HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Intelligence officials ou...

Wed Jun 7, 2017, 05:13 PM

Intelligence officials outrageous contempt of Congress

Again and again today at the hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and National Security Agency Director Adm. Michael Rogers refused to answer direct questions as to whether they had been asked by the president to interfere with the investigation into possible collusion with Russia. In response to Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) and Angus King (I-Maine), they said they did not feel “pressured” and/or “directed” but declined to say whether they were asked. FBI acting director McCabe also refused to say if he had conversations with former FBI director James B. Comey about his conversations with the president. And then Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein refused to explain how and why Attorney General Jeff Sessions un-recused himself and whether he understood his memo would be used to fire Comey.

[The other shoes start falling]

None of these witnesses invoked executive privilege or national security. They just didn’t want to answer. King finally blew up, scolding Rogers that what he “feels” isn’t relevant. He demanded to know why Rogers and Coats were not answering. He demanded a “legal justification” for not answering, and the witnesses did not supply any. Coats strongly hinted he would share information, just not in public, and that he would cooperate with the special prosecutor.

Play Video 5:23
King presses officials on refusal to answer Russia investigation questions
Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) pressed officials to explain why they wouldn’t discuss conversations about the Russian hacking investigation. (Reuters)
This is nothing short of outrageous. Congress has an independent obligation to conduct oversight. Witnesses cannot simply decide they don’t want to share. If they could, there would be no oversight. While they were not under subpoena, their behavior was contemptuous and frankly unprecedented. The committee has the option to subpoena witnesses, demand answers and then hold them in contempt if they decline to answer. (Is that what the witnesses are hoping for, so they will be seen as having no choice?) It is hard to see any reason why Congress should not do so. A source not authorized to speak on the record but familiar with his thinking told me, “Senator Heinrich will seek to get answers one way or another.” It should be noted that no closed-door sessions are scheduled.

Should Republicans not take these steps, the conclusion should be obvious: They are acting to protect the president from public embarrassment. In doing so, they are demonstrating a lack of respect both for the public and Congress, an equal branch of government.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/06/07/outrageous-contempt-of-congress/?utm_term=.4548db547c15



So when do they get serious?

15 replies, 5413 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 15 replies Author Time Post
Reply Intelligence officials outrageous contempt of Congress (Original post)
orangecrush Jun 2017 OP
furtheradu Jun 2017 #1
orangecrush Jun 2017 #2
Stallion Jun 2017 #3
orangecrush Jun 2017 #4
YCHDT Jun 2017 #5
orangecrush Jun 2017 #6
malaise Jun 2017 #7
orangecrush Jun 2017 #8
nikibatts Jun 2017 #9
moondust Jun 2017 #10
GallopingGhost Jun 2017 #11
orangecrush Jun 2017 #13
bresue Jun 2017 #12
orangecrush Jun 2017 #14
Ilsa Jun 2017 #15

Response to orangecrush (Original post)

Wed Jun 7, 2017, 05:44 PM

1. Thanks for this post!

I BELIEVE lots going on under the surface, TRUTH is going to happen!

Meanwhile.. wtheck? !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to furtheradu (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 7, 2017, 06:09 PM

2. Agree

Truth will come out!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orangecrush (Original post)

Wed Jun 7, 2017, 06:44 PM

3. Looks Like They Have Waived Privilege Which Must Be asserted Before Answering

now they are subject to a motion to compel/contempt. that's why King asked for a "legal justification"-which they did not assert

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stallion (Reply #3)

Wed Jun 7, 2017, 07:17 PM

4. Thank you

For that legal insight!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orangecrush (Original post)

Wed Jun 7, 2017, 07:19 PM

5. Imagine if Hillary had said "... I don't feel like answering that ..." they would've had a Trump

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YCHDT (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 7, 2017, 08:18 PM

6. They did have a Trump

Even when ahe answered.

Diidn't rattle her a bit.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orangecrush (Original post)

Wed Jun 7, 2017, 08:19 PM

7. They were rude and out of order

Contempt of Congress is correct

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #7)

Wed Jun 7, 2017, 08:30 PM

8. Lets see

If the committee takes the next step...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orangecrush (Original post)

Wed Jun 7, 2017, 08:49 PM

9. Old white meant protecting other old white men.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orangecrush (Original post)

Wed Jun 7, 2017, 09:19 PM

10. Withholding the "WHOLE TRUTH"

under oath without any legal justification must be punishable in some way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orangecrush (Original post)

Wed Jun 7, 2017, 09:24 PM

11. Translation

If we actually answer these questions, it will roast the ass of the so-called President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GallopingGhost (Reply #11)

Wed Jun 7, 2017, 09:30 PM

13. Exactly

What they were saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orangecrush (Original post)

Wed Jun 7, 2017, 09:30 PM

12. Unbelievable...

Honestly, if they answered truthfully, then they incriminated themselves. They should have reported any obstruction of justice at the time it occurred which would make them accessory to a crime. They did not want to be on record admitting this.
Basically they were claiming the 5th.

By not answering, they gave their answers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bresue (Reply #12)

Wed Jun 7, 2017, 10:32 PM

14. Good analysis

And true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bresue (Reply #12)

Wed Jun 7, 2017, 10:38 PM

15. I had not thought of that. Brilliant. Then

they should have refused by pkeading the fifth anendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread