He’s not talking to the committee because the White House is telling them he doesn’t have to and they can’t ask him anything the White House doesn’t want them to.
Statement from Schiff that Natasha Bertrand from the Atlantic tweeted out.
Statement from @RepAdamSchiff on Bannon testimony: “This week, Steve Bannon’s counsel informed the Committee that the White House continues to prohibit Mr. Bannon from testifying to the Committee beyond a set of fourteen yes-or-no questions the White House had pre-approved.”
Ok and how can the white house prohibit him from answering? I'm fucking confused as to this legal principal.
It's the same way Sessions was "prohibited" from discussing conversations with the President. Because somehow, somewhere, at some point in the future, he may want to invoke executive privilege.
Ok It's insane how that's not a story. Like the white house is literally prohibiting sworn testimony because ???? unknown fucking reasons and no one seems to care?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Ok It's insane how that's not a story. Like the white house is literally prohibiting sworn testimony because ???? unknown fucking reasons and no one seems to care?
A serial arsonist just burned down a town of 15,000 people and you're asking why it's not a bigger story that he burned down the court house.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Well, Schiff is saying they’ll enforce the subpoenas, so save your outrage until they don’t do that, I guess?
This is not even the most obstructy thing the President did in the past week.
Ok and how can the white house prohibit him from answering? fucking confused as to this legal principal.
It's the same way Sessions was "prohibited" from discussing conversations with the President. Because somehow, somewhere, at some point in the future, he may want to invoke executive privilege.
Also the same way they can invoke attorney client privilege for conversations where no party involved is an attorney.
+11
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Well, Schiff is saying they’ll enforce the subpoenas, so save your outrage until they don’t do that, I guess?
This is not even the most obstructy thing the President did in the past week.
Schiff is saying the committee should enforce the subpoenas. If the Republican majority on the committee want to slow roll this or let it slide, he doesn't have a lot he can do aside from rhetoric
I mean, all Congress has to do is hold the witness in contempt until they talk about what they're questioned on. They can't invoke executive privilege if it's not being invoked from the White House, so Congress can hold them in contempt and yeesh I'm tired of so much relying on good faith
Ok and how can the white house prohibit him from answering? fucking confused as to this legal principal.
It's the same way Sessions was "prohibited" from discussing conversations with the President. Because somehow, somewhere, at some point in the future, he may want to invoke executive privilege.
Also the same way they can invoke attorney client privilege for conversations where no party involved is an attorney.
"Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing."
Ok It's insane how that's not a story. Like the white house is literally prohibiting sworn testimony because ???? unknown fucking reasons and no one seems to care?
Well, Schiff is saying they’ll enforce the subpoenas, so save your outrage until they don’t do that, I guess?
This is not even the most obstructy thing the President did in the past week.
Schiff is saying the committee should enforce the subpoenas. If the Republican majority on the committee want to slow roll this or let it slide, he doesn't have a lot he can do aside from rhetoric
I think a good number of Rs on the committee want him to testify because they had a subpoena ready and waiting and served him during his first testimony
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Well, Schiff is saying they’ll enforce the subpoenas, so save your outrage until they don’t do that, I guess?
This is not even the most obstructy thing the President did in the past week.
Schiff is saying the committee should enforce the subpoenas. If the Republican majority on the committee want to slow roll this or let it slide, he doesn't have a lot he can do aside from rhetoric
Sure, but he also said in the letter that the committee was united on the issue. Maybe he was just blowing smoke but might as well wait and see before cranking up the outrage machines.
John Kelly says President Trump has not read the Democratic memo yet but will be briefed on it later today, per the pool, which quotes him as saying, "No no. It is quite lengthy."
The memo is 10 pages long.
It is being reported that Trump will follow the FBI's recommendation on whether to release the counter-memo.
I’m mildly concerned that releasing a counter-memo is only going to further muddy the waters (both sides!) unless the contents are significantly damning. I doubt that the Democrats on the committee are willing to go that far for fear of mussing up the ongoing investigation.
Might still be the right move considering the GOP propaganda has already hit the market, but I’m doubtful it’s going to have any impact at all.
Edit: Actually, scratch that. The efforts to undermine the investigation and the FBI in general aren’t going to stop any time soon, any counter-message is going to eat up at least some of the media oxygen, and the tiny part of my optimism that’s been on life support for over a year thinks that maybe, maybe the blatant bullshit will agitate some Republican voters enough to drive them towards an alternate narrative.
At a committee meeting on Monday evening, members voted unanimously to release a Democratic rebuttal to Nunes’ instantly-infamous memo, which alleged the FBI improperly sought authorization to surveil a former Trump campaign adviser. But while the vote was unanimous, the committee hearing was tense, according to multiple sources familiar with the proceedings.
Members on the committee wanted Nunes to provide additional detail on his efforts to investigate the DOJ and FBI—an inquiry Nunes first confirmed to Democrats last week, as his justification for denying Bureau and Justice officials a chance to detail their objections to the release of his memo. Nunes, according to sources familiar with the matter, declined to share details of that investigation with members.
What possible justification could there be for this other than the investigation not actually existing?
+19
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
During the first half year of the administration it was leaked that Trump generally doesn't pay attention to documents. These were single page documents. And he'd check out if a paragraph didn't mention his name.
I’m mildly concerned that releasing a counter-memo is only going to further muddy the waters (both sides!) unless the contents are significantly damning. I doubt that the Democrats on the committee are willing to go that far for fear of mussing up the ongoing investigation.
Might still be the right move considering the GOP propaganda has already hit the market, but I’m doubtful it’s going to have any impact at all.
The counter memo will probably contain information from the FISA warrant which will shed more light on Carter Page. Which I'm sure will be a lot of fun.
+12
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I’m mildly concerned that releasing a counter-memo is only going to further muddy the waters (both sides!) unless the contents are significantly damning. I doubt that the Democrats on the committee are willing to go that far for fear of mussing up the ongoing investigation.
Might still be the right move considering the GOP propaganda has already hit the market, but I’m doubtful it’s going to have any impact at all.
Edit: Actually, scratch that. The efforts to undermine the investigation the FBI in general aren’t going to stop any time soon, any counter-message is going to eat up at least some of the media oxygen, and the tiny part of my optimism that’s been on life support for over a year thinks that maybe, maybe the blatant bullshit will agitate some Republican voters enough to drive them towards an alternate narrative.
Yeah, look, even a “both sides disagree on shape of planet” narrative is better than ceding all ground to the flat-earthers.
To me, it seems crazy that writing "memos" and treating them as if they were evidence is becoming a thing at all. A memo you wrote summarizing arguments for your side is not a primary source, and it shouldn't be treated as evidence. The primary sources you cite in the memo are evidence, not the memo itself. If you have arguments to make about the primary sources, then just make those arguments. You shouldn't need to put those arguments into memo form, and then point to the memo as if that somehow gives the arguments more legitimacy now.
I’m mildly concerned that releasing a counter-memo is only going to further muddy the waters (both sides!) unless the contents are significantly damning. I doubt that the Democrats on the committee are willing to go that far for fear of mussing up the ongoing investigation.
Might still be the right move considering the GOP propaganda has already hit the market, but I’m doubtful it’s going to have any impact at all.
Edit: Actually, scratch that. The efforts to undermine the investigation the FBI in general aren’t going to stop any time soon, any counter-message is going to eat up at least some of the media oxygen, and the tiny part of my optimism that’s been on life support for over a year thinks that maybe, maybe the blatant bullshit will agitate some Republican voters enough to drive them towards an alternate narrative.
Yeah, look, even a “both sides disagree on shape of planet” narrative is better than ceding all ground to the flat-earthers.
I think I agree, but this environment is so beneficial to Trump/Republicans that I’m hesitant to do anything that maintains it. Lacking any idea of how to actually escape this environment, yeah, providing a narrative actually based on reality is the right call.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
To me, it seems crazy that writing "memos" and treating them as if they were evidence is becoming a thing at all. A memo you wrote summarizing arguments for your side is not a primary source, and it shouldn't be treated as evidence. The primary sources you site in the memo are evidence, not the memo itself. If you have arguments to make about the primary sources, then just make those arguments. You shouldn't need to put those arguments into memo form, and then point to the memo as if that somehow gives the arguments more legitimacy now.
I dunno if legally government memos carry more weight via them being an elected official's 'voice' (only in written form). As was demonstrated though, the Nunes memo made no legal citations, nor really any citations of whatever point he wanted it to make. If the Democrat memo does any of that it's an intellectual slam dunk.
At a committee meeting on Monday evening, members voted unanimously to release a Democratic rebuttal to Nunes’ instantly-infamous memo, which alleged the FBI improperly sought authorization to surveil a former Trump campaign adviser. But while the vote was unanimous, the committee hearing was tense, according to multiple sources familiar with the proceedings.
Members on the committee wanted Nunes to provide additional detail on his efforts to investigate the DOJ and FBI—an inquiry Nunes first confirmed to Democrats last week, as his justification for denying Bureau and Justice officials a chance to detail their objections to the release of his memo. Nunes, according to sources familiar with the matter, declined to share details of that investigation with members.
What possible justification could there be for this other than the investigation not actually existing?
The White House hasn’t given him the propaganda yet.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I’m mildly concerned that releasing a counter-memo is only going to further muddy the waters (both sides!) unless the contents are significantly damning. I doubt that the Democrats on the committee are willing to go that far for fear of mussing up the ongoing investigation.
Might still be the right move considering the GOP propaganda has already hit the market, but I’m doubtful it’s going to have any impact at all.
Edit: Actually, scratch that. The efforts to undermine the investigation the FBI in general aren’t going to stop any time soon, any counter-message is going to eat up at least some of the media oxygen, and the tiny part of my optimism that’s been on life support for over a year thinks that maybe, maybe the blatant bullshit will agitate some Republican voters enough to drive them towards an alternate narrative.
Yeah, look, even a “both sides disagree on shape of planet” narrative is better than ceding all ground to the flat-earthers.
I think I agree, but this environment is so beneficial to Trump/Republicans that I’m hesitant to do anything that maintains it. Lacking any idea of how to actually escape this environment, yeah, providing a narrative actually based on reality is the right call.
You either win the argument or you lose it, but you can’t just stop arguing and let your opponent’s message, however terrible and stupid, carry the day. We should have learned that from 2016, when Hillary would spend weeks letting Trump make a public ass of himself, only to find that in the end her message didn’t get out there. We need to do the same here.
Unfortunately Republicans will have the narrative advantage here no matter what the Dems do, because the GOP acted first, so whatever Dems did, even if it was 'do nothing' would be seen as a reaction to the memos
CBS News White House and senior foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Brennan asked: "The memo has no impact on the Russia probe?"
"Not to me, it doesn't — and I was pretty integrally involved in the drafting of it," Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, said. "There is a Russia investigation without a dossier. So to the extent the memo deals with the dossier and the FISA process, the dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos' meeting in Great Britain. It also doesn't have anything to do with obstruction of justice. So there's going to be a Russia probe, even without a dossier."
Convenient that he grew a spine immediately after announcing that he wouldn't be seeking re-election.
CBS News White House and senior foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Brennan asked: "The memo has no impact on the Russia probe?"
"Not to me, it doesn't — and I was pretty integrally involved in the drafting of it," Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, said. "There is a Russia investigation without a dossier. So to the extent the memo deals with the dossier and the FISA process, the dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos' meeting in Great Britain. It also doesn't have anything to do with obstruction of justice. So there's going to be a Russia probe, even without a dossier."
Convenient that he grew a spine immediately after announcing that he wouldn't be seeking re-election.
We call that hitting two birds with one stone 'round these parts.
This was the last guy to hold the seat:
In October 2016, Inglis was one of thirty GOP ex-lawmakers to sign a public letter condemning Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.[34][35] He had previously stated, in a May 2016 interview with Chris Hayes, that "under no circumstances" could he vote for Trump.[36][37] Commenting on Trump's campaign after the election, Inglis said: "It's one thing to represent people and give a voice to their fears. It is quite another to amplify those fears — that is surely the worst possible kind of leadership. It's demagoguery. The real sadness for me is that we knew it, and yet we voted for it. In a very real sense, the whole country has lost this election."[38]
Six months later, after House Speaker Paul Ryan accused Democrats of partisan bias in calling for Trump's impeachment over firing of FBI director James Comey, then investigating possible links between Trump's campaign and Russia, Inglis chastised Ryan on Twitter, saying, "you know this isn't true" since Republicans would have had, in his opinion, ample grounds for considering impeachment if a Democratic president had done the things Trump was accused of.[39] Reminded that he had, as a member of the House Judiciary Committee, voted to impeach President Bill Clinton in 1998, he said that was "for matters less serious than the ones before us now."[40]
CBS News White House and senior foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Brennan asked: "The memo has no impact on the Russia probe?"
"Not to me, it doesn't — and I was pretty integrally involved in the drafting of it," Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, said. "There is a Russia investigation without a dossier. So to the extent the memo deals with the dossier and the FISA process, the dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos' meeting in Great Britain. It also doesn't have anything to do with obstruction of justice. So there's going to be a Russia probe, even without a dossier."
Convenient that he grew a spine immediately after announcing that he wouldn't be seeking re-election.
It's a pattern we've seen with climate change, prayer in public schools, gay marriage, and now the goddamn rule of law.
It's the truest test of party over country if it's members won't put their own hearts before the party line until they themselves have stood down from the line.
I, for one, am of the opinion that you don't get a cookie for this. This isn't even repenting on your deathbed, this is repenting at your funeral. It's not saying you care about the other side, it's only admitting you never really cared about your own.
the white house can't prevent his testimony; there's no mechanism for the white house to actually enjoin congress from hearing testimony
Bannon is declining to testify; congress' remedy is to hold him in contempt, so we'll see if the republicans do. The statements from the white house are just cover
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
CBS News White House and senior foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Brennan asked: "The memo has no impact on the Russia probe?"
"Not to me, it doesn't — and I was pretty integrally involved in the drafting of it," Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, said. "There is a Russia investigation without a dossier. So to the extent the memo deals with the dossier and the FISA process, the dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos' meeting in Great Britain. It also doesn't have anything to do with obstruction of justice. So there's going to be a Russia probe, even without a dossier."
Convenient that he grew a spine immediately after announcing that he wouldn't be seeking re-election.
It's a pattern we've seen with climate change, prayer in public schools, gay marriage, and now the goddamn rule of law.
It's the truest test of party over country if it's members won't put their own hearts before the party line until they themselves have stood down from the line.
I, for one, am of the opinion that you don't get a cookie for this. This isn't even repenting on your deathbed, this is repenting at your funeral. It's not saying you care about the other side, it's only admitting you never really cared about your own.
Not on topic. Stay focused, please.
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
To me, it seems crazy that writing "memos" and treating them as if they were evidence is becoming a thing at all. A memo you wrote summarizing arguments for your side is not a primary source, and it shouldn't be treated as evidence. The primary sources you site in the memo are evidence, not the memo itself. If you have arguments to make about the primary sources, then just make those arguments. You shouldn't need to put those arguments into memo form, and then point to the memo as if that somehow gives the arguments more legitimacy now.
my position on the memo from the start was that there's no reason to pay attention to it if they aren't also releasing the underlying documents which inform it
and I don't believe they have, therefore there's no reason to pay attention to it
At a committee meeting on Monday evening, members voted unanimously to release a Democratic rebuttal to Nunes’ instantly-infamous memo, which alleged the FBI improperly sought authorization to surveil a former Trump campaign adviser. But while the vote was unanimous, the committee hearing was tense, according to multiple sources familiar with the proceedings.
Members on the committee wanted Nunes to provide additional detail on his efforts to investigate the DOJ and FBI—an inquiry Nunes first confirmed to Democrats last week, as his justification for denying Bureau and Justice officials a chance to detail their objections to the release of his memo. Nunes, according to sources familiar with the matter, declined to share details of that investigation with members.
What possible justification could there be for this other than the investigation not actually existing?
I wish Paul Ryan would do his fucking job already and clean up this mess. When you have the chair of a committee withholding information from other members and acting alone in the duties of the committee, you don't have a committee anymore, you've got a lone dude abusing his power and making a giant clown show out of the process.
Posts
it's the only way he'll ever be relevant again
Nope, he got burnt by Trump and the gop establishment. After fire and fury he's got nothing.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Statement from Schiff that Natasha Bertrand from the Atlantic tweeted out.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I believe the legal principal cited is 'I'm a republican president, the republicans control all branches of government, fuck you'
There's your problem. It's only not legal if the Republican controlled congress does something about it.
It's the same way Sessions was "prohibited" from discussing conversations with the President. Because somehow, somewhere, at some point in the future, he may want to invoke executive privilege.
NNID: Hakkekage
pleasepaypreacher.net
A serial arsonist just burned down a town of 15,000 people and you're asking why it's not a bigger story that he burned down the court house.
This is not even the most obstructy thing the President did in the past week.
Also the same way they can invoke attorney client privilege for conversations where no party involved is an attorney.
Schiff is saying the committee should enforce the subpoenas. If the Republican majority on the committee want to slow roll this or let it slide, he doesn't have a lot he can do aside from rhetoric
NNID: Hakkekage
"Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing."
Mueller cares
I think a good number of Rs on the committee want him to testify because they had a subpoena ready and waiting and served him during his first testimony
Sure, but he also said in the letter that the committee was united on the issue. Maybe he was just blowing smoke but might as well wait and see before cranking up the outrage machines.
It is being reported that Trump will follow the FBI's recommendation on whether to release the counter-memo.
Good, means it's more likely he'll release it.
Might still be the right move considering the GOP propaganda has already hit the market, but I’m doubtful it’s going to have any impact at all.
Edit: Actually, scratch that. The efforts to undermine the investigation and the FBI in general aren’t going to stop any time soon, any counter-message is going to eat up at least some of the media oxygen, and the tiny part of my optimism that’s been on life support for over a year thinks that maybe, maybe the blatant bullshit will agitate some Republican voters enough to drive them towards an alternate narrative.
Yeah, look, even a “both sides disagree on shape of planet” narrative is better than ceding all ground to the flat-earthers.
I think I agree, but this environment is so beneficial to Trump/Republicans that I’m hesitant to do anything that maintains it. Lacking any idea of how to actually escape this environment, yeah, providing a narrative actually based on reality is the right call.
The White House hasn’t given him the propaganda yet.
You either win the argument or you lose it, but you can’t just stop arguing and let your opponent’s message, however terrible and stupid, carry the day. We should have learned that from 2016, when Hillary would spend weeks letting Trump make a public ass of himself, only to find that in the end her message didn’t get out there. We need to do the same here.
Convenient that he grew a spine immediately after announcing that he wouldn't be seeking re-election.
We call that hitting two birds with one stone 'round these parts.
This was the last guy to hold the seat:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Inglis#Opposition_to_Donald_Trump
It's a pattern we've seen with climate change, prayer in public schools, gay marriage, and now the goddamn rule of law.
It's the truest test of party over country if it's members won't put their own hearts before the party line until they themselves have stood down from the line.
I, for one, am of the opinion that you don't get a cookie for this. This isn't even repenting on your deathbed, this is repenting at your funeral. It's not saying you care about the other side, it's only admitting you never really cared about your own.
Bannon is declining to testify; congress' remedy is to hold him in contempt, so we'll see if the republicans do. The statements from the white house are just cover
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Not on topic. Stay focused, please.
my position on the memo from the start was that there's no reason to pay attention to it if they aren't also releasing the underlying documents which inform it
and I don't believe they have, therefore there's no reason to pay attention to it
I wish Paul Ryan would do his fucking job already and clean up this mess. When you have the chair of a committee withholding information from other members and acting alone in the duties of the committee, you don't have a committee anymore, you've got a lone dude abusing his power and making a giant clown show out of the process.