Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They should go after Nunes. If he cancelled meeting voluntarily, he should go. Those 2 are quickly giving up on him. Fox is running with this story. Suppose to be dozens of reports and NSA guy is feeding this info to committee. We have 2 shows going on now. Fox with surveillance and CNN with Russian collusion.
Has he given any explanation (i.e., an excuse), as to why he cancelled the open hearing? Inquiring minds want to know.
You must be from another country. The POTUS answers to Congress here. Not the other way around.
They impeach the president. Not the other way around.
You must be from another Planet. On this one, the Commander in Chief has access to any information any Intelligence Service has. The POTUS is in charge of them. Thats why he gets to pick the people he wants to run them. Congress does not have any Law Enforcement Powers, nor can they prevent the POTUS from accessing any Intelligence information. Not sure how they do it in your Universe.
You must think that Obama is still in charge and the Democrats still have a voice that matters, not having a Majority anywhere.
You don't seem to understand. These people don't want to treat Trump as a President because he was not supposed to win the election. Thus he is not a legitimate president.
Of course. We all can see that, if we aren't part of the Snowflake Cult. Thats why they talk like Obama was still in power or that Hillary really won. Thats what happens in acute states of denial.
If you're curious about Mr Trump's history of investigations, his ties to Russian criminal activities literally go back 3 decades. Mr Trump should really be used to the drill by now, he's been around the block more than a few times. This more recent fiasco was from 2010:
Mr Trump should consider himself fortunate than he no longer has to pay his own legal fees (or not pay them if he didn't feel like it). Lucky us we the people got rooked into paying up to defend this one trick pony of a President.
As the President if he is charged with a violation of the Constitution and his legitimate power as President then yes--I believe he is entitled to having taxpayers cover his legal bills
BUT if he is charged for breaking the law as a PERSON--like as Trump the businessman---then he pays...
I didn't see where he backed down from anything, except saying more that he has already said. He said we would have to wait for the copies of the Documents, which is what should be done, so no one can deny anything. We already have the proof we need to know that Trumps people where being Monitored, and true names unmasked, (a Felony) because Flynns name ended up in a Newspaper, so there is no question as to "if" monitoring occurred. The question is who ordered it, under what cause, and who unmasked the names and why. The Criminal part is who gave it to the News Media, also needs answers.
The Democrats and the Liberal News Media would like to think that this is not going any further.
Nunes said the information was so troubling that he felt a need to tell the President because 'if it was me I'd want to know why this was part of the surveillance'. Nunes has doubts over whether there was a legit reason for the surveillance.
He does? Can you point to a cite for this? Because all I've heard him say, over and over, is that whichever surveillance he is referring to - he says there's more than one - they were legal.
Rep. Devin Nunes told reporters Friday he can't be sure whether conversations among Trump or his aides were captured in the surveillance that has become a source of controversy since Nunes made it public in two news conferences this week.
What other kind of "Headlines" would you expect from the Obama/Hillary Press? Refusing to give more detail until he gets the copies of the Documents is not what I would call "Backing Down." What the Liberal Left Cult want to call it makes no difference, but we have not heard the end of this yet.
You must be from another Planet. On this one, the Commander in Chief has access to any information any Intelligence Service has. The POTUS is in charge of them. Thats why he gets to pick the people he wants to run them. Congress does not have any Law Enforcement Powers, nor can they prevent the POTUS from accessing any Intelligence information. Not sure how they do it in your Universe.
You must think that Obama is still in charge and the Democrats still have a voice that matters, not having a Majority anywhere.
Trump does not have unilateral power to put people into every intelligence jobs--
SOME positions must be confirmed and approved by the Senate--
And frankly if there is any serious evidence that the President is committing treason by collusion with foreign powers and their agents then I think the IC is not going to turn all evidence over to him...
Just remember this is a man who theoretically has access to one of the best IC info in the world and where does he get his insight about Obama tapping Trump Tower---Andrew Napolitano on Fox Friends and a NYTimes story from January...
Trump is nuts---
I think the IC is grateful he is not getting a daily briefing...
He does? Can you point to a cite for this? Because all I've heard him say, over and over, is that whichever surveillance he is referring to - he says there's more than one - they were legal.
An act can be called legal if all the Criteria was met, but that doesn't mean all the Steps taken where legal. Anyone with Authority can lie to a Judge and get a Warrant thats legal, even if the means to get it was not.
An act can be called legal if all the Criteria was met, but that doesn't mean all the Steps taken where legal. Anyone with Authority can lie to a Judge and get a Warrant thats legal, even if the means to get it was not.
Um, to judge that, we'd have to be privy to the proceedings of the FISC.
Which we're not. So we have to rely on Nunes. And Nunes has said, over and over, that the surveillances that he is talking about were/are legal. If you have actual evidence that either a) Nunes is being less than factual or that b) Nunes has said that he now thinks one or more of these surveillances was illegal, I'd really like to see it.
I'm not asking for anyone to point out the obvious, I am asking for a specific response to a specific question.
Thank you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
we the people got rooked into paying up to defend this one trick pony of a President.