Senator blasts NSA chief: ‘What you feel isn’t relevant, admiral'

[Jhhnn]

Again, read the first post. All your answers are there. Coats says he had no legal justification for not answering the questions posed by the Senate commitee. Meaning it's not classified and the White House didn't try to exert executive privilege.

That's not quite what was said. Coates said he didn't know if he had legal justification or not. He also offered to tell the committee all he knows, in private.

 

[Jhhnn]

Uh, there is no justification. Don't take the BS talking point that somehow if info on this is revealed, that the investigation will be foiled. That makes no sense. It's just a BS talking point by Republicans to try to keep the mess hidden for as long as possible, so they have a chance with some legislation.

This is a good thread on it by someone on twitter.

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/872495694308925440

That's not what's been said at all. None of the recalcitrant witnesses made that claim. They simply refused to reveal classified information in an open hearing. King knew it before he asked the questions. His goal is to discredit the IC, & you're playing right into it.

If he really wants answers rather than that he'll take their testimony in a closed hearing.

 

[Pulsar]

That's not what's been said at all. None of the recalcitrant witnesses made that claim. They simply refused to reveal classified information in an open hearing. King knew it before he asked the questions. His goal is to discredit the IC, & you're playing right into it.

If he really wants answers rather than that he'll take their testimony in a closed hearing.

Not true. He would have known legally for a fact if the info was classified. He wasn't SURE if he had a basis for not answering. Nuances.

 

[Jhhnn]

Not true. He would have known legally for a fact if the info was classified. He wasn't SURE if he had a basis for not answering. Nuances.

As I pointed out, Coates claims the information to be classified at 00:50 of the provided video.

Coates isn't a lawyer. He's just a guy trying to his job the best he knows how & revealing classified information in an open hearing obviously didn't seem to him to be a good way to do that. Like I said, if King wants the info more than he wants a soapbox he can get it in a closed hearing.

 

[emperus]

No - he said he's not SURE if he has a legal basis. It's not the same thing. Even the smallest nuance is important in politics.

If he isn't sure he has has a legal basis for not answering the question. Then he should answer the question. Again, the senators went through the two scenarios. The information wasn't classified and there was no Executive privilege claim. I'm not sure what you are even arguing.

 

[Jhhnn]

If he isn't sure he has has a legal basis for not answering the question. Then he should answer the question. Again, the senators went through the two scenarios. The information wasn't classified and there was no Executive privilege claim. I'm not sure what you are even arguing.

Your conclusion that the info is not classified contradicts the sworn testimony of the head of the NSA at 00:50 of the linked video. I figure he's more of an authority than you are.

 

[edcoolio]

Your conclusion that the info is not classified contradicts the sworn testimony of the head of the NSA at 00:50 of the linked video. I figure he's more of an authority than you are.

Logical.

 

[emperus]

Your conclusion that the info is not classified contradicts the sworn testimony of the head of the NSA at 00:50 of the linked video. I figure he's more of an authority than you are.

You should actually watch the whole hearing. And ask yourself. Why would Trump asking Coats to talk to the FBI director be classified.

 

[Jhhnn]

You should actually watch the whole hearing. And ask yourself. Why would Trump asking Coats to talk to the FBI director be classified.

Coates asserted that it is. I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to contradict him.

I figure Mueller will come up with honest answers to all of it if Repubs like King can't muck it up beforehand.

 

[jackstar7]

Consider if you will, Jhhnn being a reasonable and even-handed examiner of this news, even giving deference to these officials.

If you don't find that behavior telling about what he really thinks is going on, then you must be new here.

 

[Roflmouth]

People are not thinking about who these people are and what's been said before. These people are Nazis according to Trump and they won't do dishonorable or illegal acts when he tells them to. They have no use for Trump, don't like or trust him.

But they aren't forthcoming and therefore they are protecting Trump. That makes absolutely no sense. So why not tell Congress everything?

Mueller. You can bet your ass that he hasn't been standing around with his thumb up his ass. He's known for an almost frightening attention to detail. There's virtually no chance that the members being questioned have not had communication with and have been advised by Mueller on the possible legal issues.

I can understand the Congressman's anger, but yes he and his committee have a lower priority when it comes to justice than Mueller's authority in potential criminal matters.

We can have all the gory details or we can have justice. Pick one and only one.

You be sure to leave the night light on for that "justice" around the time Trump's second term ends.

 

[woolfe9998]

Even Burr (R) laid into them at the end. Same with McCain. These 4 are on thin ice as far as not answering the committee on unclassified questions.

I'd also point out, that not one of them stated "that didn't happen" in regards to POTUS asking them to work on Comey. A simple answer (which they can't give, because it's false) would have ended it.

Let's face it. The chances of it not having happened are close to a statistical zero. We also had media reports stating that Trump directly asked Comey to kill the Flynn investigation, and we know now that is true. These media reports were in the exact same vein and probably even from the same sources. If Trump asked Comey directly, it's entirely consistent that he would also have tried going through others. Then these guys refuse to answer the question when they could simply have denied it.

It's true. The only question is if or when they'll admit it publicly.

 

[emperus]

Coates asserted that it is. I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to contradict him.

I figure Mueller will come up with honest answers to all of it if Repubs like King can't muck it up beforehand.

But the majority of Senators on the Panel believed it wasn't classified. That's why they kept asking the questions and were frustrated why they weren't getting an answer.

 

[Jhhnn]

But the majority of Senators on the Panel believed it wasn't classified. That's why they kept asking the questions and were frustrated why they weren't getting an answer.

How would they know whether or not it's classified when they have to ask questions to find out what it is?

It's just grandstanding. All they need to do to have the answers they seek is to conduct a closed hearing.

 

[Zorba]

The quality of trolling on this board has taken such a nosedive. At least DSF sorta tries.

The problem is all of the smart conservatives here are completely against Trump too, so this board has basically become everyone with a brain vs the trolls. It has really hurt the debate quality of the board.

 

[emperus]

How would they know whether or not it's classified when they have to ask questions to find out what it is?

It's just grandstanding. All they need to do to have the answers they seek is to conduct a closed hearing.

The questions were to get to the facts of what had been reported. The Senators knew what was reported and I believe the Senators of the Intelligence Committee are capable of understanding what material is classified.
I would generally agree about politicians grandstanding, but after watching the hearing, I don't believe that was the case. When Coats basically says he's not sure he has a legal justification for answering a question. You then have to ask yourself whey he didn't answer the question. Also, you can't give a statement like you never felt pressured, yet then chose not to answer the question whether the president ever directed you.

Honestly, the witnesses gave a big FU to the committee. And I believe that Congress has an important role in oversight and they have to assert themselves esp. in the era of Trump.

Btw, it sounded like they didn't want to answer the questions in a classified setting anyhow. And again, how and why is any of this classified? We as Americans should be able to know whether out president directed the DNI to subvert an investigation. I'm not a fan of Comey but I do appreciate what he is doing tomm (doing it in an open session).

And here is Laurence Tribe on it.
There is no legal basis at all. What we witnessed from Coats, Rogers, Rubenstein, and McCabe was contempt of Congress in all but name.
https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/872590878963007488?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^news|twgr^tweet

 

[Maxima1]

That's not what's been said at all. None of the recalcitrant witnesses made that claim. They simply refused to reveal classified information in an open hearing. King knew it before he asked the questions.

I didn't watch the whole thing, but I know Coats said that he thought it was inappropriate because of the ongoing investigation. In Watergate/Iran Contra, the witnesses didn't refuse to answer because of a separate investigation. Their behavior is odd, especially with the BS "didn't feel pressured" response, while simultaneously refusing to answer such a basic question. Anyway, I wasn't specifically talking about them, but what you posted prior. You said King was going to potentially ruin the investigation with his questioning.

His goal is to discredit the IC, & you're playing right into it.

I don't know why you bash King right away, but you'll take whatever comes from Trump appointees at face value, since they are "IC".. Coats' previous testimony contradicts the news that came out. Contrary to what you claim, I don't believe any of them committed to answering questions in private. There really isn't any good reason why it shouldn't be public, though, even if they try arguing Rogers/Coats = national security while Comey is fair game.

Discredit IC? This nothing to do with that. It's an issue with appointments made by Donnie.

https://thinkprogress.org/pompeo-wikileaks-cia-9756f59b09af

 

[Jhhnn]

I didn't watch the whole thing, but I know Coats said that he thought it was inappropriate because of the ongoing investigation. In Watergate/Iran Contra, the witnesses didn't refuse to answer because of a separate investigation. Their behavior is odd, especially with the BS "didn't feel pressured" response, while simultaneously refusing to answer such a basic question. Anyway, I wasn't specifically talking about them, but what you posted prior. You said King was going to potentially ruin the investigation with his questioning.



I don't know why you bash King right away, but you'll take whatever comes from Trump appointees at face value, since they are "IC".. Coats' previous testimony contradicts the news that came out. Contrary to what you claim, I don't believe any of them committed to answering questions in private. There really isn't any good reason why it shouldn't be public, though, even if they try arguing Rogers/Coats = national security while Comey is fair game.

Discredit IC? This nothing to do with that. It's an issue with appointments made by Donnie.

https://thinkprogress.org/pompeo-wikileaks-cia-9756f59b09af

I must admit to a mistake. I identified Rogers as Coats, which was incorrect. OTOH, your accusation that it's about Trump appointees is highly inaccurate. Coats is that while Rogers, Rosenstein & McCabe are career civil service or military, holdovers from the Obama admin & earlier. Dunno why you drag Pompeo into it other than as distraction.

None of them argued that Comey is fair game, either, no matter how cleverly you insinuate that as fact.

 

[Pens1566]

Let's face it. The chances of it not having happened are close to a statistical zero. We also had media reports stating that Trump directly asked Comey to kill the Flynn investigation, and we know now that is true. These media reports were in the exact same vein and probably even from the same sources. If Trump asked Comey directly, it's entirely consistent that he would also have tried going through others. Then these guys refuse to answer the question when they could simply have denied it.

It's true. The only question is if or when they'll admit it publicly.

Agree. The conversation happened. If it didn't, there's nothing preventing Coates/Rogers from simply saying "didn't happen". Instead of the roundabout admissions they gave.

The problem is all of the smart conservatives here are completely against Trump too, so this board has basically become everyone with a brain vs the trolls. It has really hurt the debate quality of the board.

At this point, I'd say the bolded should be changed simply to "posters". This isn't a liberal/conservative thing any longer. It's right and wrong. The only ones left defending Trump are die hard nutters. The deplorables if you will. And boy, are they ever living up to that moniker.

 

[emperus]

Why are Republicans still trying to defend Flynn at this point?

 

[ivwshane]

Why are Republicans still trying to defend Flynn at this point?

Party before country.

 

[emperus]

McCain seems off. He is making 0 sense.

 

[ivwshane]

McCain seems off. He is making 0 sense.

Like zero!!

 

[emperus]

Like zero!!

WTF did I just hear? It made 0 sense.

 

[Drako]

McCain seems off. He is making 0 sense.

Is he drunk or something?