Public Trump-Russia House Hearings Begin March 20
If you want to know why the GOP had to agree to this check out this poll:
“A majority of voters support appointing a special prosecutor to investigate alleged ties between President Donald Trump’s campaign staff and the Russian government, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll conducted in the immediate wake of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recusal from any related investigations.”
“Fifty-six percent of registered voters support appointing a special prosecutor, a far greater share than the 30 percent who oppose an independent counsel investigating the matter. Thirteen percent of voters don’t have an opinion.”
“Three out of four Democratic voters support a special prosecutor, compared to 39 percent of Republicans and 54 percent of independents.”
A CNN poll came out a few days ago which showed similar numbers. So it’s here. On March 20-literally just two months into the Manchurian Candidate’s Administration-there will be public hearings in Congress:
“The House Intelligence Committee is asking former Obama administration officials to testify in its first open hearing this month as part of the panel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election.”
“Those being asked to testify March 20 include former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former acting Attorney General Sally Yates, who was fired by President Donald Trump in January after refusing to defend his travel ban executive order in court. FBI Director James Comey and NSA Director Mike Rogers were also asked to testify”.
“House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) told reporters the witnesses were being asked to testify willingly and that he did not plan to issue subpoenas at this point.”
Nunes is still equivocating:
“Nunes said Tuesday he does not believe that Russia helped to elect Trump. The congressman previously said U.S. intelligence officials have not given the committee any evidence of contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russian intelligence.”
“Top Trump officials have recently played defense over their contacts with Russian officials. Trump’s first national security advisor, Michael Flynn, resigned last month after the White House said he misled Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the U.S., before Trump took office. Trump has defended Flynn holding those conversations, but said his advisor betrayed Pence’s trust.”
What evidence does Nunes have to support this falsifiable claim that Russia didn’t help elect Trump? We know:
1. Per the intel agencies Russia interfered with the expressed purpose of helping Trump
2. Trump was elected, albeit with questionable legitimacy.
What here enables him to infer for certain that Russian interference in no way helped elect Trump?
It’s dubious that Tom Brady’s delated footballs were why he and the Patriots beat the Colts 45-7 in the AFC playoffs a few years ago. He was still suspended four games. A defense to cheating is not: ‘Yes, we cheated but we would have won anyway.’
And considering Trump’s narrow margin-77,000 votes in three states it could have made the difference. The clear, proximate cause for Trump’s win was the Comey letter. Louis Mensch argues that Russians were in on that one too.
Nunes shouldn’t be making any such falsifiable statements until the investigation is completed.
In the future they really need to speak to Roger Stone and his partner Paul Manafort. As well as Julian Assange-he can be spoken via satellite.
P.S. If you enjoy my blog and my support of #TheResistance-I’m also considering a 2018 run against GOP Congressmen Peter King of the NY 2nd district-then please consider a donation.