U.S. spy chiefs are ducking questions about Trump and Russia

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by RootBeerMan, Jun 7, 2017.

  1. RootBeerMan macrumors 6502

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #1
    While Comey is spilling the beans, Trumps intel people are refusing to answer straightforward question. Coats, the snake from Indiana, won't answer the simplest question, (and is so stupid that he doesn't even realise that in refusing to answer it he IS answering it). A simple no, if that were the right answer, would stop the questioning in its tracks. We know the answer now.

    https://news.vice.com/story/u-s-spy-chiefs-are-ducking-questions-about-trump-and-russia

    video's of the worms at the source.
     
  2. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #2
    Why does Vice leave out the part of the hearing where they all categorically deny being ordered to act inappropriately?

    Not just fake news, but dangerous news. VICE wants you to believe an agenda that just isn't true.
     
  3. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #3
    To be fair - that's Trump's Modus Operandi too.
     
  4. JayMysterio macrumors 6502

    JayMysterio

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Rock Ridge
    #4
    If you can put aside attacking the messenger, the important takeaway is that they had no legal reason for NOT answering the questions of the oversight committee. They just didn't want to, even after repeated questions from multiple Senators why they could not or did not want to answer. They had no real answer. That's the shocking thing here.

    In your first quote, the legal wiggle room is that in Rogers view he feels wasn't asked to do anything questionable. It's dependent on his perception as opposed to just saying 'Yes' or 'No'. Simple

    Or as Sen Angus King succinctly put it...

    All of those gentlemen took oaths, and they basically said 'so what'.

    Not answering the questions from Senators of both parties does not look better...

    https://www.vox.com/world/2017/6/7/...g-russia-coats-rogers-rosenstein-mccabe-comey

     
  5. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #5
    Not to mention the questioning is rather broad and not succinct when you get down to it. It looks and sounds succinct, but it isn't.
     
  6. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #6
    Are they being represented by individual (personal) counsel, or taking guidance from WH counsel?
     
  7. JayMysterio macrumors 6502

    JayMysterio

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Rock Ridge
    #7
    Not sure how much more succinct you want the questioning to be. You can only ask the same question over & over again, not getting an answer, and realizing your chasing vapor.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...stified_to_trump_s_obstruction_innocence.html
     
  8. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #8
    >Have you ever been asked to say something that wasn't true?

    >Did a member of the Trump Administration ever ask you to release a statement that you fully knew was a lie?

    >Did the President of the United States ask you to release a statement you fully knew was a lie and benefited his administration and sought to ignore or hide the truth?

    Very easy to cast doubt on the legitimacy of one's testimony with broad questioning like that. Everyone's been asked to say something not true at one point or another. Similar broad questioning has been used in the past to entrap those providing the testimony. Clinton's impeachment hearing is full of it.
     
  9. JayMysterio macrumors 6502

    JayMysterio

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Rock Ridge
    #9
    It's what leads to that line of questioning. With their reluctance to answer any question, you're made to keep rephrasing or reshaping the question over & over hoping it may fit the narrow region they might feel comfortable answering. With the seeming logic your proposing the act of basically asking any question they were uncomfortable with wouldn't be succinct enough. The know what the questions are in reference to, the know why they are being asked those particular questions.
     
  10. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #10
    That's exactly my point. This is used in court, too. It's a method to delegitimize a testimony and the person delivering it. If they answered the first question, it leaves a very broad opening to question further. Considering those on the panel are mostly lawyers, they know what they're doing. Succinct questioning would end the BS back and forth quickly. And it wouldn't provide fuel for some people to to presume the hearing is a waste of time.
     
  11. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #11
    This is why I ask if they're represented by WH counsel here. They have an obligation to the institution. They cannot be answering questions like that out of context if some conversation went down like this

    I can't be spending all this time with a staff being investigated and distracted and.. . can't you ask the guy to wrap this **** up? Can't YOU look into it and see if it's BS and just let us be done with it already?​

    That's a question Trump might ask in a meeting with an advisor. And the answer might be

    "Sorry, not really, Mr. President. That is an independent investigation already in the works."
    But... see, such a question might have been asked of these guys in good faith even if Trump meant to lean on Comey, already had leaned on Comey, wanted to shut the thing down.

    Now what I read of Comey's planned testimony doesn't look so good for Trump. Who knows how it went with these guys who are not in the DoJ. They work more directly with and for Trump. They are his intel picks and advisors. He has the right to have frank discussions with them about all manner of things in the working of his branch of the government. They cannot acquiesce in illegal requests. But they must listen to his questions and answer them to the best of their knowledge and ability within context of fealty to the Constitution.
     
  12. JayMysterio macrumors 6502

    JayMysterio

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Rock Ridge
    #12
    Which I guess is kind of my issue. They aren't in court. They are answering to the oversight committee. The guys who have oversight. They guys they are supposed to be answerable to.
     
  13. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #13
    Then probably it should be done in closed session...
     
  14. JayMysterio macrumors 6502

    JayMysterio

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Rock Ridge
    #14
    That was one issue the Senators had. None of the gentlemen gave any indication they were going to answer any questions even in closed session.
     
  15. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #15
    Because an investigative hearing by the oversight committee is set to proceed a judicial hearing. Everyone protects their own ass in DC.
     
  16. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #16
    I bet all this really makes kids want to major in poli sci and go into public service.
     
  17. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #17
    I've never run into an intel person that ever directly and succinctly answered any question combine that with lawyer and you get this. Nothing in their world is direct and succinct
     
  18. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #18
    LOL well their whole training is about not everything may be as it seems... they're taught to expect deception and also how to practice it in service to the country. So being asked to take off those hats in the presence of their overseers (a bunch of practiced deceivers themselves from time to time if there ever were any lol) is likely a pretty trying experience.

    Repeat after me: this guy is my overseer he's just doing his job take his questions at face value he's straight up...

    I don't mean to devalue the efforts of the committee and I expect them to do a good job ensuring that these guys do their jobs properly. The intel committee jobs are especially tough in cases like this when the inquiry is at least tangential to potential for impeachment, which is by constitutional outline a political process.

    But again... there is that lure of looking really good on TV nailing some hapless spy chief for overstepping his right to advise the prez. And, otoh for an intel oversight committee there is always the nightmarish flashback to the opacity of some decisions --and advice-- that were occurring in the Oval Office before we all learned how to spell Iran-Contra.

    So it's... complicated... yeah.
     
  19. pdqgp macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #19
    Who would have though Chris Mathews would feel it's time to finally move on. Haha!




    My guess is more and more will move on and attempt to continue the BS about Obstruction.
     
  20. HEK macrumors 68030

    HEK

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2013
    #20
    Saying you don't feel something is not in any way the same as answering the questing if you were asked something or not.
     
  21. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #21
    My firm contracts Oracle techs to come in a few times a year and do needed work. One of the regulars assigned to us is former military from years ago. Some form of MOS35. Getting a straight answer from him is akin to eating glass. He can't help it. He's admitted as such. Easier with the other tech that comes along, or the other one if it's a group of 3+.
     

Share This Page