General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIntelligence 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 didnt want to answer. King finally blew up, scolding Rogers that what he feels isnt 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 wouldnt 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 dont 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?
furtheradu
(1,865 posts)I BELIEVE lots going on under the surface, TRUTH is going to happen!
Meanwhile.. wtheck? !
orangecrush
(19,409 posts)Truth will come out!
Stallion
(6,473 posts)now they are subject to a motion to compel/contempt. that's why King asked for a "legal justification"-which they did not assert
orangecrush
(19,409 posts)For that legal insight!
YCHDT
(962 posts)orangecrush
(19,409 posts)Even when ahe answered.
Diidn't rattle her a bit.
malaise
(268,693 posts)Contempt of Congress is correct
orangecrush
(19,409 posts)If the committee takes the next step...
nikibatts
(2,198 posts)moondust
(19,958 posts)under oath without any legal justification must be punishable in some way.
GallopingGhost
(2,404 posts)If we actually answer these questions, it will roast the ass of the so-called President.
orangecrush
(19,409 posts)What they were saying.
bresue
(1,007 posts)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.
orangecrush
(19,409 posts)And true.
Ilsa
(61,690 posts)they should have refused by pkeading the fifth anendment.