WaPo: Trump asked DNI Coats to intervene with Comey on Russia investigation

[Hindsight was 2020]

It's obvious Coats an Rodgers are playing "wording" with these questions

[Admiral Kizaru]

So the takeaway is that Trump tried to influence the investigation but wasn't very good at it?

Sums him up tbh.

[The_Doctor]

ToddZwillich
@toddzwillich

Rubio: have you ever been ASKED by the president to influence an investigation? Coats: Won't answer in public; Rogers: Same

[Confused Democrat]

I'll just say this...

Angus King is a straight up G.

[Middle-aged Europe]

So the takeaway is that Trump tried to influence the investigation but wasn't very good at it?

Sums him up tbh.

My takeaway is that Trump has the habit of trying to charm people into doing things for him and friendly asking for, um, favours. That's certainly the smarter thing for him to do, even it may not be "intentional smartness". Comey in particular seemed to have a problem with that habit though. And Trump apparently took offense at Comey's attempts at keeping him at a distance.

[Person Man]

So the takeaway is that Trump tried to influence the investigation but wasn't very good at it?

Sums him up tbh.

My takeaway is that Trump has the habit of trying to charm people into doing things for him and friendly asking for, um, favours. That's certainly the smarter thing for him to do, even it may not be "intentional smartness". Comey in particular seemed to have a problem with that habit though. And Trump took offense at Comey's attempts at keeping him at a distance.

Are those "favors" the reason why Comey asked Sessions not to be alone with Trump...those tiny fingers go places!

[Gass3268]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unless she had the floor she should STFU.  If she had it, she's ok to pipe up.

[Gass3268]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unless she had the floor she should STFU.  If she had it, she's ok to pipe up.

She had the floor and Rodgers wasn't answering her question.

[Gass3268]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unless she had the floor she should STFU.  If she had it, she's ok to pipe up.

She had the floor and Rodgers wasn't answering her question.

Then his remarks were out of line and he should STFU

[Gass3268]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unless she had the floor she should STFU.  If she had it, she's ok to pipe up.

She had the floor and Rodgers wasn't answering her question.

Then his remarks were out of line and he should STFU

Senator King acted almost the say way and was not reprimanded.

[pbrower2a]

Coats testifies tomorrow. If he doesn't talk about this, then it likely didn't happen.

The Senate has ways to get someone to talk.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unless she had the floor she should STFU.  If she had it, she's ok to pipe up.

She had the floor and Rodgers wasn't answering her question.

Then his remarks were out of line and he should STFU

Senator King acted almost the say way and was not reprimanded.

I'm paid to be a stickler for parliamentary procedure, so I hate disorder. 

[The_Doctor]

McCain and Burr seem not happy that the intelligence chiefs are not being forthcoming with their testimony over the ask. Seems there's a bipartisan majority for the question to be asked in public. The chiefs are implying the answer is yes in closed session. The White House hasn't invoked executive privilege either.

Very interesting. Wonder why the desire not to reveal openly? Admiral Rogers isn't a partisan appointee and McCabe is a Democrat. Mueller might be involved in this somehow.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

McCain and Burr seem not happy that the intelligence chiefs are not being forthcoming with their testimony over the ask. Seems there's a bipartisan majority for the question to be asked in public. The chiefs are implying the answer is yes in closed session. The White House hasn't invoked executive privilege either.

Very interesting. Wonder why the desire not to reveal openly? Admiral Rogers isn't a partisan appointee and McCabe is a Democrat. Mueller might be involved in this somehow.

If they say yes (or anything that can be construed as yes) in public, you get an instant constitutional crisis. Either the GOP *must* start impeachment proceedings, or they become a clearly illegitimate majority. If Trump is guilty of obstruction (which it looks like he is), I can empathize with the desire not to be the person to publicly light that particular fuse, even if they think Trump has committed a criminal act and needs to be removed.

[jojoju1998]

McCain and Burr seem not happy that the intelligence chiefs are not being forthcoming with their testimony over the ask. Seems there's a bipartisan majority for the question to be asked in public. The chiefs are implying the answer is yes in closed session. The White House hasn't invoked executive privilege either.

Very interesting. Wonder why the desire not to reveal openly? Admiral Rogers isn't a partisan appointee and McCabe is a Democrat. Mueller might be involved in this somehow.

Maybe the reason why Mueller might be involved is because.... from my understanding, There are two separate Investigations. The Congressional Investigation is more focused on the " Morality " of the Russia Hacking. While Mueller is more focused on the Criminal Aspect. Mueller perhaps asked Rogers and McCabe not to reveal in order to protect the Criminal Investigation.

[The_Doctor]

McCain and Burr seem not happy that the intelligence chiefs are not being forthcoming with their testimony over the ask. Seems there's a bipartisan majority for the question to be asked in public. The chiefs are implying the answer is yes in closed session. The White House hasn't invoked executive privilege either.

Very interesting. Wonder why the desire not to reveal openly? Admiral Rogers isn't a partisan appointee and McCabe is a Democrat. Mueller might be involved in this somehow.

If they say yes (or anything that can be construed as yes) in public, you get an instant constitutional crisis. Either the GOP *must* start impeachment proceedings, or they become a clearly illegitimate majority. If Trump is guilty of obstruction (which it looks like he is), I can empathize with the desire not to be the person to publicly light that particular fuse, even if they think Trump has committed a criminal act and needs to be removed.

That ... that's a good point. That explains things better, actually. Lighting the fuse on fire before Mueller's report would definitely be a massive problem.

[Person Man]

McCain and Burr seem not happy that the intelligence chiefs are not being forthcoming with their testimony over the ask. Seems there's a bipartisan majority for the question to be asked in public. The chiefs are implying the answer is yes in closed session. The White House hasn't invoked executive privilege either.

Very interesting. Wonder why the desire not to reveal openly? Admiral Rogers isn't a partisan appointee and McCabe is a Democrat. Mueller might be involved in this somehow.

If they say yes (or anything that can be construed as yes) in public, you get an instant constitutional crisis. Either the GOP *must* start impeachment proceedings, or they become a clearly illegitimate majority. If Trump is guilty of obstruction (which it looks like he is), I can empathize with the desire not to be the person to publicly light that particular fuse, even if they think Trump has committed a criminal act and needs to be removed.

That ... that's a good point. That explains things better, actually. Lighting the fuse on fire before Mueller's report would definitely be a massive problem.

What do you mean by "constitutional crisis" if there isn't really anyone wanting to check the Executive's power? Or do you mean it would immediately confirm our country is being ran illegally and illegitimately?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

McCain and Burr seem not happy that the intelligence chiefs are not being forthcoming with their testimony over the ask. Seems there's a bipartisan majority for the question to be asked in public. The chiefs are implying the answer is yes in closed session. The White House hasn't invoked executive privilege either.

Very interesting. Wonder why the desire not to reveal openly? Admiral Rogers isn't a partisan appointee and McCabe is a Democrat. Mueller might be involved in this somehow.

If they say yes (or anything that can be construed as yes) in public, you get an instant constitutional crisis. Either the GOP *must* start impeachment proceedings, or they become a clearly illegitimate majority. If Trump is guilty of obstruction (which it looks like he is), I can empathize with the desire not to be the person to publicly light that particular fuse, even if they think Trump has committed a criminal act and needs to be removed.

That ... that's a good point. That explains things better, actually. Lighting the fuse on fire before Mueller's report would definitely be a massive problem.

What do you mean by "constitutional crisis" if there isn't really anyone wanting to check the Executive's power? Or do you mean it would immediately confirm our country is being ran illegally and illegitimately?

Yeah, "crisis of legitimacy" could be a better way to put it.  What I mean is that our notions of government include a lot of weight on the idea of 'checks and balances'.  An important one of those is that Congress has the power to remove the President.

I personally think Trump should be impeached. But there's a lot of room between my opinion and the point where any plausibly objective observer would agree he needs to be impeached. If multiple officials credibly testify to Congress that "yeah, the President repeatedly tried to stop investigation into his campaign ties to Russian intelligence" then that point has been passed.

In the face of such testimony, the GOP would only have two options: start impeachment proceedings (with all the nastiness that will entail), or openly refuse to impeach Trump.  If Congress won't impeach an openly criminal President, they are rejecting the whole "nation of laws, not of men" premise the Republic is built on. Whether we survive as a nation or not, that damage will be done.

[Person Man]

McCain and Burr seem not happy that the intelligence chiefs are not being forthcoming with their testimony over the ask. Seems there's a bipartisan majority for the question to be asked in public. The chiefs are implying the answer is yes in closed session. The White House hasn't invoked executive privilege either.

Very interesting. Wonder why the desire not to reveal openly? Admiral Rogers isn't a partisan appointee and McCabe is a Democrat. Mueller might be involved in this somehow.

If they say yes (or anything that can be construed as yes) in public, you get an instant constitutional crisis. Either the GOP *must* start impeachment proceedings, or they become a clearly illegitimate majority. If Trump is guilty of obstruction (which it looks like he is), I can empathize with the desire not to be the person to publicly light that particular fuse, even if they think Trump has committed a criminal act and needs to be removed.

That ... that's a good point. That explains things better, actually. Lighting the fuse on fire before Mueller's report would definitely be a massive problem.

What do you mean by "constitutional crisis" if there isn't really anyone wanting to check the Executive's power? Or do you mean it would immediately confirm our country is being ran illegally and illegitimately?

Yeah, "crisis of legitimacy" could be a better way to put it.  What I mean is that our notions of government include a lot of weight on the idea of 'checks and balances'.  An important one of those is that Congress has the power to remove the President.

I personally think Trump should be impeached. But there's a lot of room between my opinion and the point where any plausibly objective observer would agree he needs to be impeached. If multiple officials credibly testify to Congress that "yeah, the President repeatedly tried to stop investigation into his campaign ties to Russian intelligence" then that point has been passed.

In the face of such testimony, the GOP would only have two options: start impeachment proceedings (with all the nastiness that will entail), or openly refuse to impeach Trump.  If Congress won't impeach an openly criminal President, they are rejecting the whole "nation of laws, not of men" premise the Republic is built on. Whether we survive as a nation or not, that damage will be done.

And at that point, the Government just becomes another powerful estate instead of being the state.

[Badger]

The air leaking out of the Democrats balloon is giving me a nice breeze here in Pittsburgh (not Paris)

Anthony De Rosa
@Anthony

We went from Coats, Rogers saying they didn’t feel pressure from Trump to refusing to answer if Trump asked them to influence investigation.

This sums it up in a nutshell.

Are your hands sore from grasping all those straws, Grumps?

[Rookie Yinzer]

So the takeaway is that Trump tried to influence the investigation but wasn't very good at it?

Sums him up tbh.