Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Are Sessions And Trump Orchestrating A Cover Up? What Caused Nunes To Cancel Sally Yates' Testimony?


People aren't asking me "if" Trump is going to be impeached any longer. They're asking me "when." Chris Christie's disapproval is at 72% now. Trump's disapproval-- historically high-- isn't even in the 60's yet. The political will to impeach him-- especially among Republicans and among careerist conservative Democrats as well-- won't begin 'til he's at least where Christie is. That's what it takes for that kind of wrenching move.

Last night I had dinner with one of the most successful big-time, house-hold name attorneys in America and he told me he's working on collecting evidence against Trump, evidence that will eventually be used in cases against him. Those will come even before impeachment proceedings do. The big news about Nunes canceling the Intelligence Committee that would have included former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, broken by the Washington Post this morning, is leading towards the eventual impeachment case. What are Trump and Sessions hiding that caused the White House to have Nunes-- a sad and pathetic little lap dog-- cancel the testimony? The Post's first paragraph was absolutely devastating:
The Trump administration sought to block former acting attorney general Sally Yates from testifying to Congress in the House investigation of links between Russian officials and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, the Washington Post has learned, a position that is likely to further anger Democrats who have accused Republicans of trying to damage the inquiry.
Sessions demanded Yates not testify before Congress but she went ahead and agreed to come before the House Intelligence Committee this week anyway. Nunes "abrupt canceled" the hearing. Intelligence Committee Committee member Eric Swalwell (D-CA) was in Morning Joe today and said "this is what a cover-up to a crime looks like. We are watching it play out right now." Watch:

An independent commission is an absolute "must" at this point. When Joe Scarborough asked Bill Kristol, "They're going to have to have a Select Committee, right?," Kristen responded matter of factly, "You'd think they'd have to, but in Trump's Washington [i.e.- the swampiest swamp in the history of swamps] things that we think 'have to happen,' don't have to happen." Trump and Bannon and their regime are counting on that attitude of surrender.
As acting attorney general, Yates played a key part in the investigation surrounding Michael T. Flynn, a Trump campaign aide who became national security adviser before revelations that he had discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador to the United States in late December led to his ouster.

Yates and another witness at the planned hearing, former CIA director John Brennan, had made clear to government officials by Thursday that their testimony to the committee probably would contradict some statements that White House officials had made, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The following day, when Yates’s lawyer sent a letter to the White House indicating that she still wanted to testify, the hearing was canceled.

A White House spokesperson called the Post article “entirely false” and said, “The White House has taken no action to prevent Sally Yates from testifying and the Department of Justice specifically told her that it would not stop her and to suggest otherwise is completely irresponsible.”

The Justice Department had no immediate comment.

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said the panel was aware that Yates “sought permission to testify from the White House. Whether the White House’s desire to avoid a public claim of executive privilege to keep her from providing the full truth on what happened contributed to the decision to cancel today’s hearing, we do not know. But we would urge that the open hearing be rescheduled without delay and that Ms. Yates be permitted to testify freely and openly."

In January, Yates warned White House counsel Donald McGahn that statements White House officials made about Flynn’s contact with the ambassador were incorrect, and could therefore expose the national security adviser to future blackmail by the Russians.
Pelosi has been demanding Nunes be fired as Intelligence Committee head-- or at the minimum, be forced to recuse himself from this investigation. If Pelosi is so outraged about Nunes' behavior-- and she should be-- why does' t she order her DCCC to do something they've never done before-- mount an election challenge against Nunes. Funny thing how that works: members of Congress who have to answer to their constituents in contested elections tend to be less arrogant in the way they do their jobs. As we've mentioned over and over again, the DCCC has given Nunes a free-pass to reelection in 100% of his reelection battles. Allow me to reiterate:

The DCCC has always dismissed it as "too conservative" and has never run a candidate against Nunes-- never. He skates to reelection without serious opposition. Last year his unsupported Democratic opponent, Louie Campos, didn't even raise the $5,000 that would have triggered an FEC report, while Nunes raised $2,459,235, almost entirely from special interests; only about 1% of his contributions ($25,038) coming from small donors. The bulk of his money came in the form of outright bribes from PACs ($1,623,714). He's widely considered one of the most corrupt characters in Congress and today he's sitting on a formidable $3,177,900 war-chest, interesting in a district that the DCCC has never looked at. He beat Campos 143,333 (68.2%) to 66,802 (31.8). Yes, Campos did terribly but he took 66,802 votes spending no money and with no DCCC help. One district west and south-- CA-21-- saw the DCCC and Pelosi's House Majority PAC spend $94,400 in 2014 and $1,778,846 in 2016 (primarily on ineffective-- and commissionable-- mass media) and the two Democrats who ran spend $1,690,530 (2014) and $648,918 (2016). Now remember how Campos, with his grassroots field operation turned out 66,802 Democratic voters against Nunes? In CA-21 there were just 33,470 Democratic voters in 2014 and just 49,643 in 2016. Even with money, you only win if you know what you're doing. The DCCC has absolutely no idea and local Democrats are-- at best-- out of practice, everything atrophied from lack of use.

The district is minority-white now. Ethnically, it is 45.9% Latino, 41.9% white, 7.0% Asian and 2.5% black. McCain and Romney both beat Obama with just over 56%. Last year Trump beat Hillary 52.1-42.6%. According to the old CBO report, if TrumpCare becomes law, 87,694 Nunes constituents will lose their health insurance. That number, with the changes Ryan put through to placate extremists, is probably closer to 100,000. Now. Remember, Nunes only netted 143,333 votes in 2016, not that many more than the people who are liable tol lose their health care. The DCCC should be working on organizing and registering those voters now. They aren't.

This is on Pelosi. As Ted Lieu tweeted early this morning, "Since Rep Nunes is acting like a Trump appointee, he should apply for a White House position. There are lots of openings." The DCCC should do it's part-- even if the atrophied local party takes 2 cycles to accomplish it-- and take on Nunes electorally.

Labels: , , , , , , ,


At 5:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Any single Democrat from the Watergate Era had more bravery and strength to act than all of the current crop of Democorrupts combined. Had the current-day losers been the opposition party during Watergate, Nixon would have finished his second term, Ford would possibly have defeated Carter without the pardon to drag him down, and maybe someone other than Reagan would have won in 1980.

Despite all of the opportunities, I expect the Democorrupts to eagerly seek out the short end of the stick every time. GOP power will only grow despite the divisions in that party since the Democorrupts thrive on losing.

At 5:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

has that Nixon cover-up stench to it don't it?

With the democraps in charge of resistance (surrender) though, there is no telling even *IF* things will change.

Democraps care about one and only one thing: raising billions per year from corporations and the obscene wealthy.

They don't care about: winning, defeating the worst Nazified moron Rs, passing liberal or progressive reforms, stopping a single Nazi from his appointed office (they use these to raise more money from petrified lefty voters)...

Spend $5m and beat nunes? you'll get someone even worse and more extreme as chair. The Rs won't lose the house ... probably ever. And if the Democraps ever do win, it'll be for 2 years because they will refuse to undo anything the Rs did.

At 1:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm wondering why, if there really isn't anything nefarious, are the Rs and WH stumbling all over each other to corrupt the committee(s) and to keep principals from testifying.


Post a Comment

<< Home