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

a reply to: Antipathy17

Huh?

It's right in the second paragraph of the article/the excerpt I posted.

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.

I know you might not otherwise be inspired to read but before you go casting aspersions at people, don't you feel you have an obligation to acquaint yourself with what you're talking about?

a reply to: theantediluvian

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?

It wouldn't work. The investigation is started and needs to play out, as you well know.

This past election has made some borderline extreme partisans. (Perhaps it's always been this way.) They don't value their jobs nor the proper chain of command it seems. The dissension seen has been as you aptly put it appalling across the whole wide political spectrum and blatant slap in the face to anyone they represent.

It opens up a very disturbing conclusion. The only Americans they represent are the ones who think as they do.

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.

What this is is another smear attempt via headline. They did their best (CNN) to paint the picture their viewers want to see while still putting in the facts that those with reading comprehension could readily grasp. For example, this OP.

a reply to: theantediluvian

My apologies. Skimming through because I am a little distracted. I'll pay more attention.

a reply to: burntheships

Actually, it's right at the very top in the excerpt. Something that should be obvious to anyone who read even the first dozen lines of the post before commenting.

And it's called commentary.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
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 win is a win. Don't see many losers doing victory dances.

Should have spent the money on something important....you know...healthcare, food stamps, etc....plenty could have been saved with $30 million dollars, but alas, it was literally thrown away....that has to really sit well with those that they claim to represent. I'm sure people scraping by just barely can comprehend putting $30 million in a few trashcans and burning it.

Insanity....brought to you by the Democratic party.

Democrats....a new meaning to Liberal...Liberal Spending

originally posted by: Antipathy17
a reply to: theantediluvian

My apologies. Skimming through because I am a little distracted. I'll pay more attention.

Thanks and it's always nice to see somebody display real character and just clear up a mistake without a bunch of fuss and trying to justify things. I'll remember that when I read your posts in the future.

all I have to say about your consistent effort at pushing nonsense is

source 1

according to multiple sources.

source 2

according to multiple sources familiar with their accounts.

source 3

One source said that

You use CNN as proof, and CNN uses the tooth fairy as a source time and time again.

So far everyone has said that there was no collusion between Trump and Russia.
Intelligence chiefs, democrats, republicans. Why? You think they are all lying?

Of course Trump will be telling his under lings to make sure they state unequivocally that there is, was and never has been collusion. He doesn't want anyone giving more pointless ammunition to CNN.

If there was collusion, why hasn't anyone come forward about it?
Why hasn't anything leaked about it?
If the hatred for Trump is so big, why has not a single person come forward accusing him of something, with evidence?

Wanna know why Trump would tell his underlings to stick to truth abotu collusion? Because people like you, use totally ridiculous statements and unfounded claims to push the narrative that Clinton lost because Russia and Trump colluded to win the election.

Why dont you write a thread about

Clinton ignore federal subpoena's?
Democrats cheating Sanders out of the primary win?
Democratic Congressman trying to divert the hearings?
About Jobs coming back to America under Trump?
About stock markets going strong under Trump?
About All the intelligence officials claiming there was 0 collusion?
About how ridiculous and full of lies CNN has become?
About the journalists at the White House Press briefings trying to hijack them with pointless questions?

you see a CNN article lying about something with unconfirmed sources and you push it as hard and fast as you can..

Reply to OP.

For once I have to *partially agree with your assessment. Leaks are bad if not illegal.

But I have to side with Trump once more he knows the whole thing is bull # and wants them to clear his name, can't blame the guy, he is acting as any innocent guy would do. I think he's showing great restraint.

a reply to: theantediluvian

So he suggested that they tell the truth?

What the hell is wrong with him!? Lock him up!

a reply to: CriticalStinker


It's turning out that most of the "leaks" are actually outright made-up fabricated lies. Comey proved that in multiple testimonies. His much-touted MEMO(s) may be one of the biggest. Has anyone on the committees seen them?

a reply to: watchitburn

Donald Trump merely wanted them to refute the FAKE NEWS coming out of the Nutty York Times and Washington Compost.

The same way Comey stepped forward to clear Hillary in July 2016.

a reply to: theantediluvianIt appears you forgot to mention that Trump wasn't asking these guys to provide cover for him...THEY knew there was no collusion and Trump was still trying to get it publically confirmed...That's not even close to obstruction of anything...

a reply to: theantediluvian

Yay. My other points stand though. It seems CNN is making a big fuss over nothing, still.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: seeker1963

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

At least you admit it.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Yawn? Probably more like cry...lol

Jaden

a reply to: Lucidparadox

living in fantasy land much? You should probably stick to store bought mushrooms...

Jaden

a reply to: Iscool

ACtually, that's more of a request for justice than obstruction of justice...

It appears the left isn't interested in justice, just crucifying the one who beat their Hilary...

Jaden

originally posted by: theantediluvian
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.

Lol, they don't have to do daily updates. However if they are gooing to continuously leak the damaging perceptions DAILY, then they DO need to provide a daily ACCURATE accounting. Better yet, how about quit the illegal leaking?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Do they have any evidence of collusion? If not, they should be saying non stop there is none. Instead the media non stop talks about it as if it's real.

that said .. nameless sources can go ....

a reply to: Vasa Croe

How much did the GOP spend? $20 million? Let's not forget that last minute surge in funds to push Handel across the finish line in a district she should have won handily. $15 million of Ossoff's donations came from small donors ($200 or less) vs less than $2 million for Handel.

Still waiting for an explanation as to how people being investigated can be cleared of wrongdoing before the investigation has been done.