Nunes secretly recorded at fundraiser: We have to protect Trump from Mueller

[GMDino]

I know this is a stunning revelation to some that Devin "I have to run this over the the WH" Nunes would say such a thing.

https://nypost.com/2018/08/09/nunes-secretly-recorded-at-fundraiser-we-have-to-protect-trump-from-mueller/?utm_source=twitter_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons

Quote:GOP Rep. Devin Nunes was secretly recorded telling supporters that the Republicans have to keep control of the House to protect President Trump in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, according to a report.



“If [Attorney General Jeff] Sessions won’t unrecuse and Mueller won’t clear the president, we’re the only ones,” Nunes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said at a private fund-raiser on July 30, NBC News reported on Wednesday.


“Which is really the danger. … I mean we have to keep all these seats,” he continued. “We have to keep the majority. If we do not keep the majority, all of this goes away.”


Nunes was recorded while speaking at a closed-door event for Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Calif.) in Spokane, Wash.


It was released by the progressive group Fuse Washington and aired on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show.”


Nunes’ spokesman called the congressman’s comments “sensible ideas,” The Hill reported.


The California Republican, a Trump ally who worked on his transition team, has been highly critical of the FBI investigation into the president and claims it was launched by biased agents out to get Trump.


During the fundraiser, Nunes also said conservative Republicans decided to table the idea of impeaching deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who’s overseeing the Mueller probe, because it could endanger the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.


Nunes said, “It’s a bit complicated” because “we only have so many months left, right?”


“So if we actually vote to impeach, okay, what that does is that triggers the Senate then has to take it up,” Nunes told the supporters. “Do you want them to drop everything and not confirm the Supreme Court justice, the new Supreme Court justice?”

He went on to say he supports Rosenstein’s impeachment but “the question is the timing of it right before the election.”

Reps. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), members of the House Freedom Caucus, introduced a resolution last month to impeach Rosenstein.

Clearly he is "sensible" and trying to be unbiased.  

Party over people.

[Dill]

(08-09-2018, 10:39 AM)GMDino Wrote: I know this is a stunning revelation to some that Devin "I have to run this over the the WH" Nunes would say such a thing.

https://nypost.com/2018/08/09/nunes-secretly-recorded-at-fundraiser-we-have-to-protect-trump-from-mueller/?utm_source=twitter_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons

Clearly he is "sensible" and trying to be unbiased.  

Party over people.

This "revelation" will have little political effect, since most people who understand how Congress is supposed to check the presidency are not Trump  supporters, and Trump supporters mostly don't know and don't care. Check and balance=Obama DEEP STATE.

[*PhilHos*]

Aside from Nunes being illegally recorded, I don't see what the issue is.










I assume it was NOT illegally recorded, but I just want to start some shit.

[hollodero]

(08-09-2018, 05:09 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Aside from Nunes being illegally recorded, I don't see what the issue is.

I don't think it's Congress' job to shield the president from an investigation and any possible outcome.

I'm also not a fan of recordings like those.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-09-2018, 06:52 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't think it's Congress' job to shield the president from an investigation and any possible outcome.

I'm also not a fan of recordings like those.

I agree with both of your statements, however, that's not what Nunes said. I read his statements as "Democrats won'te be fair" in addition to the typical "we don't want to lose power" that most, if not all, politicians in Washinton have espoused in variuos different ways. Doesn't necessarily make it "right", but it does make it not unusual.

[hollodero]

(08-09-2018, 07:00 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I agree with both of your statements, however, that's not what Nunes said. I read his statements as "Democrats won'te be fair" in addition to the typical "we don't want to lose power" that most, if not all, politicians in Washinton have espoused in variuos different ways. Doesn't necessarily make it "right", but it does make it not unusual.

I get that he doesn't want his party to lose power. There's nothing wrong with that.

Regarding Trump, I read his words differently than you though. He says if Mueller doesn't clear the president... that's about Mueller, not the Dems. And if Mueller finds dirt on Trump (ie not clear him), I don't think the translation "Dems won't be fair" applies. In that case, Congress has no business to clear the president.

Admittedly, I consider Nunes to be a non-patriot who puts party over everything. Not based on a recording. But maybe that's why I read it like "...we need to protect the president even if Mueller finds he committed a crime." To me that sounds like Nunes.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-09-2018, 07:11 PM)hollodero Wrote: I get that he doesn't want his party to lose power. There's nothing wrong with that.

Regarding Trump, I read his words differently than you though. He says if Mueller doesn't clear the president... that's about Mueller, not the Dems. And if Mueller finds dirt on Trump (ie not clear him), I don't think the translation "Dems won't be fair" applies. In that case, Congress has no business to clear the president.

Admittedly, I consider Nunes to be a non-patriot who puts party over everything. Not based on a recording. But maybe that's why I read it like "...we need to protect the president even if Mueller finds he committed a crime." To me that sounds like Nunes.

When Nunes said, "if ... Mueller won’t clear the president," I don't think Nunes is going to think that Trump did anything wrong hence, I see his words being something like, "if Mueller doesn't clear the president then it's our job to do so" with the assumption that Trump didn't do anything wrong.

[hollodero]

(08-10-2018, 06:21 PM)PhilHos Wrote: When Nunes said, "if ... Mueller won’t clear the president," I don't think Nunes is going to think that Trump did anything wrong hence, I see his words being something like, "if Mueller doesn't clear the president then it's our job to do so" with the assumption that Trump didn't do anything wrong.

I see. As I said, I read it differently. I like to challenge your interpretation with the question: Why would Nunes assume that Trump is innocent - even if Mueller doesn't say so, wouldn't say so, would not clear him? How could he possibly be so certain in any case?

Isn't it the far more obvious explanation that he says we have to protect him, even if Trump did something wrong? (I don't ask as someone anti-someone, just from a strictly logical standpoint, as far as I can have one... which sure is questionable :) )

Still. Reminder, we're talking Devin Nunes, the guy that pretty much blocked the house intelligence committee, released a #memo which was a total dud and obviously just aimed at people who do not read in-depth and just believe something's a bombshell because the Trump/FOX network claims it is - and who held a press conference, hasty by design, to tell the world he has to run to the white house because he found some scandalous unmasking in files he found at the white house. In other words, Nunes, the hyper-partisan who would slander the FBI (and FISA judges etc.) in advance to clear Trump no matter what. So my view of course might be fettered by that genereal Nunes assumption... but still, is it terribly unfair to see him in that light? I feel you give that man too much benefit of the doubt by thinking the best of him (that he's somehow, out of the kindness of little Devin's heart, totally convinced that Trump did nothing wrong, no matter what Mueller has to say about that.)

[SunsetBengal]

Why wouldn't he say those things?

What's the fuss? I don't get it.

Where's the news?

[Benton]

(08-10-2018, 11:57 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Why wouldn't he say those things?

What's the fuss?  I don't get it.

Where's the news?

Yeah, I'm not sure why anyone owuld be shocked a career politician would be looking to preserve a person most likely benefiting his position.

I mean, it's a good example of why we need term limits, but not exactly a "oh my" moment.