Trump asked intelligence chiefs to lie about Russia investigation

[ati87]

100% this. It's going to be obstruction, not collusion that takes him down. It's always the cover-up, never the crime. That's not to say he didn't collude, but it's the smaller mountain to climb. And Donald J Trump is handing out climbing equipment.

Well given that his crime might be as high as treason the crime might take him down unless he steps down.

Having said that

It's a investigation into Trump's Campaign and not Trump specifically, if democrats, FBI and the prosecutor do their job they won't just call it a day if Trump goes down because of obstruction.

[Mormolyce]

Butteremails?

I doubt we'll see him fuck a pig on national television.

He delegates that to Melania.

[Wyrt]

Butteremails?

What? No. The right is obsessed with buttery males.

[Mormolyce]

I would enjoy watching Fox try to spin that story.

"Liberals expose hypocritical bigotry over reaction to man on pig love".

[Shalcker]

Meh. Another way to read this is "Trump asked to publicly confirm they had no evidence of collusion", which they (or someone else) obviously told him privately. That is, confirm what Trump believed to be true rather then "obstruct investigation".

Many people already publicly said they have seen no evidence of collusion so far, so he was just trying to expand number of those people...

And article questions if they even had access to information that could contradict "no evidence" claim, so if they said "we have seen no evidence" it would be technically true.

[Stormspark]

I doubt we'll see him fuck a pig on national television.

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised to see ANYTHING.

[TZucchini]

Raise your hand if you complained about Bill Clinton speaking with Loretta Lynch on an airport tarmac.

OK. Now those same people.... Oh, fuck it, never mind.

- - - Updated - - -

Meh. Another way to read this is "Trump asked to publicly confirm they had no evidence of collusion", which they (or someone else) obviously told him privately. That is, confirm what Trump believed to be true rather then "obstruct investigation".

Many people already publicly said they have seen no evidence of collusion so far, so he was just trying to expand number of those people...

And article questions if they even had access to information that could contradict "no evidence" claim, so if they said "we have seen no evidence" it would be technically true.

Hi.

"The problem wasn’t so much asking them to issue statements, it was asking them to issue false statements about an ongoing investigation,” a former senior intelligence official said of the request to Coats."

[Deleted]

These people must testify before Congress. Let's get these impeachment proceedings rolling

[Shalcker]

Hi.

"The problem wasn’t so much asking them to issue statements, it was asking them to issue false statements about an ongoing investigation,” a former senior intelligence official said of the request to Coats."

How exactly would that statement be false? Article later questions if they even had information about ongoing investigation... At most it would be misleading.

They either have evidence of collusion or they don't. They are not the ones performing investigation (that's FBI), so most likely scenario is that they personally don't have such evidence even if it theoretically exists, nor are they aware of any such evidence being unearthed (because it isn't instantly shared with them). Thus saying that they don't have such evidence would be technically true.

[Shadowferal]

The denial is strong...or self-delusion...

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...st-fbis-russia
President Trump reportedly asked two top intelligence officials in March to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion between his campaign and Russia, the Washington Post reported Monday.

Trump reportedly asked Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, and Adm. Michael Rogers, director of the National Security Agency, to make public statements that there were no ties between Russian officials and the Trump campaign. Both officials refused to do so because they thought the requests were inappropriate, according to the report.

Senior White House officials also reportedly asked how they could directly intervene with former FBI Director James Comey's investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

“Can we ask him to shut down the investigation? Are you able to assist in this matter?” one official reportedly asked.

[TZucchini]

How exactly would that statement be false? Article later questions if they even had information about ongoing investigation... At most it would be misleading.

They either have evidence of collusion or they don't. They are not the ones performing investigation (that's FBI), so most likely scenario is that they personally don't have such evidence even if it theoretically exists, nor are they aware of any such evidence being unearthed (because it isn't instantly shared with them). Thus saying that they don't have such evidence would be technically true.

How can one deny the existence of something if they have no idea whether nor not it exists? They obviously cannot, and doing so publicly would be a false statement.

[Shalcker]

How can one deny the existence of something if they have no idea whether nor not it exists? They obviously cannot, and doing so publicly would be a false statement.

It wouldn't be false as they haven't seen any such evidence (nor would they necessarily be in position to see it), which public statement would be about.

In fact, James Clapper said exactly that on May 8th.

[TZucchini]

It wouldn't be false as they haven't seen any such evidence (nor would they necessarily be in position to see it), which public statement would be about.

In fact, James Clapper said exactly that on May 8th.

"There is no evidence of collusion" -said the person who isn't sure if there is evidence of collusion.

That's a false statement.

[Daelak]

"There is no evidence of collusion" -said the person who isn't sure if there is evidence of collusion.

That's a false statement.

Just more grasping by people who are still in denial.

[TEHPALLYTANK]

"There is no evidence of collusion" -said the person who isn't sure if there is evidence of collusion.

That's a false statement.

It also isn't what Clapper said.

Here is what Clapper said in that hearing.

In our intelligence community assessment, we made the point that we could not make that call. The intelligence community has neither the authority, the expertise or the resources to make that judgment. The only thing we said was we saw no evidence of influencing voter tallies at any of the 50 states. But we were not in a position to judge whether — what actual outcome on the election.

Here is what Clapper said as clarification after the hearing.

Well, it might be useful, first, to explain the unique position that the FBI occupies in that it straddles both intelligence, as a part of the intelligence community and law enforcement.

My practice during the six and a half years that I was at DNI was always to defer to the director of the FBI, be it Director Bob Mueller or Director Jim Comey on whether, when, and what to tell me about a counterintelligence investigation when the possibility was there that this could devolve into some sort of a criminal investigation.

So I left it to the judgment of the FBI and that was certainly the practice I followed here. But that was consistent with what I did during the whole six and a half years.

So it's not surprising or out of — or abnormal that I would not have known about the investigation, or, even more importantly, the content of that investigation.

So I don't know if there was collusion or not. I don't know if there is evidence of collusion or not, nor should I have in this particular context.

So where exactly are you drawing your quotes from? Because they don't seem to be coming from Clapper.

[Felya]

It wouldn't be false as they haven't seen any such evidence (nor would they necessarily be in position to see it), which public statement would be about.

In fact, James Clapper said exactly that on May 8th.

Try a different article... that one is not helping your point:

This isn’t just an issue of semantics. Trump was so happy with Clapper’s testimony that he made a Twitter banner containing his May 8 tweet above. But now, Clapper says he wasn’t trying to say there was no collusion and was simply trying to say he wouldn’t have been in position to know one way or the other. That’s a far cry from the “no evidence” narrative Trump peddles.

Did you expect people to not read your link? Is this as close as you can find to agree with you? Because, it doesn't... it makes it sound pretty bad... even pointing that the Comey firing is segnificant here, because unlike Clapper, he did see the evidence. Strange link to use dude...

- - - Updated - - -

Just more grasping by people who are still in denial.

Strange at that... his link is pretty damning of Trump and even uses Trump's misquoting Clapper, to show the difference between what Clapper and Comey had access to.

It's confusing, because he seemed to be disagreeing, but then posts a link that makes it seem he conceded being wrong. I'm taking it as he admitted being wrong and... you... know... Internet... can't be obvious about being wrong...

[Shalcker]

"There is no evidence of collusion" -said the person who isn't sure if there is evidence of collusion.

That's a false statement.

"We don't have evidence of collusion" is true statement however.

- - - Updated - - -

Try a different article... that one is not helping your point.

Well, at least you've read it, that's good start.

But you're missing my point. And my point is that Trump would be satisfied with same announcement as the one Clapper did. He did make it into his twitter headline for a bit.

After all, Comey also didn't say he had evidence, only that FBI was investigating, so any public counter-narrative would be useful for Trump.

[TEHPALLYTANK]

"We don't have evidence of collusion" is true statement however.

If "we" in that context is including Clapper, then that isn't a true statement. I'll re-post the portion you seem to have not read, because you still seem to be operating off of false information.

Well, it might be useful, first, to explain the unique position that the FBI occupies in that it straddles both intelligence, as a part of the intelligence community and law enforcement.

My practice during the six and a half years that I was at DNI was always to defer to the director of the FBI, be it Director Bob Mueller or Director Jim Comey on whether, when, and what to tell me about a counterintelligence investigation when the possibility was there that this could devolve into some sort of a criminal investigation.

So I left it to the judgment of the FBI and that was certainly the practice I followed here. But that was consistent with what I did during the whole six and a half years.

So it's not surprising or out of — or abnormal that I would not have known about the investigation, or, even more importantly, the content of that investigation.

So I don't know if there was collusion or not. I don't know if there is evidence of collusion or not, nor should I have in this particular context.

If you manage to draw the conclusion that there is no evidence of collusion from that statement, you are not reading that statement.

[TZucchini]

"We don't have evidence of collusion" is true statement however.

Read the article:

"Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and to Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election."

Hes asking them to do something, publicly, that would amount to a false statement. How can they publicly deny any evidence of collusion if they are unaware to the existence of such evidence? It's why their source specifically said Trump was "was asking them to issue false statements about an ongoing investigation."

[Blade Wolf]

Seriously, even if there's nothing to this investigation at the end of the day, Trumps attempts to obstruct it are likely going to be a big problem for him.

Almost like a former president whose name is often invoked. I think it rhymes with "Dixon"

Honestly his biggest enemy is himself at this point.