Top intelligence official told associates Trump asked him if he could intervene with Comey - Polidicks

[B]on FBI Russia probe[/B] (rest of the title) [quote][B]The nation’s top intelligence official told associates in March that President Trump asked him if he could intervene with then-FBI Director James B. Comey to get the bureau to back off its focus on former national security adviser Michael Flynn in its Russia probe, according to officials.[/B] On March 22, less than a week after being confirmed by the Senate, Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats attended a briefing at the White House together with officials from several government agencies. As the briefing was wrapping up, Trump asked everyone to leave the room except for Coats and CIA Director Mike Pompeo. The president then started complaining about the FBI investigation and Comey’s handling of it, said officials familiar with the account Coats gave to associates. Two days earlier, Comey had confirmed in a congressional hearing that the bureau was probing whether Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia during the 2016 race. After the encounter, Coats discussed the conversation with other officials and decided that intervening with Comey as Trump had suggested would be inappropriate, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal matters. [B]The events involving Coats show the president went further than just asking intelligence officials to deny publicly the existence of any evidence showing collusion during the 2016 election, as The Washington Post reported in May. The interaction with Coats indicates that Trump aimed to enlist top officials to have Comey curtail the bureau’s probe.[/B][/quote] [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/top-intelligence-official-told-associates-trump-asked-him-if-he-could-intervene-with-comey-to-get-fbi-to-back-off-flynn/2017/06/06/cc879f14-4ace-11e7-9669-250d0b15f83b_story.html?utm_term=.bfcc5cb2de0c]SOURCE[/url]

At this point, I'm afraid he'll just go full legit retard (already full retard) on Thursday and try some desperate attempt to get Comey to shut up.

Literally obstruction of justice. Fuckin' lock him UP.

[QUOTE]As the briefing was wrapping up, Trump asked everyone to leave the room except for Coats and CIA Director Mike Pompeo. The president then started complaining about the FBI investigation[/QUOTE] Is it me or does this remind anyone else of a certain scene from a movie?

-snip-

Its so weird to be living through this scandal. Like, I have to wonder how the feelings of many of us compare to those of people who were our age during Watergate.

[QUOTE=Megadave;52321724]Is it me or does this remind anyone else of a certain scene from a movie?[/QUOTE] Funny, I thought of the same thing. A certain very exploitable German-language scene of a historical movie?

So now we're rolling with secondary anonymous sources reporting the private and casual conversation of actual sources. It's like a game of telephone, except you don't even know who's playing.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52321821]So now we're rolling with secondary anonymous sources reporting the private and casual conversation of actual sources. It's like a game of telephone, except you don't even know who's playing.[/QUOTE] From news sources with a history of highly factual reporting, even if you find their politics inconvenient. They tend to vet their sources, even if they don't disclose them. Still, you're free to turn a blind eye and make up arguments to convince yourself everything you're hearing about the Trump admin is bullshit, and that he isn't really a criminal. Hell, the only question left in my mind is if he'll be found competent to hold trial. His levels of mental acuity don't seem to meet the standard for adult humans.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52321821]So now we're rolling with secondary anonymous sources reporting the private and casual conversation of actual sources. It's like a game of telephone, except you don't even know who's playing.[/QUOTE] Hypothetically, what if it's true?

[QUOTE=archangel125;52321826]From news sources with a history of highly factual reporting, even if you find their politics inconvenient. They tend to vet their sources, even if they don't disclose them. Still, you're free to turn a blind eye and make up arguments to convince yourself everything you're hearing about the Trump admin is bullshit, and that he isn't really a criminal. Hell, the only question left in my mind is if he'll be found competent to hold trial. His levels of mental acuity don't seem to meet the standard for adult humans.[/QUOTE] I wish we had a list of every story they've done with only anonymous sources to check accuracy. [editline]6th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Lambeth;52321833]Hypothetically, what if it's true?[/QUOTE] I personally wouldn't be surprised in the slightest, Trump is an amoral scumbag, but I don't think it would become illegal unless he attempt to coerce or do a quid-pro-quo trade of some sort.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52321834]I personally wouldn't be surprised in the slightest, Trump is an amoral scumbag, but I don't think it would become illegal unless he attempt to coerce or do a quid-pro-quo trade of some sort.[/QUOTE] Ah okay, that's way better than complaining about anonymous sources for the umpteenth time.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52321849]Ah okay, that's way better than complaining about anonymous sources for the umpteenth time.[/QUOTE] Just pointing it out. This one is even worse. It's not just anonymous. It's anonymous and not even a primary source.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52321834]I wish we had a list of every story they've done with only anonymous sources to check accuracy. [editline]6th June 2017[/editline] I personally wouldn't be surprised in the slightest, Trump is an amoral scumbag, but I don't think it would become illegal unless he attempt to coerce or do a quid-pro-quo trade of some sort.[/QUOTE] frankly id consider wrongful termination to be a form of attempted coercion for a certain someone

[QUOTE=sgman91;52321834]I wish we had a list of every story they've done with only anonymous sources to check accuracy. [editline]6th June 2017[/editline] I personally wouldn't be surprised in the slightest, Trump is an amoral scumbag, but I don't think it would become illegal unless he attempt to coerce or do a quid-pro-quo trade of some sort.[/QUOTE] I, too, am curious about that. Sources won't reveal themselves until all's over, though, and their coming forward can no longer hurt them. As for whether or not Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice, he fired the man investigating his administration and Russia and then admitted twice, one of those times on national TV, that it was BECAUSE he was investigating those things. The prosecutor's going to have the easiest time in the world getting a conviction. Hell, offer me five hundred million dollars and I wouldn't legally represent him, because it'd be a losing battle. This idiot never heard of the Fifth Amendment. Or thinks himself above the law. Sadly, he is, for all intents and purposes, until the Republican-controlled congress chooses to impeach him. I imagine whoever wins the next election will change that.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;52321786]Its so weird to be living through this scandal. Like, I have to wonder how the feelings of many of us compare to those of people who were our age during Watergate.[/QUOTE] Watergate wasn't that long ago, you could probably just ask someone.

[QUOTE=Megadave;52321724]Is it me or does this remind anyone else of a certain scene from a movie?[/QUOTE] Someone needs to parody this

[QUOTE=archangel125;52321924]I, too, am curious about that. Sources won't reveal themselves until all's over, though, and their coming forward can no longer hurt them. As for whether or not Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice, he fired the man investigating his administration and Russia and then admitted twice, one of those times on national TV, that it was BECAUSE he was investigating those things. The prosecutor's going to have the easiest time in the world getting a conviction. Hell, offer me five hundred million dollars and I wouldn't legally represent him, because it'd be a losing battle. This idiot never heard of the Fifth Amendment. Or thinks himself above the law. Sadly, he is, for all intents and purposes, until the Republican-controlled congress chooses to impeach him. I imagine whoever wins the next election will change that.[/QUOTE] I really don't think it's as clear as you're making it out to be, especially when you have quite a few people on the left saying that democrats need to be careful and not exaggerate their hand (Alan Dershowitz, for example, is a strong opponent of Trump and republicans as a whole, but doesn't see Trump's actions as criminal in nature: [url]http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/05/20/trump-impeachment-dershowitz-cabrera-segment.cnn[/url])

They asked coats about this today, and he said he can't comment on classified information basically confirming the report, he didn't deny it.

[QUOTE=ZachPL;52323751]They asked coats about this today, and he said he can't comment on classified information basically confirming the report, he didn't deny it.[/QUOTE] What? He said he didn't feel any pressure to act in an illegal or unethical way.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52324934]What? He said he didn't feel any pressure to act in an illegal or unethical way.[/QUOTE] That doesn't mean he wasn't asked. He didn't answer a single one of the question posed by multiple senate members. None of them did.