'Your unwillingness speaks volumes': Senator rattles intel officials for stonewalling on Trump

[DonViejo]

Source: RawStory



TRAVIS GETTYS
07 JUN 2017 AT 12:02 ET

Democratic senator grilled intelligence and law enforcement officials on their conversations with President Donald Trump and the firing of FBI director James Comey.

Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, refused to confirm or deny reports that Trump had asked him to push back on the FBI investigation into his campaign ties to Russia, and NSA director Mike Rogers and deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein also refused to discuss such efforts by the president.

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) then questioned acting FBI director Andrew McCabe whether he’d discussed with Comey the president’s reported request for loyalty from the law enforcement official, but he refused to answer.

“You’re not invoking executive privilege and, obviously, it’s not classified,” Heinrich said. “This is the Oversight Committee — why would it not be appropriate for you to share that conversation with us?” McCabe said he’d let Comey speak for himself Thursday, when he testified before Congress.



Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/your-unwillingness-speaks-volumes-senator-rattles-intel-officials-for-stonewalling-on-trump/

[mac56]

1. I haven't seen this much smooth, slick dancing

since "American Bandstand."

[lark]

2. Loyal puppets to orange assface, traitors to their country, every one of them!

[ananda]

4. As Scott Dworkin points out:

Reminder: All of these people testifying today can be fired by Trump

[Delphinus]

17. Traitors -

that is EXACTLY what they need to be called.

[George II]

3. They're not answering, then they say "I stand by my statement".

[MGKrebs]

5. I'm not as discouraged as some of you.

If they see litigation in the future they wouldn't want to poison the well with public comments. I would think that if they saw this going nowhere they wouldn't have a problem answering.
Besides, words like "pressured" are not technical or legal terms. It doesn't really serve any legal purpose to respond in terms like that.
Not sure why they wouldn't even admit to having a conversation or not though. That's going to get interesting.

[OhNo-Really]

9. Agree 100%

There have been instances when statements made in a public congressional hearing have impeded prosecution.

Oliver North
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/21/us/north-conviction-reversed-in-part-review-is-ordered.html

[Pacifist Patriot]

18. Too many are losing sight of that.

And frankly, I don't fault someone for saying that Comey can speak for himself when he knows darned well Comey is appearing the following day.

[gibraltar72]

6. How deep

does the treason go in to the Republican party?

[ananda]

12. Is this even a question?

It's a bottomless pit of treason.

[Drum]

7. This won't be the end of it...there is still grand-jury testimony should Mueller wish.

And they'll HAVE to answer.

Or am I wrong supposing that??

[riversedge]

8. Mueller hasn't imposed any restriction on the witnesses. They imposed it themselves because they don

Eric Geller?Verified account @ericgeller 27m27 minutes ago

Eric Geller Retweeted rcohen

These non-answers will not stand. The truth will slip out. sooner or later.

Link to tweet

Warner spokeswoman --->

Eric Geller added,
rcohen @rcohen
Mueller hasn't imposed any restriction on the witnesses. They imposed it themselves because they don't want to answer questions.
11 replies 271 retweets 317 likes






Eric Geller?Verified account @ericgeller 24m24 minutes ago

Eric Geller Retweeted mieke eoyang

Everyone is so angry.

Eric Geller added,
mieke eoyangVerified account @MiekeEoyang
.@SenKamalaHarris pushing Rogers on when he chooses to discuss Trump convos. He tries to interrupt. She's not having it.
17 replies 46 retweets 133 likes



....................................

Link to tweet

rcohen? @rcohen 41m41 minutes ago

rcohen Retweeted Kyle Griffin

This is vital. "I don't wanna" is NOT a valid defense to refuse to answer questions posed by the U.S. Congress.

rcohen added,
5:22
Kyle GriffinVerified account @kylegriffin1
This exchange: King presses McCabe, Rogers, Coats on refusal to discuss convos w/ Comey & Trump, demands legal basis
8 replies 110 retweets 128 likes
rcohen? @rcohen

Mueller hasn't imposed any restriction on the witnesses. They imposed it themselves because they don't want to answer questions.

[Plucketeer]

10. Probably not possible

but I wish there were some truly HONEST estimate of how much today's charade cost J.Q.Public. These intelligence heads - you hafta wonder if they're able to have regular conversations with even their family members? They came to (LOL) testify - important stuff like: Was it sunny when you came here this morning?

Why, I'd have to confer with my colleagues here before I answered yes or no, but I seem to recall needing my sunglasses in traversing here.

Well then.... could I get you to confirm whether or not you're a fan of Duck Soup?

I'd answer that if it weren't for the fact that duck farmers would be adversely affected by my preference - given my professional stature, you understand.

Like I said, there's likely no way to guesstimate what it cost us to have these four "intelligence experts" show up - knowing FULL WELL they weren't going to say a THING beyond: "I can't comment on that."
Then factor in all the committee members and their entourage of staff and assistants, said staff FULL WELL AWARE that they weren't gonna coax ANY definitive answers from the four figureheads. And tell me how many hundreds of thousands this cost taxpayers. All we've gotten is a replacement for Barnum & Bailey - replete with elephants and clowns in suits.

[Rene]

11. No wonder Drumpf said that sarcastic "Wish him Good Luck" yesterday.

the fix/stonewalling was in and he knew what they were planning to do to obfuscate the committee..

[dalton99a]

14. +1

[The_jackalope]

13. I suspect their answers will be very different in camera.

Answering some of those questions in public would have caused a national paroxysm that would set back the real investigations by years, or even render them impossible. The in camera answers are what count, and we're not going to get to feast our emotions on those for quite a while - if ever.

[Ligyron]

16. Agree.

I think if Trump didn't discuss the FBI investigation relative to those topics they would have said so. At least their non-answers won't interfer with possible prosecutions later.

[Louis1895]

15. If I were a Senator my first question would be:

Did you pledge an oath of loyalty to Donald Trump?

If yes, my second question would be:

Does your oath to uphold the US Constitution supersede your oath of loyalty to the President?

On second thought, the second question is all that is needed.
•If the respondent answers "Yes", that means he pledged an oath of allegiance to the President.
•If he answers "No", that also means he pledged an oath of allegiance to the President.
•If he says he cannot answer that question for privacy reasons, that also means he pledged an oath of allegiance to the President.
•I think the only other answer is that he pledged an oath to uphold the US Constitution but did not pledge oath of loyalty to the President.

[StarryNite]

19. Good points.

[hamsterjill]

20. Someone please clue me in!

I only was able to watch a small snippet of the hearing this morning, but I saw parts of what is discussed in this article. Did not see much thereafter.

WHY is Mike Rogers defending Trump????????? I don't get it, or perhaps I am clueless because I've not seen the whole thing????

[DeminPennswoods]

21. Wasn't defending Trump, just trying not to

get caught between a rock and hard place.

[duhneece]

22. Senator Heinrich is an amazing Senator, one who is making a national name for himself

“You can clear an awful lot up by saying it never happened,” Heinrich said. “I think your unwillingness to answer a very basic question speaks volumes.”

[TomSlick]

23. What arogance.

They recognize there is no legal reason to do so but still refused to answer. Even the Repubs on the committee should have been appalled at the contempt.