Nothing to see here....Trump administration sought to block Sally Yates from testifying to Congress
- Thread starter RichardPeterJohnson
- Start date
Has Nunes done anything right? I'm stunned the GOP Leadership and the WH don't want him removed. He has f'd up at every turn.
Also, I now realize your link/post is about the WH and not House Committee, but whatevs. Keeps me from starting my own thread.
Nunes is obviously doing the WH's bidding. Why would the WH want him removed? #swampdraining
If so, he's terrible at it. He needs to be brought to the boardroom and fired.
You fell for more FAKE NEWS.
White House Denies Blocking Sally Yates From Testifying on Russia
Cristina Laila Mar 28th, 2017 11:51 am 9 Comments
The White House denied reports that former acting Attorney General, Sally Yates was blocked today from testifying on Russia to the House Intelligence Committee.
Via the Washington Times:
In a statement, the White House said it “has taken no action to prevent Sally Yates from testifying and the Department of Justice specifically told her that it would not stop her and to suggest otherwise is completely irresponsible.”
White House press secretary Sean Spicer said an article on the matter in The Washington Post “is entirely false.”
The article alleges that the Trump administration sought to block Ms. Yates from testifying about possible links between Russian officials and Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign. It said Justice Department notified her earlier this month that the administration considers much of her possible testimony to be barred because the topics are covered by the presidential communication privilege.
“Such communications are likely covered by the presidential communications privilege and possibly the deliberative process privilege. The President owns those privileges,” Mr. Schools wrote in the letter dated March 24. “Therefore, to the extent Ms. Yates needs consent to disclose the details of those communications to HPSCI, she needs to consult with the White House. She need not obtain separate consent from the Department.”
Of course the Democrats and fake news media are drunk on Russian conspiracy theories as they report on this story. What if Yates decided not to testify because she would have to admit who leaked the Flynn story to the press?
I wouldn’t be surprised if she plead the 5th just like Loretta Lynch did…
We will update this story as it develops.
Read the letters on Sally Yates's potential congressional testimony on RussiaYou fell for more FAKE NEWS.
White House Denies Blocking Sally Yates From Testifying on Russia
Cristina Laila Mar 28th, 2017 11:51 am 9 Comments
The White House denied reports that former acting Attorney General, Sally Yates was blocked today from testifying on Russia to the House Intelligence Committee.
Via the Washington Times:
In a statement, the White House said it “has taken no action to prevent Sally Yates from testifying and the Department of Justice specifically told her that it would not stop her and to suggest otherwise is completely irresponsible.”
White House press secretary Sean Spicer said an article on the matter in The Washington Post “is entirely false.”
The article alleges that the Trump administration sought to block Ms. Yates from testifying about possible links between Russian officials and Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign. It said Justice Department notified her earlier this month that the administration considers much of her possible testimony to be barred because the topics are covered by the presidential communication privilege.
“Such communications are likely covered by the presidential communications privilege and possibly the deliberative process privilege. The President owns those privileges,” Mr. Schools wrote in the letter dated March 24. “Therefore, to the extent Ms. Yates needs consent to disclose the details of those communications to HPSCI, she needs to consult with the White House. She need not obtain separate consent from the Department.”
Of course the Democrats and fake news media are drunk on Russian conspiracy theories as they report on this story. What if Yates decided not to testify because she would have to admit who leaked the Flynn story to the press?
I wouldn’t be surprised if she plead the 5th just like Loretta Lynch did…
We will update this story as it develops.
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/do...s-was-blocked-from-testifying-on-russia/2390/
I liked that you posted a story that actually wrote "BYE-BYE" over her picture as if this was Perez Hilton in the early aughts. lmao. Classic. The Gateway Pundit is about as credible as Best Virginia.You fell for more FAKE NEWS.
White House Denies Blocking Sally Yates From Testifying on Russia
Cristina Laila Mar 28th, 2017 11:51 am 9 Comments
The White House denied reports that former acting Attorney General, Sally Yates was blocked today from testifying on Russia to the House Intelligence Committee.
Via the Washington Times:
In a statement, the White House said it “has taken no action to prevent Sally Yates from testifying and the Department of Justice specifically told her that it would not stop her and to suggest otherwise is completely irresponsible.”
White House press secretary Sean Spicer said an article on the matter in The Washington Post “is entirely false.”
The article alleges that the Trump administration sought to block Ms. Yates from testifying about possible links between Russian officials and Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign. It said Justice Department notified her earlier this month that the administration considers much of her possible testimony to be barred because the topics are covered by the presidential communication privilege.
“Such communications are likely covered by the presidential communications privilege and possibly the deliberative process privilege. The President owns those privileges,” Mr. Schools wrote in the letter dated March 24. “Therefore, to the extent Ms. Yates needs consent to disclose the details of those communications to HPSCI, she needs to consult with the White House. She need not obtain separate consent from the Department.”
Of course the Democrats and fake news media are drunk on Russian conspiracy theories as they report on this story. What if Yates decided not to testify because she would have to admit who leaked the Flynn story to the press?
I wouldn’t be surprised if she plead the 5th just like Loretta Lynch did…
We will update this story as it develops.
You really can't be this stupid. All you need to do is use google if you don't like Gateway. You do know how to use google, right? Here is CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/28/politics/sally-yates-house-intelligence-hearing-white-house/
Just because the WH denies something doesn't make it fake news. No matter who occupies the residence. I was laughing at the "BYE-BYE" the imposed on the pic using MSPaint or Adobe Photoshop for dummies. Classy news organization being run there.
Is it really different than the rest of these friggin outlets anymore? It's getting to the point where I just want to know what the basics of what happened...."train derailed, 30 dead". I'll make up my story on why.
They doesn't sell copies, clicks, whatevs.
Edit - It is much, much different from actual news sites/companies.
Don't blame you at all, but I think that's exactly what some people want all people to do. News, facts, and statistics all breaking along ideological lines....the ulitimate get out of jail free card = fake news
Pfffft, I trust none of them anymore. Have to read them all to figure the left and right lateral limits and then just shoot the Middle assuming the truth is in there somewhere.
I think throwing out the fringe kooks should help you to the truth faster. Honestly it's insane to me that the gateway pundit, info wars, Daily Kos, TPM etc are even mentioned in the same breath with Fox, NBC, CNN, NY Times, etc.
We should be able to save a bunch of money and time and just ask the WH instead of having committees, hearings, etc. Can get rid of the Supreme Court too while we are at it.
Fox in there with NBC, CNN, NY Times? Really? I can't give you a terrorist fist bump for that.
Trump's crowd was bigger. Trump was wiretapped. Flynn didn't talk to the Russians. Face it, he'll say whatever his boss tells him to.
Opinion shows are a whole different ball of wax. Just sensationalism for viewership.Fox in there with NBC, CNN, NY Times? Really? I can't give you a terrorist fist bump for that.
Trump IS the boss...
not some obamapuppet...
can't buy billionaires...
Republicans don't like him either.... bought & paid for by the healthcare lobbyists...
or he would've won the vote last week...
not some obamapuppet...
can't buy billionaires...
Republicans don't like him either.... bought & paid for by the healthcare lobbyists...
or he would've won the vote last week...
President doesn't ensure a lifetime of wealth does it? Library? Immortality? International power? Mar-a-lago designated a historic place of summits? "President slept here" boost to his hotels? Board on top of board for his family and friends? Bet he never filed bankruptcy again, or tries another obvious scam like Trump University, or another bs product like trump steaks.
What actual new sites? You mean the New York Times and the Washington Post? You don't think they have an agenda?
I don't trust any of the above from a hard news perspective. True journalism is dead. It is been replaced by agenda driven journalism.
and of course people who manage to earn their next extra dollar always are first willing to just give it away don't you know?
I wouldn't even call it "agenda driven" as much as I'd describe it as "incompetence driven".
Agenda suggest some semblance of intelligence. Listen to this interview of the editor of "politifact" and tell me this Dude isn't as dumb as a box of rocks?
http://www.hughhewitt.com/politifacts-aaron-sharockman/
There is no way a fair and objective person can listen to that interview and not understand how biased and incompetent that Politifact guy is.
It's not as much "corruption" as Pax often times suggests, as much as it is a rare glimpse into their complete incompetence which is what I often argue. He revealed his incompetence several times throughout that interview by his inability to honestly answer questions, or his lack of competence to report facts.
While we both have evidence to support our objective analysis, listening to that interview should be enough to convince most that incompetence is a far superior demonstrated characterization as evidenced by the complete lack aptitude of this so called "Journalist" when pressed to defend both their (Politifact) reporting and methods doing so.
He provided ample evidence of their alarming lack of Journalistic standards, practices, methods, techniques, and abilities.
Incompetence on display.
It's not as much "corruption" as Pax often times suggests, as much as it is a rare glimpse into their complete incompetence which is what I often argue. He revealed his incompetence several times throughout that interview by his inability to honestly answer questions, or his lack of competence to report facts.
While we both have evidence to support our objective analysis, listening to that interview should be enough to convince most that incompetence is a far superior demonstrated characterization as evidenced by the complete lack aptitude of this so called "Journalist" when pressed to defend both their (Politifact) reporting and methods doing so.
He provided ample evidence of their alarming lack of Journalistic standards, practices, methods, techniques, and abilities.
Incompetence on display.
Last edited:
