Politico: Nunes, White House defiant as Russia controversy deepens
The House intelligence chairman says there's no reason for him to step down from probe into ties between Trump's campaign and Russia.
Embattled House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes on Tuesday rejected calls for his recusal, questioning why he should step aside from leading the panel’s investigation into Russia’s meddling in the presidential election and possible collusion between Russian officials and President Donald Trump’s associates.
“Well, why would I not?” Nunes (R-Calif.) told reporters when asked whether he’d continue to lead the investigation. “Why would it not?” he said when asked whether the probe could continue with him at the helm.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: Another day in the Trump - Russia story .... where we learn one thing from the media in the morning .... Trump administration sought to block Sally Yates from testifying to Congress on Russia (Washington Post), an explanation later .... Former acting attorney general Yates warned that testimony could be barred (USA Today), and the truth later .... White House Denies Claims That Former Attorney-General Sally Yates’ Testimony Was Blocked (NBC). What's my take .... this specific controversy blew up when the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes went to the White House last week to review intel documents that verified surveillance was being done on the Trump team. And while everyone in the media, the Democrats, and the usual 2 Republican senators (McCain and Graham) are now upset with where the investigation is going (i.e. who permitted the surveillance of the Trump team and the unmasking of who was under surveillance and not the Russia-Trump story) .... I find it fascinating that no one is demanding to see the intel documents that caused this uproar in the first place. There must be something there, because if there was not every Democrat would have read what Devin Nunes had read .... and they would be accusing him of gross misconduct at a level far greater and louder than what they are doing now. As for the chaos in this investigation ... as I have said more than once .... for this "investigation" to move forward .... the Democrats and the media now need to produce evidence and officials to validate their claims .... instead of demanding a special investigation and/or prosecutor to look for the evidence that validates their case .... in short conducting a witch-hunt in the hope of finding something. But that is not going to happen .... it is clear the Republicans are united on this one .... and it is also clear that after months of claims and accusations .... the Democrats have nothing .... and I will not be surprised if months from now they will still have nothing to show. But this story is far from dead. There is a lot of damning evidence that the Trump team was under surveillance by someone in the U.S. government .... this blog alone posted many stories from the media on leaks that could only have come from a surveillance operation .... and that is where in the end the investigation will probably lead. In the meantime .... and I feel like a broken record because nothing new has been produced since all of these claims started after the election .... here is some of the usual the main stream media reporting on this story ....
Administration, Nunes blocked ex-acting AG from testifying -- The Hill
Former Attorney General Sally Yates Says White House Tried Limiting Her Russia Testimony -- AP
White House evasive as House Intelligence Committee grinds to a halt -- CNN
Devin Nunes Says He’ll Continue to Lead Russia Inquiry -- NYT
'Why would I?': House Intel Committee chairman Devin Nunes says he's NOT recusing himself from Russia probe - and wins support of Paul Ryan - after Democrats demand he step aside -- Daily Mail
House Speaker backs intelligence panel chair in Russia probe -- Reuters
White House Says It Didn't Interfere, But Will Russia Hearings Ever Get Going? -- NPR
Will Republicans ever agree to an independent probe of the Russia scandal? (Paul Waldman, Washington Post)
0 Response to "Who To Believe?"
Post a Comment