Devin Nunes: AG Jeff Sessions should be held in contempt of Congress

  • Thread starter Thread starter ThinkingSapien
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

ThinkingSapien

Guest

Devin Nunes: AG Jeff Sessions should be held in contempt of Congress​


House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes is going to push Congress to hold Attorney General Jeff Sessions in contempt of Congress.

The Californian Republican’s committee has been looking into allegations that the Justice Department and the FBI abused the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in their scrutiny of the Trump campaign.

“On Thursday we discovered that they are not going to comply with our subpoena,” Nunes said on “Fox and Friends,” adding, “The only thing left to do is we have to move quickly to hold the attorney general of the United States in contempt and that is what I will press for this week.”

Two weeks ago, Nunes sent to Sessions a classified letter, which he said was not acknowledged, and then he sent a subpoena.

Nunes, in spat with Justice Department, threatens Sessions with contempt over Russia materials​


House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes warned Sunday that he plans to urge lawmakers “this week” to hold Attorney General Jeff Sessions in contempt of Congress for failing to hand over classified materials related to the Russia investigation.

But the Justice Department informed Nunes three days ago – on the deadline for responding to a subpoena from Nunes’ committee – that providing the information on a “specific individual” could pose grave implications for national security, according to a letter obtained by CNN.
Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd:
Disclosure of responsive information to such requests can risk severe consequences, including potential loss of human lives, damage to relationships with valued international partners, compromise of ongoing criminal investigations, and interference with intelligence activities,
Click to expand...
It was not immediately clear why Nunes has targeted Sessions. A source familiar with the matter said that the request falls squarely within Sessions’ recusal from all materials related to the Russia investigation. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has been fielding the document requests in his place.
Nunes has not described precisely what information he’s seeking, but he said Sunday on “Fox and Friends” that it’s “very important.”
 
I agree with Nunes. I don’t know why Sessions recused himself. But that doesn’t matter. He took an oath of office and voluntary recusal does not excuse willful disobedience of a lawful subpoena .
 
He recused himself because he participated in part in the Trump campaign.
 
F_Marturana said:
He recused himself because he participated in part in the Trump campaign.
Click to expand...
Which has nothing to do with a deceptively obtained FISA warrant. Sessions cannot “volunteer” himself out of the duty of his office, and certainly not out of obeying a subpoena.

If he doesn’t obey, then Nunes should cite him for contempt, just as any citizen would be if he disobeyed a lawful subpoena.
 
Trump picked him in exchange for a lifetime supply of Keebler cookies.
 
dvdjs said:
No such thing. Would you care to provide proof that the warrant was obtained deceptively?
Click to expand...
I think that’s what’s being investigated, and I have no access to the warrant or anything submitted with it. What a cynical challenge.

Prove that it wasn’t.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
I think that’s what’s being investigated, and I have no access to the warrant or anything submitted with it. What a cynical challenge.
Click to expand...
Why did you make a serious claim on a matter that you cannot back up?
It is fair, not cynical, to ask for the back up.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
Why did you make a serious claim on a matter that you cannot back up?

It is fair, not cynical, to ask for the back up.
Click to expand...
You don’t have subpoena power, but I’ll respond anyway.

There isn’t a lot of information given to the public about it. But there has been some. I would say that if, as McCabe said, the warrant would not have been issued without the “dossier”, and if, as Comey said, the dossier’s contents were “salacious and unverified” and did not disclose that fact or their source, it is deceptive.

But again, the depth of it is what is presently being investigated. If Sessions does not respond to the subpoena of information related to it, then he should be held in contempt.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I would say that if, as McCabe said, the warrant would not have been issued without the “dossier”,
Click to expand...
McCabe as you know denies that that is an accurate representation of his remarks.
It is by no means clear that the dossier was crucial to the FISA.
 
Last edited:
He didn’t quite say that. He said the statements attributed to him (which are on record) “mischaracterize” his testimony. He says he didn’t mean for it to sound like the FISA warrant would not have been sought but for the dossier. But we do need to remember that McCabe was fired from the FBI for being deceptive. Anyway, here’s what he said about “mischaracterization”. He doesn’t deny saying it. He just waffles with its importance, shifting importance to “quantity”.

“We started the investigations without the dossier. We were proceeding with the investigations before we ever received that information,” McCabe told CNN as part of a wide-ranging interview. “Was the dossier material important to the package? Of course, it was. As was every fact included in that package. Was it the majority of what was in the package? Absolutely not.”
 
Ridgerunner said:
He didn’t quite say that.
Click to expand...
The memo, released on Friday against FBI objections and with Trump’s approval, makes a particular claim against McCabe. In its attempt to claim that ex-British spy Christopher Steele’s salacious dossier played a central role in the surveillance of Trump aides—a claim the memo’s own admissions undermine—the memo claims that McCabe told the House intelligence committee that Steele was a pillar of information for a surveillance warrant application.
Click to expand...
“Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information,” the memo claims, referring to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Asked if that was a true representation, a source familiar with McCabe’s testimony responded: “100% not.”

A senior Democratic House intelligence committee official agreed.

“The Majority purposefully mischaracterizes both what is actually contained in the FISA applications and the testimony of former FBI Deputy McCabe before our committee in December 2017—the Minority’s memo lays out the full facts,” the official said.


The misinformation that you repeat comes form the infamous Nunesmemo


And here is a link to the CNN sotry

Yet Republicans have stood by their characterization of the dossier’s role in the FISA memo. “The dossier formed ‘a significant portion’ of the Carter Page FISA application,” House Intelligence Committee Republicans say in a rebuttal to the Democratic House Intelligence Committee counter-memo.
Democrats, however, have resoundingly rejected the Nunes memo as an inaccurate and misleading portrait intended to distract from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe. But McCabe had not gone on record disputing House Republicans’ characterization of his testimony until now. He appeared for more than 16 hours of testimony behind closed doors in two sessions in December before members of the House Intelligence, Oversight and Judiciary committees, amid repeated calls for his firing from President Donald Trump and Republicans critical of the FBI’s handling of both the Clinton email-server probe and the Russia investigation.
Click to expand...
 
Well, thanks for the irrelevant inundation. None of that contradicts what McCabe said. I realize he and Dems would like to characterize it in a better way. But McCabe said what he said.
Ridgerunner said:
“Was the dossier material important to the package? Of course, it was. As was every fact included in that package. Was it the majority of what was in the package? Absolutely not.”
Click to expand...
Since Comey characterized the dossier as Salacious and unverified, but it was used to spy on an American citizen who had done nothing, it is a legitimate thing for congress to investigate.

And so it’s investigating, but it appears Sessions is not cooperating with that process. Nunes is contemplating holding him in contempt if he does not cooperate more fully.

Nothing strange in any of it other than Sessions’ inexplicable failure to comply.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Well, thanks for the irrelevant inundation. None of that contradicts what McCabe said.
Click to expand...
You are welcome.

Of course it doesn’t contradict McCabe. it contradicts the characterization of McCabe by Nunes and those who repeat him uncritically.
 
jagged said:
Is this one of those cases where you are asking for a source ‘just to be a pain’?
Click to expand...
Well of course. But it’s a reasonable response when one is asked to prove things about warrants that are not available to the public and about which investigations are presently being held because even congress doesn’t have all the information.
 
Last edited:
Seems a reasonable position for Nunes to take if he thinks the DoJ is stonewalling him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top