistleblowers and there was no need to use Nunes as a cutout for either of those guys to get information to POTUS - that exercise was a charade.



Don't care.

Appointees can be intelligence officials.
One of them was formerly DIA and now senior official at the NSC and he was looking into any possible Obama connection because of Trump's tweet.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Everybody but you knows it is.

Knows whut? That the House intel committee has 2 separate hearings/investigations going on?

 

[JasperL]

Appointees can be intelligence officials.
One of them was formerly DIA and now senior official at the NSC and he was looking into any possible Obama connection because of Trump's tweet.

IMO, Nunes was intentionally misleading or he lied. A political appointee at OLC is NOT an intelligence officer - if he's not WH staff, who is?

The other, was a senior official at NSC, and Trump political appointment, and had the personal backing of Bannon and Kushner who intervened to save his ass when McMaster tried to get rid of him - that guy had access to Trump and could get this intelligence to him.

Point is the ruse, charade, theater, of handing the info to Nunes so he could brief Trump is obvious for what it was, which was an exercise in providing cover to Trump for his stupid tweet, and to get the attention off the disastrous for Trump House hearing featuring Comey. Nunes should have had NO part in that nonsense.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Okay, when and to whom did Nunes reveal his sources?

I still am amazed that when provided with an article describing Nunes apologizing for not sharing the info/intel and a promise to do so, you still ask "when did the reveal happen?" There is a basic level of logic that is completely missing in your process.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

You mean a definitive statement in which context is not necessary, and in any event is in fact completely consistent with what Nunes did (or didn't do)? He said he would not reveal his sources, and he did not. What do you expect to learn from context? Nothing. It's a red herring.

Show me one of those statements. It isn't here. You should be smarter than to demand that statements don't need context.

Should be...

 

[JasperL]

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

Show me one of those statements. It isn't here. You should be smarter than to demand that statements don't need context.

Should be...

It's disappointing that you're engaging in dishonest arguments throughout this thread. Let's try again:

"You mean a definitive statement in which context is not necessary, and in any event is in fact completely consistent with what Nunes did (or didn't do)? He said he would not reveal his sources, and he did not. What do you expect to learn from context? Nothing. It's a red herring."

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

Are you wanting the whole interview, that you have access to, to answer one particular point you were denying? You already have it, you have already referred to it...what do you have left but to cherry pick out a reported "we" that so confused you? Any other pedantic nonsense you care to indulge in that doesn't make a difference?

As I already said, I spent some time trying to track down the whole interview but only found repeats of the same cherry picked statement. Oddly the paraphrased, unquoted question that statement was supposedly in reference to was attributed to both ABC News and Fox News, so I can't even be sure from what little I found of who asked the question.

Sure, I cherry picked to answer your cherry picked denial on a single point. You are not even using the term in its correct function. I f you feel that way, go and find the rest of his presser and prove there was more to it. No, I'm trying to debate, and I'm doing it with someone who doesn't debate but "plays".

"Cherry Picked"

For me to have lost this point, you would have to have proof that what was presented to counter your denial is false. You have not done that, you are only whining with "cherry-pick" irony.Again, I fully encourage you to keep using your grammar, it is fine for you and that's what matters to you. More power to you.

I have asked you for the context, which you have not provided. I'm not going to spend any time doing your legwork.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

It's disappointing that you're engaging in dishonest arguments throughout this thread. Let's try again:

"You mean a definitive statement in which context is not necessary, and in any event is in fact completely consistent with what Nunes did (or didn't do)? He said he would not reveal his sources, and he did not. What do you expect to learn from context? Nothing. It's a red herring."

Nope. Again, you are claiming hat Nunes refused to give sources to the members of the HIC, but there is no evidence that that is the case. When I asked for that evidence I was provided that quote as the evidence, and I asked for the context of that statement so I could figure out what Nunes meant by "We", and what the actual question, and line of conversation was to establish that that quote is actually as it was presented, or if the meaning changed in context. None of you seems capable of actually providing that context, which leads me to believe that you all have simply accepted the context provided by the writer rather than using your own brain.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

As I already said, I spent some time trying to track down the whole interview but only found repeats of the same cherry picked statement. Oddly the paraphrased, unquoted question that statement was supposedly in reference to was attributed to both ABC News and Fox News, so I can't even be sure from what little I found of who asked the question.

Oh my gawd....multiple reporters might have asked the same question....and that....somehow....changes his response.

You must get to the bottom of this!

"Cherry Picked"

I have asked you for the context, which you have not provided. I'm not going to spend any time doing your legwork.

It isn't my responsibility, if you are questioning his statement, it is for you invalidate. Further, as already posted, he is now apologizing for not sharing the intel, so your worry is unfounded.....that is unless now you want to play the "fake news" card.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

Show me one of those statements. It isn't here. You should be smarter than to demand that statements don't need context.

Should be...

Again, your questioning the validity of the reports of his refusal to share....is undercut by the reports of his apology to Dem members....unless that is all fake news.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

Oh my gawd....multiple reporters might have asked the same question....and that....somehow....changes his response.

You must get to the bottom of this!

It would be nice if you were actually intellectually curious rather than just mocking of intellectual curiosity.

It isn't my responsibility, if you are questioning his statement, it is for you invalidate. Further, as already posted, he is now apologizing for not sharing the intel, so your worry is unfounded.....that is unless now you want to play the "fake news" card.

No, it is the responsibility fo the presenter to provide sufficient information with which to judge their interpretation. That is how debates work, anyway, and something tells me this site might value we stick to such customs.

 

[prometeus]

It's his job to be involved.

Not in matters that do not relate to the investigation at hand.

In his position he develops sources for things like this.

Yes and he hides them from his colleagues because he is a committee of one.

Besides, his boss may already have known.

You clearly are confused about for whom he works.

Doesn't discount the value of the material.

If the material had value for the committee he was duty bound to share it not hide it. He is a lying piece of crap.

 

[JasperL]

Re: Calls grow for Nunes to step aside in Russia probe

Nope. Again, you are claiming hat Nunes refused to give sources to the members of the HIC, but there is no evidence that that is the case.

Yeah, OK, might as well end it there. Not sure what the world is like in your alternate reality, but in this one Nunes made a crystal clear statement on the issue, and in fact there is no indication in any record that he told the committee who his sources were and revealed his charade for what it is, and he sure as hell didn't tell the public who his sources were - again, because doing so reveals him as the partisan hack and WH shill that he IS.

But let's assume he DID tell Schiff or the rest of the committee - who cares? He still participated in an obvious stunt with the WH to provide cover for Trump and misled [aka lied to] the American people. If the committee was in on it and couldn't reveal that they knew he was a partisan hack and WH shill until the NYT story ran, what difference does it make?

So your focus on this issue is just a red herring.

And we are still waiting on you to provide evidence that 1) Schiff could merely request logs and the WH legally obligated to provide that and identified the source(s), and 2) that Schiff could then require whichever WH staffer met with Nunes to recreate his meeting with Nunes, document by document.