• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Rosenstein meeting on Wednesday with Paul Ryan

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
woolfe9998 said:
I don't know that Nunes is going to charged, but this meeting was an attempt to go over Nunes' head. The FBI was obviously complaining that what Nunes is doing is undermining the agency's work and that Ryan should put a muzzle on him. This business with Nunes demanding that they produce documents related to internal investigation procedures, which information could/would then be selectively leaked to the public, or totally leaked to Trump, is beyond the pale. They are clearly at their wit's end with Nunes' behavior or they wouldn't be doing this.
Click to expand...

It seems like it would be really difficult to charge Nunes with any crime as congressmen are immune from the law while discharging their official duties.

That being said, Nunes’s behavior has been absolutely unconscionable during this entire affair and it certainly deserves an ethics inquiry.
 
fskimospy said:
It seems like it would be really difficult to charge Nunes with any crime as congressmen are immune from the law while discharging their official duties.

That being said, Nunes’s behavior has been absolutely unconscionable during this entire affair and it certainly deserves an ethics inquiry.
Click to expand...

I'm actually hoping that Nunes is out on his ear come November.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/330509-calif-prosecutor-announces-run-against-nunes-in-2018

His district leans red but not heavily, and there is plenty for his dem opponent to talk about. If these midterms are going to be a wave for the dems this year, Nunes could end up a casualty.
 
woolfe9998 said:
I'm actually hoping that Nunes is out on his ear come November.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/330509-calif-prosecutor-announces-run-against-nunes-in-2018

His district leans red but not heavily, and there is plenty for his dem opponent to talk about. If these midterms are going to be a wave for the dems this year, Nunes could end up a casualty.
Click to expand...

That could explain his behavior. He knows he’s toast in November so he’s trying to line up his next job.

It’s deeply immoral and unethical, but it would make sense. It’s rare to see a congressman act this unethically but I guess this is just more evidence of the sickness and rot in the Republican Party.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Charged with what? This is getting surreal.
Click to expand...

Nothing has happened so it seems what I said was not verified was not true. The speculation was that Nunes was interfering with Mueller's investigation improperly and that is why Rosenstein went to Ryan. The most extreme of those like idea and what I was referring to was illegal obstruction revealed and reported to Ryan. Obviously that has not hit the fan so the last is unlikely.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Nothing has happened so it seems what I said was not verified was not true. The speculation was that Nunes was interfering with Mueller's investigation improperly and that is why Rosenstein went to Ryan. The most extreme of those like idea and what I was referring to was illegal obstruction revealed and reported to Ryan. Obviously that has not hit the fan so the last is unlikely.
Click to expand...
Illegal obstruction? I don't see how this could be possible.

It appears to me that there's much more here than meets the eye. I'm imagining a Catch 22 scenario.
 
Last edited:
Doc Savage Fan said:
Illegal obstruction? I don't see how this could be possible.

It appears to me that's there's much more here than meets the eye. I'm imagining a Catch 22 scenario.
Click to expand...

It's pretty easy to see how that would be possible. If there is evidence that Nunes is acting with the purpose of thwarting the Russia investigation that is obstruction of justice. Proving his intent to obstruct justice would be difficult, however. Regardless, I don't think anyone can argue that he's acted highly unethically in respect to this probe. There's a reason he had to recuse himself, after all.
 
It's impossible to say what's happening behind the scenes but it seems likely that the subject was Mueller's investigation. We'll just have to wait & see what unfolds as time goes on.

It's hard to imagine that the Trumpublicans aren't feeling the hot breath of Doom on their necks, however, given the way they're acting.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Illegal obstruction? I don't see how this could be possible.

It appears to me that there's much more here than meets the eye. I'm imagining a Catch 22 scenario.
Click to expand...


Nunes has access to information that could be leaked to others to impede the investigation. Certainly, Nunes demonstrated that he felt no guilt about informing those being investigated as to what was happening on his own authority. If it was determined that Nunes was conspiring with those under investigation then that constitutes obstruction by definition. Imagine a court officer leaking the prosecution's case to the defense with intent to foil proceedings? Heads would roll, or should.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Nunes has access to information that could be leaked to others to impede the investigation. Certainly, Nunes demonstrated that he felt no guilt about informing those being investigated as to what was happening on his own authority. If it was determined that Nunes was conspiring with those under investigation then that constitutes obstruction by definition. Imagine a court officer leaking the prosecution's case to the defense with intent to foil proceedings? Heads would roll, or should.
Click to expand...
Who did Nunes inform regarding what was happening under his investigation of them?
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Who did Nunes inform regarding what was happening under his investigation of them?
Click to expand...

Two points. I never mentioned Nunes investigation, but Nunes did in fact tell the WH what was going on and had to recuse himself. His part led Congress absolved him but that does not change the act, merely the penalty.

The second is Nunes has information regarding Mueller's activities that is not known to the general public. Congress has closed-door sessions for a reason, keeping things from our view.

That is what I was referring to, Nunes leaking what he has learned and possibly assisting in the sabotage of the special prosecutor.That he's leaked in the past is not in any doubt.

Also note that I have not said "Nunes did this" but made a point of mentioning in my OP that none of this was verified.

We shall see, hopefully.
 
Nunes is clearly trying to make the Steele dossier into something it never was, the reason for FBI scrutiny of the Trump campaign in the first place. It's an attempt to de-legitimize the FBI & the IC. He's trying to say that there never was reason for the FBI & subsequent Mueller inquiries in the first place.

Everybody is saying the meeting wasn't about Mueller but one doesn't have to read much between the lines to see that it is.-

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/03/politics/rod-rosenstein-house-intel-russia/index.html

Let's face it- Manafort as campaign chairman undoubtedly set off alarm bells all across the federal law enforcement community. They've been working up a case against him for a long time.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
The New Yorker? Could the bias and conjecture be any stronger? Citing a liberal rag without a word of supporting commentary just doesn't cut it for me. Sorry.

Perhaps you can cite the "facts" in this article which you believe are indeed factual that indicate illegal acts were committed by Nunes.
Click to expand...

You just killed irony today with this post.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
The New Yorker? Could the bias and conjecture be any stronger? Citing a liberal rag without a word of supporting commentary just doesn't cut it for me. Sorry.

Perhaps you can cite the "facts" in this article which you believe are indeed factual that indicate illegal acts were committed by Nunes.
Click to expand...

The guy who routinely uncritically cites right wing op-eds and gets angry when people point out they aren't credible now has a problem with people's sources.

Are you fucking kidding me.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
The New Yorker? Could the bias and conjecture be any stronger? Citing a liberal rag without a word of supporting commentary just doesn't cut it for me. Sorry.

Perhaps you can cite the "facts" in this article which you believe are indeed factual that indicate illegal acts were committed by Nunes.
Click to expand...

It's cool man. We'll just laugh at you because you refuse to engage in the issues honestly.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Two points. I never mentioned Nunes investigation, but Nunes did in fact tell the WH what was going on and had to recuse himself. His part led Congress absolved him but that does not change the act, merely the penalty.
Click to expand...
I thought is was the other way around...that the WH leaked the information to Nunes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/...gNews&contentID=65098245&pgtype=Homepage&_r=0

Hayabusa Rider said:
The second is Nunes has information regarding Mueller's activities that is not known to the general public. Congress has closed-door sessions for a reason, keeping things from our view.

That is what I was referring to, Nunes leaking what he has learned and possibly assisting in the sabotage of the special prosecutor.That he's leaked in the past is not in any doubt.

Also note that I have not said "Nunes did this" but made a point of mentioning in my OP that none of this was verified.

We shall see, hopefully.
Click to expand...
I see....merely suspicion and speculation on your part. Thanks for clarifying.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Two points. I never mentioned Nunes investigation, but Nunes did in fact tell the WH what was going on and had to recuse himself. His part led Congress absolved him but that does not change the act, merely the penalty.

The second is Nunes has information regarding Mueller's activities that is not known to the general public. Congress has closed-door sessions for a reason, keeping things from our view.

That is what I was referring to, Nunes leaking what he has learned and possibly assisting in the sabotage of the special prosecutor.That he's leaked in the past is not in any doubt.

Also note that I have not said "Nunes did this" but made a point of mentioning in my OP that none of this was verified.

We shall see, hopefully.
Click to expand...

He also did this related to Trump's claims he had been wiretapped:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/path-devin-nunes-stepping-russia-probe/story?id=46658462

He went to the White House and got information from them and then the next day held a press conference without informing any other members of his committee and then made a big show of going back to the White House and briefing them on the information THEY gave him. ie: he was trying to launder their talking points through his committee to make them seem objective and nonpartisan. The guy can't be trusted any farther than you can throw him.
 
fskimospy said:
He also did this related to Trump's claims he had been wiretapped:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/path-devin-nunes-stepping-russia-probe/story?id=46658462

He went to the White House and got information from them and then the next day held a press conference without informing any other members of his committee and then made a big show of going back to the White House and briefing them on the information THEY gave him. ie: he was trying to launder their talking points through his committee to make them seem objective and nonpartisan. The guy can't be trusted any farther than you can throw him.
Click to expand...

I don’t know, I think we could fling him pretty far if we loaded him in a trebuchet.
Of course I’m not sure he would be doing much talking afterwards.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
I see....just suspicion and speculation on your part. Thanks for clarifying.
Click to expand...

No clarification was needed. I reported as NOT verified, my very words, something which was making the rounds in a big way. I then answered your question as to why that might be citing known facts.

You consider all sources then get snarky when they present them clearly for what they are. OK then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top