Today's Leak: Coates and Rogers Testified Trump asked Both to Refute Collusion

Today's leak comes courtesy of "multiple sources," including "Democratic and Republican congressional sources," and is brought to us by CNN. From what these sources say and what appears to be confirmed by a very impassioned Trey Gowdy, the following happened:

Intel chiefs tell investigators Trump suggested they refute collusion with Russians

(CNN)Two of the nation's top intelligence officials told Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team and Senate investigators, in separate meetings last week, that President Donald Trump suggested they say publicly there was no collusion between his campaign and the Russians, according to multiple sources.

Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency Director Adm. Mike Rogers described their interactions with the President about the Russia investigation as odd and uncomfortable, but said they did not believe the President gave them orders to interfere, according to multiple sources familiar with their accounts.

Sources say both men went further than they did in June 7 public hearings, when they provided little detail about the interactions.

The sources gave CNN the first glimpse of what the intelligence chiefs said to Mueller's investigators when they did separate interviews last week. Both men told Mueller's team they were surprised the President would suggest that they publicly declare he was not involved in collusion, sources said. Mueller's team, which is in the early stages of its investigation, will ultimately decide whether the interactions are relevant to the inquiry.

First things first — about the testimony.

Was that a weird thing for Trump to do? Yes. Was it improper? I think so. Was it obstruction of justice? No. Arguably, it adds to the picture of the President's state of mind and in that way, tends to support Comey's testimony on the one hand. On the other hand, it could be taken as two more examples of situations similar to that which Comey testified about, where two other agency heads in similar circumstances, didn't feel as leaned on as Comey.

Then again, neither of them were later canned under extremely questionable circumstances that included a coordinated effort by the administration to deceive the American people about the reason for the firing — a would be deception that was immediately blown apart by the President himself in a nationally televised interview where he essentially confessed to something that smelled a lot like obstruction of justice to many folks.

Moving along here. I'm the furthest thing from a Trump supporter and I stand firm behind domestic reporters acting upon a moral and ethical obligation to report leaks to their fellow citizens when that serves the public interest. What does or doesn't serve the public interest is a subjective measure, I understand, but this one — or rather, these — aren't of an urgency that seems to require bailing on proper process.

In fact, what these specific leaks tend most to do is damage the investigations themselves. And it's in the public interest that these investigations not be shaded by anymore accusations of taint than the likes of Newt Gingrich — whose wife is about to get an appointment as Ambassador to the Vatican — can generate from his own propaganda orifices (quid pro quo is alive and well in "The Swamp").

Which brings me to the final segment of this OP. I found myself agreeing with Trey Gowdy today when I saw him in the Erin Burnett interview. Source is the same as above:

Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina confirmed to CNN's Erin Burnett Thursday that Coats did meet with the House intelligence committee.

"About eight hours ago, Adam Schiff and I looked Dan Coats in the eyes and we assured him that there would be no selective leaking of his testimony to us," Gowdy said in an interview on "OutFront." "And I'll be damned if eight hours later there aren't three different leaks with what he told us. So if anyone is questioning why congressional investigations aren't taken seriously, and are viewed as political exercises, you need to look no further than the fact that we looked one of our intelligence officials in the eyes and promised him there would be no selective leaking. And here I'm being asked about it, not even eight hours later."

Gowdy said there were eight people in the room during the meeting. He warned that leaking information from closed briefings can "have a chilling effect on other witnesses who want to share classified, sensitive information."

Gowdy added that though the investigation is ongoing, no one should draw conclusions about its findings until farther down the road. "I would hope no one was drawing conclusions from anything," he said. "That's what you do at the end of an investigation, not in the front."

So as I said, this appears to confirm the veracity of the leaks but really — eight people can't keep a secret?

Gowdy also said a number of other things I agreed with. I'll have to hunt down a video but what's not in the quotes above that stood out to me:

* He stressed the distinction between three — I'll refer to them as echelons — of possible collusion: Trump himself, members of the campaign staff and finally, those "satellites" as Trump might call them, in the orbit around the campaign. For my own part, I'll once more stress that collusion has only ever been one part of the Russian investigation. It should go without saying, but to appease anyone who might take issue pre-emptively, there's been no evidence of collusion by President Trump and he wasn't under investigation by the FBI at the time Comey was fired.

* He stated that they're not even through 10% of the witnesses yet and that's way to early for anyone to be coming to any conclusions.

* He said point blank that he didn't leak, he's certain that Schiff didn't leak (and I appreciate that show of respect) and of course, neither did Coates himself who essentially asked them to pledge secrecy which shouldn't even be necessary in the first place.

* He deferred to Mueller and he expressed his utmost confidence in Mueller and his investigation.

I'm going to go look for the video now.

EDIT:

Here you go.

a reply to: theantediluvian


Another leak you say?


Wow! Can't believe you put forth so much effort for nothing!

a reply to: theantediluvian

If there was no evidence at the time, is it wrong to ask anyone to state that for the public record?

Further more, how is it wrong to ask someone to let the nation know there is no investigation for it?

If there's proof, I want to know, if there is an investigation, I want to know.

The country needs this squashed and I don't care if it means proving guilt or innocence.

But last time I checked this country had plenty of issues we need our representatives to address.

I'm not defending anyone, but this is getting way to much of our elected officials attention, and causing way to much of a distraction.

a reply to: seeker1963

My level of effort clearly pales by comparison to that you put into drive-by one-liners.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Today's leak comes courtesy of "multiple sources," including "Democratic and Republican congressional sources," and is brought to us by CNN. From what these sources say and what appears to be confirmed by a very impassioned Trey Gowdy, the following happened:

Intel chiefs tell investigators Trump suggested they refute collusion with Russians

(CNN)Two of the nation's top intelligence officials told Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team and Senate investigators, in separate meetings last week, that President Donald Trump suggested they say publicly there was no collusion between his campaign and the Russians, according to multiple sources.

Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency Director Adm. Mike Rogers described their interactions with the President about the Russia investigation as odd and uncomfortable, but said they did not believe the President gave them orders to interfere, according to multiple sources familiar with their accounts.

Sources say both men went further than they did in June 7 public hearings, when they provided little detail about the interactions.

The sources gave CNN the first glimpse of what the intelligence chiefs said to Mueller's investigators when they did separate interviews last week. Both men told Mueller's team they were surprised the President would suggest that they publicly declare he was not involved in collusion, sources said. Mueller's team, which is in the early stages of its investigation, will ultimately decide whether the interactions are relevant to the inquiry.

First things first — about the testimony.

Was that a weird thing for Trump to do? Yes. Was it improper? I think so. Was it obstruction of justice? No. Arguably, it adds to the picture of the President's state of mind and in that way, tends to support Comey's testimony on the one hand. On the other hand, it could be taken as two more examples of situations similar to that which Comey testified about, where two other agency heads in similar circumstances, didn't feel as leaned on as Comey.

Then again, neither of them were later canned under extremely questionable circumstances that included a coordinated effort by the administration to deceive the American people about the reason for the firing — a would be deception that was immediately blown apart by the President himself in a nationally televised interview where he essentially confessed to something that smelled a lot like obstruction of justice to many folks.

Moving along here. I'm the furthest thing from a Trump supporter and I stand firm behind domestic reporters acting upon a moral and ethical obligation to report leaks to their fellow citizens when that serves the public interest. What does or doesn't serve the public interest is a subjective measure, I understand, but this one — or rather, these — aren't of an urgency that seems to require bailing on proper process.

In fact, what these specific leaks tend most to do is damage the investigations themselves. And it's in the public interest that these investigations not be shaded by anymore accusations of taint than the likes of Newt Gingrich — whose wife is about to get an appointment as Ambassador to the Vatican — can generate from his own propaganda orifices (quid pro quo is alive and well in "The Swamp").

Which brings me to the final segment of this OP. I found myself agreeing with Trey Gowdy today when I saw him in the Erin Burnett interview. Source is the same as above:

Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina confirmed to CNN's Erin Burnett Thursday that Coats did meet with the House intelligence committee.

"About eight hours ago, Adam Schiff and I looked Dan Coats in the eyes and we assured him that there would be no selective leaking of his testimony to us," Gowdy said in an interview on "OutFront." "And I'll be damned if eight hours later there aren't three different leaks with what he told us. So if anyone is questioning why congressional investigations aren't taken seriously, and are viewed as political exercises, you need to look no further than the fact that we looked one of our intelligence officials in the eyes and promised him there would be no selective leaking. And here I'm being asked about it, not even eight hours later."

Gowdy said there were eight people in the room during the meeting. He warned that leaking information from closed briefings can "have a chilling effect on other witnesses who want to share classified, sensitive information."

Gowdy added that though the investigation is ongoing, no one should draw conclusions about its findings until farther down the road. "I would hope no one was drawing conclusions from anything," he said. "That's what you do at the end of an investigation, not in the front."

So as I said, this appears to confirm the veracity of the leaks but really — eight people can't keep a secret?

Gowdy also said a number of other things I agreed with. I'll have to hunt down a video but what's not in the quotes above that stood out to me:

* He stressed the distinction between three — I'll refer to them as echelons — of possible collusion: Trump himself, members of the campaign staff and finally, those "satellites" as Trump might call them, in the orbit around the campaign. For my own part, I'll once more stress that collusion has only ever been one part of the Russian investigation. It should go without saying, but to appease anyone who might take issue pre-emptively, there's been no evidence of collusion by President Trump and he wasn't under investigation by the FBI at the time Comey was fired.

* He stated that they're not even through 10% of the witnesses yet and that's way to early for anyone to be coming to any conclusions.

* He said point blank that he didn't leak, he's certain that Schiff didn't leak (and I appreciate that show of respect) and of course, neither did Coates himself who essentially asked them to pledge secrecy which shouldn't even be necessary in the first place.

* He deferred to Mueller and he expressed his utmost confidence in Mueller and his investigation.

I'm going to go look for the video now.

EDIT:

Here you go.

If they haven't found any, then why shouldn't they refute it? Others are saying it happened with no evidence and no consequences. Why should one side be held to a higher standard than the accusers?

Reminds me of Sharpton and Brawley who falsely claimed rape, only on a much larger scale.

Keep it up y'all....its only going to end poorly and with less support than ever.

Here's to eight straight years of greatness!

a reply to: CriticalStinker

[qoute]If there was no evidence at the time, is it wrong to ask anyone to state that for the public record?

Further more, how is it wrong to ask someone to let the nation know there is no investigation for it?

Because the investigations haven't even taken place? It wouldn't be wrong to ask to be publically cleared when the time was appropriate.

Are these men going to do daily updates? Maybe have like a "evidence of collusion" level? Compounding that, they're subordinate to the President and of course, the investigation involves associates of the President.

So no, it would not have been a proper thing for them to do in my opinion.

If there's proof, I want to know, if there is an investigation, I want to know.

The country needs this squashed and I don't care if it means proving guilt or innocence.

Agreed.

But last time I checked this country had plenty of issues we need our representatives to address.

Agreed. This is important but it's going to take a long time and in the meantime, the business of the country goes on and even those on the Left — hell, especially those on the Left — need to be kept abreast of all the other goings on in DC.

When someone "didn't" do something like "collude" They will usually "refute" it. This is how real people do things in real life.

When a person is accused of doing something they didn't do, they will naturally refute it.

CNN and certain posters have forgotten the basics of life here on planet earth it seems. But after years of propaganda and leftist bandwagon/jack-wagons all tore up after Trump won the election, some people have just lost touch with rational thinking..

a reply to: theantediluvian

Agreed. This is important but it's going to take a long time and in the meantime, the business of the country goes on and even those on the Left — hell, especially those on the Left — need to be kept abreast of all the other goings on in DC.

My concern is, with today's volatile environment, leaks will continue to happen to keep the pressure on public upheaval.

The updates we've had so far have been a distraction, and the only people who benefit are media outlets.

I've never seen a story with no presented evidence stay in the news cycles for so long.

I can't believe some on the right think the media hates Trump, he's the best thing that ever happened to them and they're milking it.

a reply to: theantediluvian

ATS can read.

They both said Trump did not pressure them.

Your title is misleading.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

If they haven't found any, then why shouldn't they refute it? Others are saying it happened with no evidence and no consequences. Why should one side be held to a higher standard than the accusers?

Yeah, there's nothing about double standards that will ring remotely non-hypocritical coming from 99% of Trump supporters. How could investigators logically clear anyone of wrongdoing before the investigation is concluded? That doesn't make sense in anyway but as an ill-conceived talking point.

Reminds me of Sharpton and Brawley who falsely claimed rape, only on a much larger scale.

Oh, really? I'm super not surprised to hear you say something just like that.

Keep it up y'all....its only going to end poorly and with less support than ever.

And yet, in your own neck of the woods, where GOP candidates have a 9% advantage in registered voters and where Tom Price just won by 23%, the Trump-supported Republican eeked out a narrow win.

The President has to hunt through polls to find Rasmussen, one of the historically worst, most pro-GOP biased clownshow of a polling company, just to lie on Twitter that his approval numbers, which have been in steady decline, are higher than Obama's were at the same period.

Here's to eight straight years of greatness!

Yawn.

a reply to: burntheships

How is my title misleading?

ATS can read.

Then you should know what the word "asked" means. It's not synonymous with "pressure" is it?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Dude, the people here wont listen to us..

Ive posted that article about Director Admiral Rodgers having recorded AND documented evidence of Trump collusion with Russia and the Trumpledites here wont accept it. Trump is and has just been buying time the past week or two. The house is gonna fall down on top of him really soon.

The Trumpers are all excited thinking the collusion and obstruction of justice was a farce...

Little do they realize the NSA has (unfortunately most likely illegal) recordings of Trump and his campaign with Russia.

Its just a matter of time.

But Ill let the alt-right rejoice for now, it will make their realization of the truth that much sweeter.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Today's leak comes courtesy of "multiple sources," including "Democratic and Republican congressional sources," and is brought to us by CNN. From what these sources say and what appears to be confirmed by a very impassioned Trey Gowdy, the following happened:

Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency Director Adm. Mike Rogers described their interactions with the President about the Russia investigation as odd and uncomfortable, but said they did not believe the President gave them orders to interfere, according to multiple sources familiar with their accounts.

Sources say both men went further than they did in June 7 public hearings, when they provided little detail about the interactions.


First things first — about the testimony.

Was that a weird thing for Trump to do? Yes. Was it improper? I think so. Was it obstruction of justice? No. Arguably, it adds to the picture of the President's state of mind and in that way, tends to support Comey's testimony on the one hand. On the other hand, it could be taken as two more examples of situations similar to that which Comey testified about, where two other agency heads in similar circumstances, didn't feel as leaned on as Comey.

Then again, neither of them were later canned under extremely questionable circumstances that included a coordinated effort by the administration to deceive the American people about the reason for the firing — a would be deception that was immediately blown apart by the President himself in a nationally televised interview where he essentially confessed to something that smelled a lot like obstruction of justice to many folks.

Moving along here. I'm the furthest thing from a Trump supporter and I stand firm behind domestic reporters acting upon a moral and ethical obligation to report leaks to their fellow citizens when that serves the public interest. What does or doesn't serve the public interest is a subjective measure, I understand, but this one — or rather, these — aren't of an urgency that seems to require bailing on proper process.

In fact, what these specific leaks tend most to do is damage the investigations themselves. And it's in the public interest that these investigations not be shaded by anymore accusations of taint than the likes of Newt Gingrich — whose wife is about to get an appointment as Ambassador to the Vatican — can generate from his own propaganda orifices (quid pro quo is alive and well in "The Swamp").

Which brings me to the final segment of this OP. I found myself agreeing with Trey Gowdy today when I saw him in the Erin Burnett interview

"three different leaks "

So as I said, this appears to confirm the veracity of the leaks but really — eight people can't keep a secret?

Gowdy also said a number of other things I agreed with. I'll have to hunt down a video but what's not in the quotes above that stood out to me:

* He stressed the distinction between three — I'll refer to them as echelons — of possible collusion: Trump himself, members of the campaign staff and finally, those "satellites" as Trump might call them, in the orbit around the campaign. For my own part, I'll once more stress that collusion has only ever been one part of the Russian investigation. It should go without saying, but to appease anyone who might take issue pre-emptively, there's been no evidence of collusion by President Trump and he wasn't under investigation by the FBI at the time Comey was fired.

* He stated that they're not even through 10% of the witnesses yet and that's way to early for anyone to be coming to any conclusions.

* He said point blank that he didn't leak, he's certain that Schiff didn't leak (and I appreciate that show of respect) and of course, neither did Coates himself who essentially asked them to pledge secrecy which shouldn't even be necessary in the first place.

* He deferred to Mueller and he expressed his utmost confidence in Mueller and his investigation.

Your paraphrasing.

Here is an actual news quote.

The two top intelligence officials said, however, they don't think Trump ordered them to interfere in the investigation into Russian meddling in the presidential election, including any possible links between Moscow and members of Trump's campaign.

thehill.com...


Three different leaks, no names.

Fake news

a reply to: theantediluvian

Looked at the author, then looked at the accumulated flags so far. Since it was low, I decided to actually dig into the thread. I mean lately all the informative threads have a low amount of stars and flags!


Eight people can't keep their traps shut to the media, that's a troubling thought. Was the information worth it, their jobs? Not even close.

Perhaps the POTUS did ask. What context was it in? Did he ask because, as the same situation as Comey, that they out with the factual nature or was he asking as a favor to look elsewhere. I'm all for leaks if they are complete and informative to the safety, security or financial viability to American citizens. Or uncovering a crime. This is just for political points.

a reply to: Lucidparadox

You....

You didn't even read the thread eh?

a reply to: Lucidparadox

Lol, yeah right whatever guy.

a reply to: JinMI

I couldn't agree more.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Yes, the media and Trump have a perfectly symbiotic relationship. It's how Trump has always interacted with the press. It's the Roy Cohn playbook and he learned it straight from the master himself. He's a media extremophile, thriving in an environment of controversy that would be toxic to many other personas.

a reply to: theantediluvian 57

CNN says here in the video that both intelligence chiefs said they don't believe the president gave them orders to intervene in the investigation.

@0:22

edition.cnn.com...

Yet they are still pushing this narrative. Worse yet, the OP is.

Come the F on people. Wake up.

a reply to: JinMI

Eight people can't keep their traps shut to the media, that's a troubling thought. Was the information worth it, their jobs? Not even close.

Not just eight people. This is congressional testimony and these are heads of agencies in closed door sessions where those testifying have had these folks look them in the eye and promise not to do what they turned *right* around and did. It's appalling.

I don't think anyone is going to arrive at obstruction based on what either are reported to have testified. As I said, it's not something that should be occurring but both neither said they felt pressured. I say "not something that should be occurring" for two reasons:

1) because they're subordinate to him and his associates are part of ongoing investigations.

2) because it defies reason for law enforcement officials to clear subjects of an investigation before the investigation has been concluded. How would that possibly work?

And because we're getting this all as second hand hearsay, it's not really clear from what I heard/read if he was asking for a blanket refutation of any possible collusion or possible collusion by certain associates. The former would be even less sensical.