Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

orangecrush

(19,409 posts)
Wed Jun 7, 2017, 05:13 PM Jun 2017

Intelligence 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 didn’t want to answer. King finally blew up, scolding Rogers that what he “feels” isn’t 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 wouldn’t 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 don’t 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?

15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Intelligence officials outrageous contempt of Congress (Original Post) orangecrush Jun 2017 OP
Thanks for this post! furtheradu Jun 2017 #1
Agree orangecrush Jun 2017 #2
Looks Like They Have Waived Privilege Which Must Be asserted Before Answering Stallion Jun 2017 #3
Thank you orangecrush Jun 2017 #4
Imagine if Hillary had said "... I don't feel like answering that ..." they would've had a Trump YCHDT Jun 2017 #5
They did have a Trump orangecrush Jun 2017 #6
They were rude and out of order malaise Jun 2017 #7
Lets see orangecrush Jun 2017 #8
Old white meant protecting other old white men. nikibatts Jun 2017 #9
Withholding the "WHOLE TRUTH" moondust Jun 2017 #10
Translation GallopingGhost Jun 2017 #11
Exactly orangecrush Jun 2017 #13
Unbelievable... bresue Jun 2017 #12
Good analysis orangecrush Jun 2017 #14
I had not thought of that. Brilliant. Then Ilsa Jun 2017 #15

furtheradu

(1,865 posts)
1. Thanks for this post!
Wed Jun 7, 2017, 05:44 PM
Jun 2017

I BELIEVE lots going on under the surface, TRUTH is going to happen!

Meanwhile.. wtheck? !

Stallion

(6,473 posts)
3. Looks Like They Have Waived Privilege Which Must Be asserted Before Answering
Wed Jun 7, 2017, 06:44 PM
Jun 2017

now they are subject to a motion to compel/contempt. that's why King asked for a "legal justification"-which they did not assert

moondust

(19,958 posts)
10. Withholding the "WHOLE TRUTH"
Wed Jun 7, 2017, 09:19 PM
Jun 2017

under oath without any legal justification must be punishable in some way.

bresue

(1,007 posts)
12. Unbelievable...
Wed Jun 7, 2017, 09:30 PM
Jun 2017

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.

Ilsa

(61,690 posts)
15. I had not thought of that. Brilliant. Then
Wed Jun 7, 2017, 10:38 PM
Jun 2017

they should have refused by pkeading the fifth anendment.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Intelligence officials ou...