Share This Article
Comments (9)
Why do you said that?
Because they asked real questions and didn't just make political speeches.
Did you ever get a clear understanding why he told world that he was reopening the investigation on Clinton but said nothing about the investigation on Trump?
That to was a real question.
He said the Russian investigation at the time was too early to comment on.
That is very interesting because that did not seem to stop him when it came to say that he was reopening the Clinton E-mail just weeks before the elections, when he personally seen any of the evidence. Now that is what I call EARLY.
Think Ron think. He announced no charges against Clinton on July 5, 2016. The Russia report didn't come out until December or January.
January 6, six months later.
Rice's refusal to testify, first reported by CNN, is the latest twist in the congressional investigations into possible links between Russia and the Trump campaign and the ongoing debate over whether the probes are truly independent and bipartisan.
Rice became a central part of the investigation when Trump said she may have committed a crime when she asked intelligence analysts to disclose the name of a Trump associate mentioned in an intelligence report. Rice has said she did nothing improper.
Her attorney, Kathryn Ruemmler, said Rice is supportive of the committee's investigation, but it is rare for Congress to ask for testimony from a former president's national security advisor.
The request for Rice's testimony also stood out, Ruemmler wrote in the letter, because it came after the hearing was announced and well after the other two witnesses — former acting Atty. Gen. Sally Yates and former National Intelligence Director James R. Clapper — had agreed to appear.
But unlike invitations extended to Yates and Clapper, Rice was invited to testify solely by subcommittee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), not jointly along with the panel's top Democrat, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Ruemmler said.
Ruemmler said in the letter that Whitehouse notified Rice in writing that he did not agree with Graham's invitation, which Ruemmler described as a "significant departure from the bipartisan invitations extended to other witnesses."
Post a Comment
Please log in to post comments.
Unlike the House Intel public testimony, yesterday's was actually useful.