Rosenstien: "I will not answer any questions about Russia investigations." Neither will McCabe...

[Miles Archer]

...Coats or Rogers. All part of a cover-up.

Link to tweet

[SHRED]

1. They are republicans first

What did we expect?

[Blue_true]

24. Rosenstein is a Democrat, I think. His wife ran for office.

There are legitimate reasons for not answering in public, in particular because an investigator with real power is investigating the same issue.

[deurbano]

29. I think that's McCabe.

[Blue_true]

31. Right. Thanks. nt

[riversedge]

2. Crap!!

[Zoonart]

3. Fire up those arrows, kids...

they're circling the wagons.

[Pacifist Patriot]

4. I'm not sure it's actually being part of a cover up.

I don't think anyone wants to be the one to throw the grenade in the room.

I think they are well aware of what is unraveling in the investigation and it's possible answering these questions now might compromise the investigation.

Maybe a little CYA thrown in for good measure.

I think they want to let Mueller cross the i's and dot the t's.

[Hortensis]

30. Yes. They appeared before a Republican committee

that they know is focused above all on damage control for the Republican Party.

These guys also know more than almost anyone that knowledge is power and how to hold it close. Eventually they'll be subpoenaed to testify before the special prosecutor.

[Ilsa]

41. Yep, I think that's what they want: to be compelled to

provide sworn testimony. It's a defense against radical republucans who might be out to get them and ruin their careers and their lives.

I think there is a worthwhile method to their madness.

Then again, I could be completely fucking wrong.

[Blue_Roses]

44. I'm with you on this

I don't see it as coverup at all. I think they know what they say can harm the investigation, so they are holding things close.

[Barack_America]

46. Correct.

[beachbum bob]

5. refusing to answer doe not make this go away by a longshot

and when this gets thru to the Special Counsel, Coats, Rodgers, etc could plead the 5th and then be charged with obstruction...

but saying we won';t answer or we didn't "feel" pressured is not answer the question of whether or not Trump or any one else asked you to back off from russiagate

[Pacifist Patriot]

7. This is tv. Mueller is where the real action is.

These non-answers don't surprise me in the least.

[WoonTars]

48. Yup. They can play is coy as they want for the tv cameras...

...but when questioned by Mueller that shit won't fly...

[Maraya1969]

6. Can any of them get in trouble for what they are doing now? Is any of this obstruction of justice?

.......I just tuned in a few minutes ago and they are just avoiding all the questions. Why is the acting FBI director saying Trump never tried to put pressure on anyone to stop the investigation into him?

[Pacifist Patriot]

8. I think that's why they are answering (and non-answering) the way they are.

Precisely because they don't want their words to obstruct justice. Blowing things wide open could compromise Mueller's work.

[Maraya1969]

9. OK. And that is what they are saying up-thread. Just because I'm not sure how this works doesn't

mean it is not working!

[furtheradu]

13. HA! Love Your post!

[Sancho]

11. perjury would be more likely, so they won't answer

...King has them in a corner

[nycbos]

10. I didn't expect them too.

There is a special council.

[gratuitous]

12. Pro tip: This isn't a Perry Mason episode

If you were expecting anyone to suddenly break, stand up and point to the gallery, "It was him! He's the one who made me do it! It was him all along!" with a quick camera swing to President Trump, startled, then jumping up and running for the door to the hearing room and intercepted by a brace of marshals, you were bound to be disappointed.

Open congressional sessions where damning testimony comes out is what got Oliver North (for example) off the hook in Iran-contra, exonerated on a technicality. As noted above, it's Mueller's investigation where the action is.

[Caliman73]

15. True. North also go immunity, then admitted he broke the law.

Which is why the FBI or other investigative agency didn't want to offer Flynn immunity for his testimony this time. They got screwed last time with North and do not want to repeat that situation.

I keep reminding myself that Nixon was was in office for 2 years after the initial information broke about the break in at the Watergate Complex. It started in January of 72 and ended with impeachment and resignation in August of 74. We tend to have short attention spans and expect everything to be wrapped up like the aforementioned episode of Parry Mason, Columbo, or I guess Law and Order would be more contemporary.

[C Moon]

16. Wow. That was a long wait: Jan 72 to Aug 74. :O

[Caliman73]

18. I am not happy about this at all. Trump is destructive.

We do have to remember though, that we are a nation of laws and rules. We also have to remember that what we are trying to figure out is whether the person elected (albeit by a minority and in suspect circumstances) to the highest executive office in the county is going to be sanctioned and possibly removed from office. That has never happened. Even Nixon was not removed, but resigned. Regardless of whether he is guilty or not, this is going to have a dramatic and long lasting effect on the country. We will find out whether the president worked with a foreign power to subvert our democratic processes and used the office of the presidency to obstruct justice.

My suspicion is that it will not stop at Trump as there was communication with Pence, and members of Congress as well.

This is going to be a lengthy and messy process.

On the bright side, the process can be used on the political side to motivate and animate Democrats to be up for the elections coming next year and in 2018. The process will move a lot quicker of the Congress is Democratic, and not obstructing the process. We have to get out there and get the Republicans out of power.

[Amaryllis]

25. We also have to remember that there are good guys behind the scenes doing stuff we don't know about!

Like this:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9169246

And Sen. Wyden's aide told me not to lose hope because there are a lot of good people working on this behind the scenes that we don't know about.

[CentralMass]

28. +1

[jannyd65]

38. I couldn't agree more....

Caliman73, I have been thinking that for some time that this is deeper and wider than even we and possibly even the investigators thought. This might not only extend to Trump and his cronies (Bannon, Kushner), but also members of Congress, possible FBI personnel and of course, the cabinet.

Malcolm Nance said, i believe it was early Fall, that we might have a constitutional crisis on our hands if Trump was elected.

I have always thought and still think what information was collected at that time and what has come to light since. It just struck me as odd that a former NSA agent would say something like that if there was not already some suspicions of what the Orange Menace was up to.

I am only speculating-I have no evidence or am I trying to start any conspiracy theories, just an observation of watching Nance from that time on to now.

The testimony of witnesses in front of congressional committees will not be as earth-shattering as we would like, but unfortunately we have to be patient and hope the Judicial Branch and the 4th Estate do their jobs.

[charlyvi]

32. Nixon was not impeached.

People tend to forget that. He resigned before he could be impeached, after even Goldwater advised him that impeachment was inevitable.

On edit: although resigning in disgrace wasn't any better for his reputation.

[Caliman73]

43. You are correct.

Articles of Impeachment were drawn up and up for a vote, then in August after the "smoking gun" tape, Nixon resigned rather than be impeached.

[Beartracks]

23. Ha ha! Of course it wouldn't happen that way!

Trump would be on the golf course, not in the courtroom.

Silly.



==============

[NCTraveler]

14. How is not discussing an ongoing investigation a "cover-up"?

My take-away is there is some meat in that investigation that they don't want to obstruct or damage it.

[charlyvi]

20. Bingo!

Corn is wrong to conclude they are part of a cover up based on this hearing. All four of them stated that it would be improper to discuss much of what they were being asked because 1) any comments might be detrimental to Meuhler's investigation or 2) the answers could not be given in a public forum due to confidentiality concerns.

[Amaryllis]

26. Frustrating as it is, we do not want them revealing info that would compromise the investigation.

This is global; Watergate was not. This is far bigger and more complex.

[charlyvi]

27. Good Point.

[Wiseman32218]

54. Exactly!!!!!!

[WePurrsevere]

55. While a cover-up is possible (& juicy), what you're saying is probably accurate IME. nt

[malthaussen]

17. It's an ongoing investigation.

One does not comment on ongoing investigations.

-- Mal

[lostnfound]

21. And who judges what is covered by that carve out.

No judge to say "answer the question".

[walkingman]

35. Sorry, you're wrong

The ongoing investigation is by the Special Counsel which is totally seperate of the Committee. This is the Senate Intelligence Committee who has oversight responsibilities. They simply refused to answer the questions. This confirmed that this is a COVER UP based on partisanship. I think they should be held in contempt of congress.

If there is any integrity left in Congress at all the real truth will come out and I suspect it will be the downfall of Trump and hopefully the GOP for a long time. It can't come soon enough for me. Although I think Pence is not much better but maybe not a mental case. Although I worry what Jesus might tell him to do.

[Duppers]

19. This is a COVER-UP.

Now they're hinting at incidental info collected on Amer citizen cannot be applied when lacking a FISA Court order.

Fuckers.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

22. Evan McMullin tweet

"To be clear, Coats & Rogers are refusing to answer unclassified questions in an unclassified hearing to protect President Trump politically."

Link to tweet

[DeminPennswoods]

37. Exactly

Sen King was driving this point home with every question after they refused to answer.

[lillypaddle]

34. Why were they

discussing their testimony with WH counsel? Were they obligated to do so?

[lpbk2713]

36. So they conspired against Congress?

What other group arrangements did they make?

[Thomas Hurt]

39. None what to be the mark that out right says Trump violated the law.

They are not Mueller, they are not the Congress, who is the body that has the power to really make that determination.

[INdemo]

40. Its all show. It is good TV viewing. Democrats, unless they are very naive,

knew before these intelligence officers took their seat what kind of circus this would be. It will be the same tomorrow with Comey.

[MrPurple]

42. But, if Trump's new FBI Director & Attorney General are able to quash Mueller's investigation

There won't be a public record of testimony about Trump's obstruction. The details are over my head, but I don't really understand why testifying to Congress about Trump obstructing their investigation or collusion with Russia would invalidate the investigation. John Dean testified publicly during Watergate that Nixon obstructed justice. It's the public testimony that would sway public opinion enough to create momentum for impeachment hearings.

My concern is that without public testimony, Trump and his zombie supporters will be able to continue to claim the allegations are all just lies created by liberal media, and that if he can get people at Justice who will disempower Mueller, he could never be held accountable.

[bresue]

45. I want to know why McCabe is lying?

Or am I the only seeing that Comey testifies he discusses with Senior leadership, but then McCabe states he never discussed with Comey?

Either it is or it is not.....

[MrPurple]

47. One of the Democratic Senators should have asked Coats....

"Is it true that you have been sexually harassed in your office?", or "Is it true that while in the White House, you accepted bribery payments exceeding $100,000?"

And then when he said, "No Senator, that's not true," they could have replied, "Ahh, so you are willing to testify about things that DIDN'T happen. If nothing inappropriate happened with President Trump, it seems that you would also simply state that."

[Generic Brad]

49. Last time I saw something like this was in junior high

"I don't want to." "I don't feel like answering, teach".

This was the classic junior high smart ass defense. It works only if you have a completely inept authority figure posing the question. You know - like a Republican run Congress.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

50. K$R

[Cha]

51. Guilty assholes refuse to answer questions..

on Russia!

[dinq_92882]

52. he was an expert on non-answers

rosenstien was an expert on providing non-answers throughout.

[spanone]

53. they were 'Hostile Witnesses'

A hostile witness, otherwise known as an adverse witness or an unfavorable witness, is a witness at trial whose testimony on direct examination is either openly antagonistic or appears to be contrary to the legal position of the party who called the witness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_witness