It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
originally posted by: Antipathy17
a reply to: theantediluvian
My apologies. Skimming through because I am a little distracted. I'll pay more attention.
according to multiple sources.
according to multiple sources familiar with their accounts.
One source said that
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.
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?
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.