Nunes Tries to Use Steele Dossier to Defend Trump During Closed-Door Hearing

[Zorro]

During a closed-door impeachment meeting on Capitol Hill, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) brought up a topic that surprised some attendees: the Steele dossier. The context, according to three sources familiar with the episode, was his effort to explain why President Trump might be “upset” about Ukraine.

Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee that is leading the impeachment probe, said some of the dossier’s contents dealt with Ukraine, and that the Clintons paid for it. Some attendees said it seemed oddly divorced from the topic at hand–namely, whether Trump pressured the Ukrainian government to investigate one of his political opponents.

“It was nutso,” said one person familiar with the exchange. “It was awkward.”

That source added that Ambassador Gordon Sondland—America’s envoy to the European Union, who was questioned at the meeting—appeared perplexed by Nunes’ commentary.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/devin-nunes-raised-steele-dossier-in-closed-door-trump-impeachment-hearing-with-gordon-sondland

[Kid Berwyn]

1. Nunes is nutso.

Kompromat in plain brain.

[spanone]

2. Another coffee boy for trump

[BumRushDaShow]

3. Why is anyone - especially the aides who apparently leaked this

perplexed by Nunes?

The GOP is not operating with any type of normalcy anymore. Those days are gone. They have flown off the cliff into the netherworld. And they have planted their looniest of loons onto every major committee - the Gymsuit Jordans, the Devin Nutses, the Matt Grates, the Louis Gocarts.

[riversedge]

5. You are right. The committees are Infested with Republican stinking Rats who obstruct obstuct!!!

[machoneman]

21. This is why the Speaker is holding off on an impeachment vote! If the vote is successful....

as it will be it will instantly give the republiscums on the House committees full subpoena powers and the ability to call witnesses where the Democrats can't stop them from making-up totally lunatic charges and clogging the impeachment hearings with nonsensical questions of witnesses.

One can bet they will call for President Obama, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, Joe Biden and a ton of other Obama staffers in a partisan effort to 'prove' the Steele dossier was fake, the FBI, CIA and the then DOJ staffs were all engaged in a massive covert action to conspire against Trump, the Republicans and America in general.

Any doubters here?

[malaise]

7. You win the thread

[BumRushDaShow]

8. During the Strzok hearing, Rep. Bonnie Coleman was fed up and told Louis Gocart

"You need your medication!".

[malaise]

9. He does

24/7

[Garrett78]

13. It's like Rep. Rooney saying he's open to impeachment following Mulvaney's admission...

...that there was quid pro quo. First of all, there doesn't need to be quid pro quo. Secondly, it was already evident from the use of the word "though" that there was quid pro quo. Lastly, and most importantly, where the fuck has he been for the last 3+ years? Of course Trump has colluded with foreign governments for his personal political gain.

But, hey, welcome aboard the reality train.

[BumRushDaShow]

14. The sad thing about the "quid pro quo" thing

is that the media keeps equivocating by allowing the argument of whether it is needed or not, to be put out there.

It's just like the media also allowing the argument about whether a "formal vote" on an impeachment inquiry is needed, by very carefully neglecting to mention the impeachment process of Andrew Johnson that had no such, and instead only focusing on what happened with Nixon & Clinton.

[Garrett78]

15. Volumes can be written about how pitiful the media, as a whole, is.

Unfortunately, we have an uphill battle to alter the narrative about the media after allowing the Republican Party to control that narrative for 40+ years, with little pushback. "Liberal media" is a household term. This has had devastating consequences.

[BumRushDaShow]

17. "after allowing the Republican Party to control that narrative"

It wasn't so much us "allowing" any control, it was that THEY own the media and we don't. They chose to spend their money on buying the microphones and the printing presses and we spent our money on helping people.

[Garrett78]

19. Media consolidation has increased greatly, but that doesn't prevent Democrats with a platform...

...from vigilantly beating back the narrative about "liberal media" over the last several decades. But that hasn't happened. It wasn't seen as a priority.

Anyone with a bully pulpit should have been railing against the false equivalencies, the fluff, the warped sense of what constitutes fairness, the consolidation, etc. Media reform and public education reform (such as making media literacy mandatory curriculum) must be priorities if anything is to change.

We can't have a situation where Candidate A's 1 transgression and Candidate B's 1000 crimes get equal time in the name of "fairness" or because it's profitable. Media should be publicly owned and protected against budget cuts. It's a vital component of a democratic republic.

[BumRushDaShow]

20. We don't have any "bully pulpit"

if we don't own the cameras and microphones and the presses because it is not in their best interest to report our side when we do stomp our feet and pound the podium. At one of Nancy Pelosi's pressers, she essentially made note about why none of them showed up for her regular briefings but managed to appear because there was an expectation of an update on the impeachment inquiry.

"Vigilance" goes nowhere when no one will report on your words.

I agree about "publicly owned" media but then if the "wrong side" is in control of the government and thus controls that "public media", then we're back to square one.

[Garrett78]

22. Democrats have been in front of microphones a lot over the last 40 years.

In fact, you just referenced a Pelosi presser. And we've had two 2-term presidents, the ultimate bully pulpit. But a media critique (including a critique of consolidation) has simply not been a priority the way it has been for Republicans.

And Democrats appear on TV programs regularly. Plenty of opportunities to address this issue. It shouldn't be left to the Jon Stewarts of the world.

By constantly beating the "liberal media" drum (right to the media's face), the media becomes gun-shy about appearing biased and goes out of it's way to promote false equivalencies.

[BumRushDaShow]

23. But you missed what I said

and contradicted what you said.

We will attempt to hold press briefings and few will show up unless it's something "controversial" - and the "few" often end up mainly being CSPAN and maybe PBS. THAT is what I am saying about Pelosi's comment. A large group of media only suddenly showed up to hear updates to the impeachment inquiry, so she purposely started her remarks with where the House was with respect to the Medicare negotiated drug pricing initiatives, while reminding them of the fact that she had wished that many had been there for her previous briefings when that subject was initially discussed. Key point = "previous briefings"

I have seen people on DU continue to say "Where are the Democrats??" They are there giving press conferences but few if any will cover them except under narrow circumstances. The television programs CHOOSE to invite who THEY want on the air and when. Democrats can't "demand" to be on. That is the power that "ownership" gives you. The power of twitter and youtube has somewhat mitigated this ability to get a message out around the corporate-owned media, but is only available to those aware of it and monitoring those outlets.

And the entertainers will always be there because they are "entertainment". Political "televison" entertainment has been around since the days of Jack Paar (and all the late night variety shows), the Smother's Brothers and SNL, through to the latest crop of similar comedian-hosted shows. When the networks decided to "save money" by combining their Entertainment Divisions with their News Divisions, whatever credibility they had left went out the window. Ratings are king.

[Garrett78]

25. Again, we've had the ultimate bully pulpit for 16 of the last 27 years.

And Democrats appear on TV programs every single day. And Democrats take part in nationally televised debates. And so on.

Sorry, but there have been plenty of opportunities to publicly critique the media. They simply don't do it. At least not often. Republicans made it a priority and it has paid dividends.

If Democrats aren't getting proper coverage, that's all the more reason to call the media out when they do get coverage. Again, Democrats are in front of cameras every day. When they appear on TV, on the debate stage, etc. Republicans have manipulated the media into being gun-shy about calling attention to more than a fraction of Republican malfeasance. The constant "liberal media" drum took a toll. Democrats have never made it a priority to draw attention to that fact.

[BumRushDaShow]

27. We are going to have to agree to disagree

And as an example - some of our most vocal Democrats, prior to this latest group of Democrats just elected, have summarily had a media pile-on against them that was breathtaking (see Al Franken or Russ Feingold). Members like Maxine Waters were run through the media's wall-of-fire gauntlet before finally managing to breach the blockade. Part of a group of newly-elected Democrats, like AOC and her colleagues, self-dubbed "The Squad", have made inroads in getting media attention, but only because of the twisting of what they have said and done, and considering it "controversial". The current kerfuffle between Hillary and Tulsi only gets press attention because of the "cat fight" narrative that has been manufactured.

Ironically some of the pundit "firebrands" among the party like the Carvilles, Rendells, and Axelrods, only managed to get on the air if they were known to do some digs against the party. Michael Moore is a prime example as well.

"Dog bites man" is uninteresting to them but "Man bites dog" catches their attention unfortunately.

This is why I maintain that we need to control our own media and set the rules because when the media is rigged against you, you don't have a chance.

[Garrett78]

28. But I don't disagree with most of that, and that's the point. Call that shit out.

What I disagree with is the notion that Democrats haven't had ample opportunity to call attention to the very things you're describing. They obviously have, and when they do, they should mention unbalanced coverage, false equivalencies, fluff stories, consolidation, etc.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama had the bully pulpit for 16 *years*. They had ample opportunity to make a point of criticizing the media. You can't tell me that Clinton and Obama didn't frequently have a captive audience. As did Gore, Kerry and H. Clinton when they were running. Democrats go on TV programs every single day, and hold press conferences. There's a national convention every presidential election year. They are currently in the process of having a nationally televised debate every single month (10+ Democrats on stage for 3 hours every single month). I'm sorry, but it's simply not true to suggest they don't have opportunities to call out the media. They just haven't made it a priority in the way Republicans have, starting decades ago.

Democrats are in front of cameras every day talking about all sorts of important stuff. It's just that media criticism and the need for media reform is rarely one of those things they discuss. It'd be one thing if Democrats were never in front of cameras, but they are...every day...they just aren't talking about this issue.

[BumRushDaShow]

29. Again - agree to disagree

All the people you mention spent much of their time trying to beat back the bullshit that the media repeated over and over that was generated from the RW loons, thus being "forced to address it" rather than spend time working on their policies and priorities.

Did you forget the Bill Clinton bullshit "haircut-gate", let alone the whole Paul Jones/Monica Lewinski mess? Or what about the "Swiftboating" that Kerry went through (named after the bogus book written to attack him) or even the fucking "birther" shit, the "flag pin", or "tan suit" or "feet on the desk" fiascos Obama was forced to address? And Hillary with "Benghazi" and "emails"?

And people forget that "Citizen's United" was what? It was the name of a group that created a bullshit "film" that was anti-Hillary -



and they insisted they wanted it broadcast even with it considered an "ad" and "electioneering", which was against the election law at the time, and the case was taken all the way to the Supreme Court and the rest is history. I.e., a corporation became a "person" with First Amendment rights.

Throughout our elected officials' terms, the GOP manufactured bogus crap, just like you see them doing today, and when Democrats tried to parry against the crap that the GOP was spewing and their media was dutifully reporting on while spreading the falsehoods in doing so, all it did was call attention to it even more.

Without our own-controlled media, it's a lose-lose scenario. "Calling out" falls on deaf ears because it's not ours and they only care about what brings them more $$$.

[Timmygoat]

4. Can anyone

Take Nunes seriously, I always will think of him as the lurker in the bushes.

[abqtommy]

6. If I wanted rational behavior I'd talk to Nune's cow.

[blueinredohio]

10. Why doesn't anyone bring up that republicans started the dossier?

Then offered it to democrats when they realized Trump would be the republican nominee.

[Jim__]

11. They're trying to muddy the water by claiming that Hillary used foreign intelligence against Trump.

So, Trump is only doing what Hillary did in 2016. Of course, Hillary never contacted a foreign government and the origin of the Steele Dossier was based on an investigation of Trump started by the conservative Washington Beacon. I know that DUers know the story, but anyway, from wikipedia:

The Trump–Russia dossier, also known as the Steele dossier,[1] is a private intelligence report written from June to December 2016 containing allegations of misconduct and conspiracy between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Government of Russia during the 2016 election. The dossier comprises 17 memos based on reports from unnamed sources known to the author, Christopher Steele,[2] a former head of the Russia Desk for British intelligence (MI6), written for the private investigative firm Fusion GPS. The report alleges that Trump campaign members and Russian operatives conspired to interfere in the election to benefit Trump.[3] It also alleges that Russia sought to damage Hillary Clinton's candidacy, including sharing negative information about Clinton with the Trump campaign.[4] The dossier was published in full by BuzzFeed on January 10, 2017.[5] Several mainstream media outlets criticized BuzzFeed's decision to release it without verifying its allegations,[6][7] while others defended its release.[8]

In October 2015, Fusion GPS was contracted by conservative political website The Washington Free Beacon to provide general opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates. In April 2016, an attorney for Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC separately hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump, while The Free Beacon stopped its backing in May of 2016.[2] In June 2016, Fusion GPS subcontracted Steele's firm to compile the dossier. DNC officials denied knowing their attorney had contracted with Fusion GPS, and Steele asserted he was not aware the Clinton campaign was the recipient of his research until months after he contracted with Fusion GPS.[9][10] Following Trump's election as president, funding from Clinton and the DNC ceased, but Steele continued his research and was reportedly paid directly by Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn R. Simpson.[11] While compiling the dossier, Steele passed information to both British and American intelligence services.[12][13]

[2naSalit]

12. +1

[Garrett78]

16. Yep. And when the hearings go public, we'll see nothing but obfuscation from Republicans.

[not_the_one]

18. You mean the dossier where all allegations except ONE have been proven?

And THAT one will be proven when Pootie reaches his limit with the turdster, and does his Putius Pilate imitation...

(coming soon, on DVD and Blu Ray, and downloadable @ ipee_upee_weallpee.com)

[Mc Mike]

24. It's the Devil's Dossier, Devin. You can't use THAT.

Another hypocritical repuglimoron.

[True Blue American]

26. Maloney Acting Leader to replace Cummings

She will not put up with Republican hi jenks.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/17/carolyn-maloney-succeeds-elijah-cummings-as-house-oversight-chair.html

[Mc Mike]

30. Good woman. Stay strong, Rep Maloney.

Millions of real Americans are backing you.