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.
As opposed to heading an impeachment committee in which you are a part of creating “evidence” yourself? Give me a break.
No one has still adequately explained under what theory Nunes is not allowed to pursue irregularities created by the nepotistic concerns of a former elected official or potential election influence by a foreign country. He is not obligated to take your word that none of it ever happened.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Be "allowed"? People are ALWAYS allowed to testify under oath about literally anything.
But the notion that there's something wrong with gathering information is idiotic.
There is a difference between 'gathering' information, 'creating' information, and 'creating' known-false information or outright subornation of perjury. Nunes may well have been but a patsy. And maybe Giuliani was one also.
But early on Schiff made an accusation that Trump (or those working in his behalf) were asking the Ukrainians to create dirt on Biden. That I thought at the time was way over the top but I'm beginning to wonder.
Bingo. Duh. Of course. That's why Sondland kept making the point that Trump only wanted the investigations to be announced - not actually investigated. Why his emphasis on the distinction?
As opposed to heading an impeachment committee in which you are a part of creating “evidence” yourself? Give me a break.
No one has still adequately explained under what theory Nunes is not allowed to pursue irregularities created by the nepotistic concerns of a former elected official or potential election influence by a foreign country. He is not obligated to take your word that none of it ever happened.
He might well be allowed to so pursue if that's what if was doing - apparently he kept the trip within bounds of House rules albeit using a loophole.
But what if it was not his intent to do 'the public's work.' Lord knows, his past track record when it comes to Trump has been problematic with his forced recusals. We are not obligated to take Nunes' word for anything. And per the testimony, there is still no evidence of Biden misdoing - on the contrary, it undercut the Giuliani -Nunes - Trump narrative.
Parnas does exist, indicted and with Trump and Don Jr. meetings captured in pics. He did donate foreign money to a Trump PAC. Firtash is attempting to gain immunity or a pass on the US extradition charge. It's not known publicly whether or not the foreign money came from Firtash. But Firtash (with the Shokin affidavit appended to his pleas) is alleged to have been attempting to increase his value to Donald Trump. So what exactly was Nunes doing in Vienna - investigating Joe Biden for the good of the American taxpayer that funded that trip?
Now Parnas is also attempting to gain immunity - and in that attempt his attorney is dangling various factoids to increase his value for admittedly Parnas (just like Shokin) would be a problematic witness. Bolton would be better.
Do you have any comments on whether or not Nunes role - whatever it was - was appropriate. Should not it have been disclosed?
1. Yes, it was appropriate. I have no idea how that is even in question.
2. Disclosed to whom? I can't imagine why he would be expected to disclose it to anyone.
1. Yes, it was appropriate. I have no idea how that is even in question.
2. Disclosed to whom? I can't imagine why he would be expected to disclose it to anyone.
The Democrats entered the dailybeast article into the record. I'm not sure if they've called for another Nunes' recusal or maybe a censure? At a minimum, Nunes would have saved himself some embarrassment by being more upfront about his prior contacts. Certainly, I as an American citizen listening to the public testimony with him as questioner and creator of question lines would have wanted that disclosed. After all, taxpayer money paid for the trip.
It's the same blurring of lines as with using your own personal attorney to investigate Ukraine (Giuliani). No oversight. Nune both as FBI agent (executive branch) and as House Intel (congressional branch). That's not how our Constitution was written.
If this is on the up-and-up then what's the big deal. Remember - we're talking about the contact here - not necessarily the specific information disclosed. And then when you add in his investigator's continued "work" with various parties - people who themselves were actively working to sway public opinion (John Solomon etc.) while at the same time sought certain actions from the U.S. government (the Firtash attorneys).
The Democrats entered the dailybeast article into the record. I'm not sure if they've called for another Nunes' recusal or maybe a censure? At a minimum, Nunes would have saved himself some embarrassment by being more upfront about his prior contacts. Certainly, I as an American citizen listening to the public testimony with him as questioner and creator of question lines would have wanted that disclosed. After all, taxpayer money paid for the trip.
It's the same blurring of lines as with using your own personal attorney to investigate Ukraine (Giuliani). No oversight.
What do you mean by "no oversight"? There seems to be a lot of oversight. And Trump can use anyone he wants to do official business or personal business.
The Democrats entered the dailybeast article into the record. I'm not sure if they've called for another Nunes' recusal or maybe a censure? At a minimum, Nunes would have saved himself some embarrassment by being more upfront about his prior contacts. Certainly, I as an American citizen listening to the public testimony with him as questioner and creator of question lines would have wanted that disclosed. After all, taxpayer money paid for the trip.
It's the same blurring of lines as with using your own personal attorney to investigate Ukraine (Giuliani). No oversight. Nune both as FBI agent (executive branch) and as House Intel (congressional branch). That's not how our Constitution was written.
If this is on the up-and-up then what's the big deal. Remember - we're talking about the contact here - not necessarily the specific information disclosed.
What do you mean -- "remember"? I never heard any such claim, nor do I understand why a "contact" is supposed to be a problem. Does this guy have cooties? What in the world?
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.
