HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Sally Yates to testify be...

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 12:57 PM

Sally Yates to testify before Senate panel even if she doesnt appear before House committee

Source: The Raw Story

Sally Yates to testify before Senate panel — even if she doesn’t appear before House committee

TRAVIS GETTYS
28 MAR 2017 AT 13:40 ET

Sally Yates, the former acting attorney general, will testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee about Russian interference in the election.

The Obama appointee was blocked from testifying before the House Intelligence Committee after its chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), canceled this week’s hearings, where Yates had been scheduled to appear.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the committee’s vice chairman, told CNN that Yates would testify before a Senate panel even if she did not appear before the House committee.

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/sally-yates-to-testify-before-senate-panel-even-if-she-doesnt-appear-before-house-committee/

31 replies, 7485 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 31 replies Author Time Post
Reply Sally Yates to testify before Senate panel even if she doesnt appear before House committee (Original post)
Chicago1980 Mar 2017 OP
RedSpartan Mar 2017 #1
Qutzupalotl Mar 2017 #2
PdxSean Mar 2017 #3
Juliusseizure Mar 2017 #6
appal_jack Mar 2017 #25
sharedvalues Mar 2017 #26
Cryptoad Mar 2017 #4
Juliusseizure Mar 2017 #5
MGKrebs Mar 2017 #7
titaniumsalute Mar 2017 #8
PdxSean Mar 2017 #16
Juliusseizure Mar 2017 #9
SunSeeker Mar 2017 #10
Juliusseizure Mar 2017 #11
SunSeeker Mar 2017 #12
Juliusseizure Mar 2017 #18
SunSeeker Mar 2017 #22
Juliusseizure Mar 2017 #24
SunSeeker Mar 2017 #27
Juliusseizure Mar 2017 #28
SunSeeker Mar 2017 #30
dawn frenzy adams Mar 2017 #20
Juliusseizure Mar 2017 #23
ColemanMaskell Mar 2017 #29
SunSeeker Mar 2017 #31
MyOwnPeace Mar 2017 #13
zentrum Mar 2017 #14
still_one Mar 2017 #15
padah513 Mar 2017 #17
Equinox Moon Mar 2017 #19
Sunlei Mar 2017 #21

Response to Chicago1980 (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 12:58 PM

1. Publicly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chicago1980 (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 01:18 PM

2. Good.

Hope she has something on Ryan and Nunes too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to PdxSean (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 01:49 PM

6. Exactly-Burr has to agree - good luck

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juliusseizure (Reply #6)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 07:38 PM

25. FWIW, this North Carolinian called.

 

Last edited Tue Mar 28, 2017, 10:56 PM - Edit history (1)

It's after hours, but I left a message to let Sally Yates testify, put Principle & patriotism before Party, etc.

k&r,

-app

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Reply #25)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 08:06 PM

26. Good for you! We should all call esp NC residents

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chicago1980 (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 01:28 PM

4. Who's Gonna,,,,

run interference for Trump on the Senate Committee investigate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chicago1980 (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 01:48 PM

5. Republican Chairman Burr also a Trump supporter

Burr also worked for the Trump campaign. I hope he doesn't pull a Nunes last minute and deny her appearance but I fully expect it. He's already been caught once phoning Trump back in February.

He barely squeezed out a victory in 2016 w/51% of the vote, so maybe he's under more voter pressure to cooperate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chicago1980 (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 01:54 PM

7. Well at least Warner is going to make him publicly block her.

This is really getting interesting/scary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chicago1980 (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 02:08 PM

8. My gut is that Burr won't block her testimony

He just got re-elected and frankly has six years to coast. For some reason I don't think he wants to look like a complete partisan hack like Nunes and draw all of that attention to himself. Just my thinking. I could be wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to titaniumsalute (Reply #8)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 03:23 PM

16. I'm much more cynical.

Republicans NEVER fail to go lower than you expect them to go. I think he'll block it BECAUSE he has 6 years to coast and because he know voters have short memories.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chicago1980 (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 02:09 PM

9. The Raw Story is fake news on this

Last edited Tue Mar 28, 2017, 04:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Sorry, this is fake news. Raw story says Sally Yates "will testify", then we find out Warner hasn't even sent an invite. As I understand it, an invite needs Chairman Burr's approval. Well, that appears to be quite the hurdle.

Regardless, there's a big difference between "may testify" subject to invite going out and accepted, and "will testify."

There was a thread earlier about DU getting a list of fake news sites. I think it's worthwhile, because fake news makes me dumber and less informed.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juliusseizure (Reply #9)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 02:17 PM

10. This is not a fake news story. Warner really said this.

Whether what he says will happen is another matter. That does not make the original story fake news.

Fake news would would be making up a quote out of whole cloth, which is what Breitbart does.


But your concern is duly noted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #10)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 02:57 PM

11. We don't even know if Warner said it

The quote is from Frank Thorpe V's twitter feed. Its not from Warner. I couldn't find any other news story that reported he even said it.

It also states: "Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the committee’s vice chairman, told CNN that Yates would testify before a Senate panel even if she did not appear before the House committee."

CNN hasn't reported that as far as I can tell from its site.

Even if he said it, the story misrepresents what he said, and a misrepresentation is a false statement of fact.

She may or may not testify based on the quote. That's all one can say. To say she "will testify" is not a fact.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juliusseizure (Reply #11)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 03:05 PM

12. Frank Thorpe V is a reporter for NBC News. Is that "fake news" to you too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #12)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 04:08 PM

18. "She will testify" is a false statement

There are different definitions for "fake."
Fake to me means not real.

The statement "she will testify" based on the quote is false. "Will" means it will inevitably happen.

It's like saying "I just got hired" after a job interview before the hiring decision, with 100 applicants yet to be interviewed. Would you call that person a liar?

Anyway, agree to disagree. I really really want Yates to testify. I just don't like getting my hopes up and then finding out it won't happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juliusseizure (Reply #18)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 04:50 PM

22. That is not Warner's full quote, which was provided in the article.

Throwing the word "fake news" around in instances of what you basically consider sloppy reporting serves Trump's goal of legitimizing the press. That hurts our democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #22)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 06:13 PM

24. I already gave full quote and its unverified

Are you referring to this quote?

"Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the committee’s vice chairman, told CNN that Yates would testify before a Senate panel even if she did not appear before the House committee."

As I said, I can't find any verification Warner said that to CNN. Not on CNN's site. I would think they would report that if he said it. If you can he actually said that, please share.

Generally, IMHO, Democracy is best served by a well informed public with a consensus on what the facts are. Otherwise, the sides can't even communicate. Each side lives in their bubble of "news" that confirms their ill informed opinion. That helps Republicans, because their existence relies on division and propaganda. How else do you get a majority of the 99% middle and lower class to vote solely for the top 1%?

BUT - my point had to do a preference for agreed upon reliable news sources within w/DU specifically. It was limited to DU.

I wasn't commenting about the Raw Story as a media source outside this forum.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juliusseizure (Reply #24)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 09:37 PM

27. "Fake news" does not change its meaning in this forum.

Last edited Tue Mar 28, 2017, 10:20 PM - Edit history (1)

What you post here pops up in Google searches, so it is never confined to DU. Again, the Raw Story article is not fake news. You may feel it needs more verification, but it is not a made up story like the "Pizzagate" or birther viral fake news pushed by shady right wing fake news outfits.

Raw Story and NBC News are not fake news outfits, whether for purposes of DU or otherwise.

Nor is Business Insider:

https://amp.businessinsider.com/sally-yates-trump-russia-testimony-senate-intelligence-committee-2017-3





BTW, Natasha Bertrand (@NatashaBertrand) is a Senior Reporter for Business Insider, specializing in politics and national security: https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand?s=09

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #27)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 11:02 PM

28. If you can confirm this statement

from CNN, let me know.

"Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the committee’s vice chairman, told CNN that Yates would testify before a Senate panel even if she did not appear before the House committee."

My concern is you won't, which means she may not testify, which means the article is false (not sloppy). Which would suck.

The additional tweets or articles you provided just confirm Warner wants her to testify. They specifically do not confirm he said she would or will.

I never said NBC was not a reliable news source. I said Warner's statement was tweeted by someone else. The article didn't say Warner's statement was actually tweeted by someone else. It didnt say identify the tweeter.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juliusseizure (Reply #28)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 11:17 PM

30. The Business Insider reported Warner spoke to a press gaggle about Yates appearing.

I gave you the Business Insider article link. Maybe CNN reported it live on air or in a CNN reporter's tweet and there is no written article on CNN.com yet. But now NBC News and Business Insider reporters have tweeted about it, and Business Insider ran an article about Warner saying Yates will testify in the Senate.

Here's the Business Insider link, again:

https://amp.businessinsider.com/sally-yates-trump-russia-testimony-senate-intelligence-committee-2017-3

It's not fake news nor are any of those outfits fake news outfits.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juliusseizure (Reply #9)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 04:33 PM

20. PLEASE!? MEDIA BIAS FACT CHECK IS A SCAM!




Fake security site “Media Bias Fact Check” is just one guy running a malicious scam

Excerpt:

Amid the growing concern about the veracity of online news outlets, various internet users have begun to scrutinize what they read more carefully to make sure it’s not “fake news” before trusting it. And that’s a good thing. But theat paranoia has also created an opportunity for scam artists to maliciously create confusion for their own personal amusement or agenda. Perhaps the most jarring instance of these scams is a site called “Media Bias Fact Check” which turns out to be just one guy making up whatever he feels like about news outlets, based on what he admits is his personal opinion, while typically providing no evidence – and then altering the ratings of news outlets who point out his scam.

One look at the “Media Bias Fact Check” website reveals it to be something that looks like it was created in 1995. Some independent news outlets (including this one) tend to have a bare bones look and feel about their design, in fitting with their non-corporate media parameters. But the site Media Bias Fact Check is trying to position itself as some kind web security firm or media authority, and any scrutiny of the site reveals it to be far from it.

Despite claiming in its tag line to be “The most comprehensive media bias resource,” the site turns out to simply be one guy named Dave Van Zandt who posts whatever he feels like. He claims to use a “strict methodology” for assigning bias ratings to various news outlets, but his “ratings” typically read like the gibberish one might find in an unmoderated comment section in the worst corners of the internet.

Continue:
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/phony-security-site-media-bias-fact-check-is-just-one-guy-running-a-malicious-scam/26758/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawn frenzy adams (Reply #20)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 05:03 PM

23. Deleted reference to it

If you have a better source that evaluates media bias, feel free to share.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juliusseizure (Reply #9)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 11:14 PM

29. Here is a link to fakenewschecker, a list of sites deemed Fake News (by the owners of the list)

The link: http://www.fakenewschecker.com/

Raw Story is included on the list, as are Alternet and Bipartisan Report.

Besides obvious propaganda and other intentionally fake news such as Breitbart, Infowars, and Sputnik News, the list includes any site deemed to be biased (either right or left), particularly anything that (allegedly) does not verify its sources, omits facts that contradict the bias of the site, or uses a lot of emotionally loaded language. So PoliticusUSA is an obvious left wing example of the biased designation.

The list also includes many non-news sites, including satire sites as well as editorial, opinion, and commentary. The aim on this seems to be to include sites that might be mistaken for news. DU is on the list, even though it is not a news site -- presumably because we sometimes quote news articles, as in this thread, and we sometimes get it wrong, mistakenly passing on an untrue story without checking it before posting. The Borowitz Report is on the list, even though it is plainly labeled as satire at the top of every article -- presumably some people are mistaking it for news. So, anything where a naive person might mistakenly place unwarranted trust.

Some sources that seem to meet the criteria are not included on the list. Such overlooked/omitted sources include Fox News and The National Enquirer, and numerous overlooked political satire sites (of which there are many).

Sometimes you have to search a bit to find the listing for something referred to by more than one name. So Alex Jones is not listed under that name, but his site Infowars is. PoliticusUSA is listed as Politics USA, but when you click over to the detail page it shows that they mean the website PoliticusUSA.com --However, the Infowars detail page does not mention Alex Jones by name at all, so you just need to know that Alex Jones and Infowars are commonly used to refer to the same site.

To get to the detail page for a listing, click on the right-arrowhead > at the right of the name in the list. (Looks like a mathematical greater-than symbol.)

The detail page will tell more about the site, including why it is listed. Except for satire sites, almost every such write-up I've looked at (including the one for DU) ends with the sentence "It is among the most untrustworthy sources in the media.", so that description in itself seems to be meaningless. The part that precedes that summation contains some description, though, such as left or right, anti-scientific, and so on.

No list is perfect. Lists require verification and maintenance. So this list is not to be taken as definitive; One still needs to check stories in some additional way, such as googling the story, and, for obviously questionable stories, checking fact-check sites such as Snopes and Politifact. However, as a purely practical expedient, checking the list might be a good first step. It is especially useful for finding well-established satire sources such as The Onion and Borowitz Report.

Here is a link to the DU discussion post for the conversation on possible establishment of a DU Fake News policy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028857074

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Reply #29)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 11:25 PM

31. It doesn't list the National Enquirer?! But lists Raw Story and Mother Jones?!?

That list is as wack as the one he posted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chicago1980 (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 03:12 PM

13. I was

in my 20's during the Nixon Watergate mess. The Nixon White House did EVERYTHING it could to keep people from testifying, claiming executive privilege, attorney/client rights, etc.
The cool thing (and this could be a BIG difference!) was that the head of the investigating committee was a Republican, just like NIXON!
Hmmmmmmm, what Republican would you count on now?

(DAMN, I can't find that little "hands on his hips, toe-tapping guy!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chicago1980 (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 03:15 PM

14. Hope she has 24 hour

...security. Including a trusted driver.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chicago1980 (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 03:22 PM

15. How will that happen without the republican's ok?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chicago1980 (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 03:51 PM

17. First Game of Thrones

Then Joy, Rachael, and now this. This really is the year of the woman!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chicago1980 (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 04:17 PM

19. Best news yet today, I have read.

None of us want to see them succeed in their cover-up. The truth must come out with accountability and consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chicago1980 (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 04:38 PM

21. GOOD, lets get this Russia thing ON THE RECORD

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread