Intel chiefs tell investigators Trump suggested they refute collusion with Russians

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,565
152
63
There could still be a couple people in DC who Trump didn't ask to interfere in the Trump/Russia election investigations but I could be wrong.



(CNN)Two of the nation's top intelligence officials told Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team and Senate investigators, in separate meetings last week, that President Donald Trump suggested they say publicly there was no collusion between his campaign and the Russians, according to multiple sources.

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.
Sources say both men went further than they did in June 7 public hearings, when they provided little detail about the interactions.

The sources gave CNN the first glimpse of what the intelligence chiefs said to Mueller's investigators when they did separate interviews last week. Both men told Mueller's team they were surprised the President would suggest that they publicly declare he was not involved in collusion, sources said. Mueller's team, which is in the early stages of its investigation, will ultimately decide whether the interactions are relevant to the inquiry.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/18/politics/jay-sekulow-donald-trump/index.html

Coats and Rogers also met individually last week with the Senate intelligence committee in two closed briefings that were described to CNN by Democratic and Republican congressional sources. One source said that Trump wanted them to say publicly what then-FBI Director James Comey had told the President privately: that he was not under investigation for collusion. However, sources said that neither Coats nor Rogers raised concerns that Trump was pushing them to do something they did not want to do. They did not act on the President's alleged suggestion.
Trump has said repeatedly that no collusion occurred. "After 7 months of investigations & committee hearings about my 'collusion with the Russians,' nobody has been able to show any proof. Sad!" he tweeted June 16. The White House did not comment for this story. The DNI, NSA and Mueller's office also did not comment.

Because the meetings were classified, sources shared limited details. But they said the two intelligence leaders recounted conversations that appeared to show the President's deep frustration that the Russia allegations have continued to cloud his administration. The question of what the President said to Coats and Rogers has been hanging over the administration since The Washington Post reported the interactions in late May.
CNN has
confirmed the March interactions between the intelligence chiefs and the President in which he made the requests. These came a few days after Comey publicly confirmed for the first time the existence of the federal investigation of potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/politics/trump-investigation/index.html

In a public Senate intelligence hearing earlier this month in which both men testified, senators in both parties grew frustrated and angry after neither would agree to clear up exactly what the President said to them. Rogers and Coats said they did not feel pressured to do anything but would not describe any details of their conversations with Trump.
"In the three-plus years that I have been the director of the National Security Agency, to the best of my recollection, I have never been directed to do anything I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate, and to the best of my recollection during that same period of service I do not recall ever feeling pressured to do so," Rogers said during the public hearing.

Coats offered a similar response. "In my time of service, which is interacting with the President of the United States or anybody in his administration, I have never been pressured — I have never felt pressured — to intervene or interfere in any way with shaping intelligence in a political way or in relation to an ongoing investigation," he said.
The reason for their public reticence, one congressional source told CNN, is that Coats and Rogers had asked the White House for guidance on whether their conversations with the President were protected by executive privilege, which meant they would not be allowed to discuss it. They did not get an answer from the White House before testifying and did not know how to answer the committee. The result was an awkward and contentious public hearing.

In classified follow-up meetings with the Senate intelligence committee, they were more forthcoming, according to sources familiar with the closed-door session.
One congressional source expressed frustration that Coats and Rogers didn't answer the questions in public, especially since what they ended up expressing in private was that they did not feel that the President pressured either of them to do anything improper.
Rogers' interaction with the President is also documented in a memo written by his deputy at the NSA, Richard Ledgett.

One congressional source who has seen the memo tells CNN that it is one page and, unlike memos written by former FBI Director James Comey, does not have many details of the conversation. Instead, it simply documents that the interaction occurred -- and makes clear that Rogers thought it was out of the ordinary.
Coats did not document his conversations with the President about the issue, the source said.



http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/22/politics/intel-chiefs-trump-refute-collusion/index.html
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
46,692
1,764
113
There could still be a couple people in DC who Trump didn't ask to interfere in the Trump/Russia election investigations but I could be wrong.



(CNN)Two of the nation's top intelligence officials told Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team and Senate investigators, in separate meetings last week, that President Donald Trump suggested they say publicly there was no collusion between his campaign and the Russians, according to multiple sources.

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.
Sources say both men went further than they did in June 7 public hearings, when they provided little detail about the interactions.

The sources gave CNN the first glimpse of what the intelligence chiefs said to Mueller's investigators when they did separate interviews last week. Both men told Mueller's team they were surprised the President would suggest that they publicly declare he was not involved in collusion, sources said. Mueller's team, which is in the early stages of its investigation, will ultimately decide whether the interactions are relevant to the inquiry.

Coats and Rogers also met individually last week with the Senate intelligence committee in two closed briefings that were described to CNN by Democratic and Republican congressional sources. One source said that Trump wanted them to say publicly what then-FBI Director James Comey had told the President privately: that he was not under investigation for collusion. However, sources said that neither Coats nor Rogers raised concerns that Trump was pushing them to do something they did not want to do. They did not act on the President's alleged suggestion.
Trump has said repeatedly that no collusion occurred. "After 7 months of investigations & committee hearings about my 'collusion with the Russians,' nobody has been able to show any proof. Sad!" he tweeted June 16. The White House did not comment for this story. The DNI, NSA and Mueller's office also did not comment.

Because the meetings were classified, sources shared limited details. But they said the two intelligence leaders recounted conversations that appeared to show the President's deep frustration that the Russia allegations have continued to cloud his administration. The question of what the President said to Coats and Rogers has been hanging over the administration since The Washington Post reported the interactions in late May.
CNN has
confirmed the March interactions between the intelligence chiefs and the President in which he made the requests. These came a few days after Comey publicly confirmed for the first time the existence of the federal investigation of potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

In a public Senate intelligence hearing earlier this month in which both men testified, senators in both parties grew frustrated and angry after neither would agree to clear up exactly what the President said to them. Rogers and Coats said they did not feel pressured to do anything but would not describe any details of their conversations with Trump.
"In the three-plus years that I have been the director of the National Security Agency, to the best of my recollection, I have never been directed to do anything I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate, and to the best of my recollection during that same period of service I do not recall ever feeling pressured to do so," Rogers said during the public hearing.

Coats offered a similar response. "In my time of service, which is interacting with the President of the United States or anybody in his administration, I have never been pressured — I have never felt pressured — to intervene or interfere in any way with shaping intelligence in a political way or in relation to an ongoing investigation," he said.
The reason for their public reticence, one congressional source told CNN, is that Coats and Rogers had asked the White House for guidance on whether their conversations with the President were protected by executive privilege, which meant they would not be allowed to discuss it. They did not get an answer from the White House before testifying and did not know how to answer the committee. The result was an awkward and contentious public hearing.

In classified follow-up meetings with the Senate intelligence committee, they were more forthcoming, according to sources familiar with the closed-door session.
One congressional source expressed frustration that Coats and Rogers didn't answer the questions in public, especially since what they ended up expressing in private was that they did not feel that the President pressured either of them to do anything improper.
Rogers' interaction with the President is also documented in a memo written by his deputy at the NSA, Richard Ledgett.

One congressional source who has seen the memo tells CNN that it is one page and, unlike memos written by former FBI Director James Comey, does not have many details of the conversation. Instead, it simply documents that the interaction occurred -- and makes clear that Rogers thought it was out of the ordinary.
Coats did not document his conversations with the President about the issue, the source said.



http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/22/politics/intel-chiefs-trump-refute-collusion/index.html
Read: "You haven't found collusion, tell the people that".

Basically, he wanted them to tell the truth. Crazy, I know.
 

bornaneer

Senior
Jan 23, 2014
30,215
844
113
There could still be a couple people in DC who Trump didn't ask to interfere in the Trump/Russia election investigations but I could be wrong.

Soooo.....Whats wrong with asking someone to state publicly what they were saying privately?
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
I pray that liberals keep up this Russia collusion fiasco. It will decimate them if they focus on it in the next election.

As even many Democrats acknowledged after the Georgia defeat, no one is talking about Russia.
 

bornaneer

Senior
Jan 23, 2014
30,215
844
113
I pray that liberals keep up this Russia collusion fiasco. It will decimate them if they focus on it in the next election.

As even many Democrats acknowledged after the Georgia defeat, no one is talking about Russia.
They are imploding. It make zero difference if Trumps lasts his term. I'm on record as believing he might say "who needs this sh*t" a gets out.... I know I would. The far left liberal media is causing great harm to the Democrat Party.
 

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,565
152
63
They are imploding. It make zero difference if Trumps lasts his term. I'm on record as believing he might say "who needs this sh*t" a gets out.... I know I would. The far left liberal media is causing great harm to the Democrat Party.
Caring about the integrity of our elections is causing great harm to the Dem party, that's good to know.
 

TarHeelEer

Redshirt
Dec 15, 2002
89,286
37
48
Caring about the integrity of our elections is causing great harm to the Dem party, that's good to know.

You don't care about the integrity of elections. You care about harming Trump and his agenda. Be truthful.
 

bornaneer

Senior
Jan 23, 2014
30,215
844
113
Caring about the integrity of our elections is causing great harm to the Dem party, that's good to know.
Nothing wrong about caring about the "integrity of our elections". President Obama should have done more about it when they knew months ahead of the previous election. What the far left liberal media is doing to Trump has NOTHING to do with your concerns.
 

Airport

All-Conference
Dec 12, 2001
82,081
2,244
113
Caring about the integrity of our elections is causing great harm to the Dem party, that's good to know.
Dems have never cared about integrity in anything concerning politics
 

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,565
152
63
Dems have never cared about integrity in anything concerning politics
 

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,565
152
63
You don't care about the integrity of elections. You care about harming Trump and his agenda. Be truthful.
I just want the truth. I'll leave Trump to harm himself and he's doing just fine with that.
 

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,573
756
113
Caring about the integrity of our elections is causing great harm to the Dem party, that's good to know.
Being infested with lazy ***** idiots like you is what is killing the party.
 

American Fabius

Redshirt
May 21, 2017
246
0
0
Homegrown Terrorism and Why the Threat of Right-Wing Extremism Is Rising in America
http://www.newsweek.com/homegrown-terrorism-rising-threat-right-wing-extremism-619724


Home is where the hate is
https://www.revealnews.org/article/home-is-where-the-hate-is/


Trump’s fixation on demonizing Islam hides true homegrown US terror threat

An early high-water mark of Donald Trump’s presidency came Feb. 28, with his first address to Congress. Midway through the speech, the new president turned to national security: “We are also taking strong measures to protect our nation from” – and here he paused for emphasis – “radical Islamic terrorism.”

Those words got him a standing ovation. A week later, he unveiled his second executive order banning entry for people from several Muslim-majority nations.

Trump frequently had excoriated his predecessor, President Barack Obama, and his chief political opponent, Hillary Clinton, as naive, even gutless, for preferring “violent extremism” to describe the nature of the global and domestic terrorist threat.

“Anyone who cannot name our enemy is not fit to lead this country,” Trump said at one campaign speech in Ohio. During another, in Philadelphia, he drove home the attack: “We now have an administration and a former secretary of state who refuse to say ‘radical Islamic terrorism.’ ”

It was a strange place to make his point. The only Islamist terror attack in Pennsylvania over the past 15 years was committed by Edward Archer, a mentally ill man who shot and injured a police officer in early 2016, later telling investigators that he pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. Far-right episodes of violent extremism were far more common.

Just two years before Trump’s Pennsylvania speech, anti-government radical Eric Matthew Frein ambushed two police officers in the township of Blooming Grove, killing one and wounding another, then led law enforcement authorities on a 48-day manhunt in the woods. (He was sentenced to death in April.)
 

American Fabius

Redshirt
May 21, 2017
246
0
0
Being infested with lazy ***** idiots like you is what is killing the party.

June 22, 2017
Mirren Gidda
Posted with permission from Newsweek
Republish
Reprint


U.S. President Donald Trump was elected vowing to get tough on “radical Islamic terrorism.” He has tried to implement a travel ban barring people from six Muslim-majority nations from entering the U.S. and has tweeted frequently about Islamist terrorist attacks around the world. On Thursday, a new report claimed the president has his facts muddled.


A joint project by the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute, a nonprofit media center, and Reveal from the Center for Investigative Reporting has found that within the past nine years, right-wing extremists plotted or carried out nearly twice as many terrorist attacks as Islamist extremists. Of the 115 right-wing incidents, police only foiled 35 percent. Compare this to the 63 Islamist terrorism cases, where police foiled 76 percent of the planned attacks.


Right-wing extremists were not only more successful, they were often more deadly, too. From 2008 to 2016, a third of right-wing attacks involved fatalities, compared to 13 percent of Islamist attacks. It should be noted, however, that Islamist extremists killed more people overall, with a death toll of 90 people compared to 79.


In a statement pointing out the higher rate of successful, right-wing terrorist attacks, the Investigative Fund said: “This project quantifies just how irrational Trump and the GOP's fixation on 'radical Islamic terrorism' as the greatest security threat is.”




“Fixation” might be the right word. The president has yet to acknowledge the problem of right-wing violence, remaining uncharacteristically silent after an Islamophobic attack on a mosque in London that left one man dead. (Trump tweeted about the three incidents of Islamist terrorism that have hit the U.K. capital in recent months.)


Part of the problem, the Investigative Fund and Reveal suggest, are the people that Trump has advising him. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the president’s former national security adviser, had said that “fear of Muslims is rational,” and that he doesn’t “see Islam as a religion.” Trump advisor Steve Bannon has referred to Islam as a “religion of submission,” and is believed to have been a strong advocate for the ban on certain nationalities entering the U.S. (As the former head of Breitbart News, Bannon boasted that the organization was “the platform for the alt-right.”)


The new administration, says Reveal and the Investigative Fund, is therefore unlikely to change the culture whereby federal authorities disproportionately focus on potential Islamist extremists. Of the incidents’ the two organizations registered, federal authorities handled 91 percent of the Islamist ones and just 60 percent of the right-wing ones.
 

American Fabius

Redshirt
May 21, 2017
246
0
0
We were not talking about republicans
Of the 115 right-wing incidents, police only foiled 35 percent. Compare this to the 63 Islamist terrorism cases, where police foiled 76 percent of the planned attacks.

Right-wing extremists were not only more successful, they were often more deadly, too. From 2008 to 2016, a third of right-wing attacks involved fatalities, compared to 13 percent of Islamist attacks. It should be noted, however, that Islamist extremists killed more people overall, with a death toll of 90 people compared to 79.
 

TarHeelEer

Redshirt
Dec 15, 2002
89,286
37
48
Of the 115 right-wing incidents, police only foiled 35 percent. Compare this to the 63 Islamist terrorism cases, where police foiled 76 percent of the planned attacks.

Right-wing extremists were not only more successful, they were often more deadly, too. From 2008 to 2016, a third of right-wing attacks involved fatalities, compared to 13 percent of Islamist attacks. It should be noted, however, that Islamist extremists killed more people overall, with a death toll of 90 people compared to 79.

From the article's perspective, right wing extremism is white on black crime. Issues with that from the getgo. Left wing nuts are racist too. At any rate, whites murdered 189 blacks in 2016. Blacks murdered 409. I guarantee you that black percentage of racist violence is higher than white racist violence. Where's the article on that? Oh that's right, protected minority, you don't dare dis them, nor Islam.