Yates and Clapper Testimony Begins

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Kali74

A Dog and Pony Show for the Masses with Nothing of Value concerning a Revealed Truth Spoken due to Security Restrictions . Both Offer Nothing , and Both seem Immune from answering Any Pertinent Questions ..YAWN .

During the minutes I listened, those were my thoughts exactly. Clapper/Yates kept saying..

"I can't answer that in public"

"That's not handled in my department"

"I don't know, but can find out, if you really really want that information"

"I can't say"

"It's not appropriate for me to comment on that"

If I didn't know who they were, I would have thought that they were two rejects from a TV gameshow.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: BlueAjah

All those stupid stories of Hillary being sick was their work and no they didn't reveal any facts.
But they tricked you into believing so I guess they were very successful.

You've made it clear your opinion of anyone not watching CNN or towing the dem line. To you and those that think as you do, I would like to say this.

If you truly believe that statement you made, you are doing yourself a disservice. You are improperly identifying the problem and further exploration into your supposed truths will lead you into another round of losses.

I stand by my earlier statement, I hope both parties absolutely implode.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Gandalf77
Cracks me up to see all the posturing from Trump & the republicans on these committees over the leaked information.

Translation: "We wouldn't be having to deal with this mess if someone hadn't shown our dirty laundry to the public. How dare they!"

Was it the russians that threw out their dirty laundry too, like they did to the dems?

Yes or no?

Good question. Not sure I have a good answer. Are you suggesting the Russians helped w/the leaks regarding Flynn?

The question I wanted asked of Ms. Yates is this:


In the 8 years of the last Administration, how many of Obama's executive orders did you deem to be unlawful and refuse to enforce?

I'm w/you on that 100%. I've been highly critical of Trump on these boards, but I always reserve the right to change my mind w/out notice. And rest assured, I didn't vote for Billary. If she had won, I think we'd have a different set of issues to contend with.

Ultimately, I'm after the truth. And perhaps that's too much to ask for in this day & age.
One of the many things I appreciate about ATS is that people here like to ask the tough questions.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't get the dismissive attitude some have about Russian hacking. It's kind of a big deal.

Probably because we are still waiting on that proof thing.

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Kali74

No. It doesn't.

Are you familiar with the Establishment Clause?

Yes.
..and no, the EO does not contravene it.

a reply to: carewemust

Hillary never lied to the FBI. You guys just make crap up or believe lies spread by other conservatives. It's total B.S..
Comey even said she never lied to them. Of course I'm sure you conveniently missed that .

a reply to: Perfectenemy

Wow your opinion of her is so far off from her cool calm and collected professionalism I wonder if we watched the same hearing.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Did you hear the part where the rest of the DOJ attorneys approved the EO before it's release? They did not show Yates the EO before the release. Did you hear her reaction when she was asked if that was because they knew she was partisan, and did not trust her to review it?

After the release Yates decided to slam it, and refuse to support it.

They brought this up to show her partisanship.

Did you see the part where she was asked by White House counsel why the DOJ was even looking into Flynn? And they asked her why she was involved? We never got a clear answer out of her about that.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Ha ha. No he didn't . He said he didn't see it. The investigation has continued and he reiterated that point several times that information not available or undeveloped as he put it when he was in office may have changed that. Yates refused to say at all.
I'm not saying trump is going down but let's not pretend this was any kind of acquittal of trumps behavior.
The FBI is still on this and they sure as hell didn't say everything is kosher and not to worry.
At the core of this is the lies. And trump doesn't seem to understand why lying is bad behaviour. He even asked why it's such a big deal if one Whitehouse staff member lies to another and the other spreads the untruth on tv and to the American people.
His moral compass is not what it should be.
No one in authority has said there was no collusion.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Is this hearing about the executive order?
No that was a diversion .
It wasn't about Hillary's emails either even though it was mentioned.

The end...

She was hired by Bush senior for your information.
#ing trump has got everyone convinced that everyone not on his side is a partisan shill set out to get him.
He's a paranoid old man. He's making more paranoid old men every day. And paranoid old women too.

a reply to: BlueAjah

And I'm pretty sure she said they were looking at him because he was talking to the flipping Russians.

a reply to: carewemust

She was deputy attorney General while she was "temping " attorney general. It's not like they pulled someone out of the typing pool to fill in.
Stupid comments drive me crazy.

What I don't get is, the real questions always have the same answer

'' I cannot answer that here, its classified ''

this was the case with

1. Loretta Lynch's letter stating she'd do what she could to keep Clinton from facing prosecution
2. Who unmasked US citizens to the press
3. What the contents was of the emails Clinton was hiding

3 very important questions that Comey, Clapper and Yates couldn't answer because of classification.
So, congress then hold a private meeting so they can answer those questions and present the evidence.

So why the F--K hasnt anything come from these lying pieces of crap giving the finger to the people? WTF!

a reply to: allsee4eye

Good thing for us our constitution covers inalienable HUMAN rights...

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: JinMI

To be on US soil they must pass customs. To pass customs they must have VISA. It's not like anyone can freely waltz into the US.

Ummmm...no.
U.S. Customs is for imported goods. Not people.

originally posted by: Sillyolme

Ummmm...no.
U.S. Customs is for imported goods. Not people.

Uhh what?

Almost a million times each day, CBP officers welcome international travelers into the U.S. In screening both foreign visitors and returning U.S. citizens

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: carewemust

She was deputy attorney General while she was "temping " attorney general. It's not like they pulled someone out of the typing pool to fill in.
Stupid comments drive me crazy.

well she was appointed by Obama, so

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: carewemust

She was deputy attorney General while she was "temping " attorney general. It's not like they pulled someone out of the typing pool to fill in.
Stupid comments drive me crazy.

well she was appointed by Obama, so

Yep and Trump didnt immediately fire her on taking office. So its his fault again if he didnt like her or trust her opinion. Because why would he order the Office of Legal Consul to not inform the DoJ until after the EO was out?