-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
WaPo: Trump asked intelligence chiefs to push back against FBI collusion probe
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
Woo-Fu
Banned
Unlikely, he made a number of pretty big mistakes. He needed to be ousted, Trump just did it for the wrong reasons.
On the other side though, he's a known figure for not being bipartisan now which can be considered fairly rare. What other mistakes has he also made besides the Hillary Clinton emails issue where there were other factors for what he did?
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Yeah that's pretty huge. Brennan was used as a GOP shield, no more.
https://twitter.com/EmmaLee05733408/status/867029661880131584
GOP pushing hard to get some cover for Trump.
Host Samurai
Member
Please be Jeff sessions
Surprisingly this bit came out during questioning by Trey Gowdy...It appeared to me that he was hoping to get Brennan to state that the contact was minimal instead it blew up in his face.
Woo-Fu
Banned
I think this sums it up nicely:
http://fortune.com/2017/05/21/donald-trump-james-comey-news-fired-rosenstein-memo/
There were multiple mistakes with the email situation, not just one. The biggest was his choice to jump into the political arena---bringing all of the FBI with him. He was going to get canned regardless of who won the election after that.
CitizenVectron
Member
He was in a tough position though, I think we all need to acknowledge that. Everyone knew about the investigation, and if they didn't comment and it turned out after Clinton won that she was guilty of some crime, then the FBI would look political. What he did also looked political. There was no easy answer for Comey.
Armoured Priest
Member
My congressman, Mark Pocan, pulled one on Paul Ryan:
http://www.cbs58.com/news/congressman-mark-pocan-holds-town-hall-in-speaker-paul-ryans-district
https://twitter.com/EmmaLee05733408/status/867029661880131584
GOP pushing hard to get some cover for Trump.
Ok, but there is definitely evidence of obstruction.
This has to be a joke right?
Open setting, some answers won't be said out loud. Just like he refused to comment on if foreign intel partners shared intel with CIA about Russia/Trump collusion.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Permanently A
Junior Member
mmmmm baby
Version 3.0
Member
I don't think we can chalk this up to ignorance. I mean, he's spoken about Nixon and Watergate (saying Hillary is worse). He's aware that there is a thing called "obstruction of justice". Dimly aware, I assume, but still, he can't claim ignorance.
I would attribute this more to him just thinking he's untouchable. He's always been, his whole life. Any problem he's ever had has been solved by him just asking for it to go away.
Watch out for Fox News and all the Trump supporters, though. Fox is going to be willfully ignorant and wonder aloud: why would just saying something be obstruction of justice? It's just words. And Trump supporters will eat it up, because they're actually ignorant.
rokkerkory
Member
New thread worthy for sure
"The problem wasnt so much asking them to issue statements, it was asking them to issue false statements about an ongoing investigation"
Yeah uh.. is this as big of a deal as I think it is? He basically said "stating that Trump's team did not collude with Russia is false".
Nope, until an investigation is complete saying either there was collusion or there wasn't collusion is false because the investigation isn't done and no-one knows which is true and which is false yet.
Wouldn't the correct phrasing be something like "we can't issue conclusions until the investigation is complete" instead of actually labeling compliance with Trumps request as being "false"? I mean I think I understand what he was saying but it seems like using "false statements" in that context gives the wrong impression ("false" implies factually incorrect).
titiklabingapat
Member
I don't care the means to get there. Use Russia, call them traitors.
We know our policies are sound and work. The trick is getting there. Progressives should use every thing they have at thier disposal. Voters will apparently reward you for it.
You're not wrong but the person who said that is a person not a machine and we've only been given a small slice of that conversation. So I believe someone could say that issuing any unsubstantiated claim as a certainty could be considered a falsehood by many people but also we don't know the direct request President Trump(bleh) made regarding the statement he wanted them to make. Perhaps he wanted them to say that he, personally, wasn't under investigation, or to mischaracterize the investigation in some other fashion. Lastly, the person who claimed it was "false" wasn't Coats but someone speaking for him, who could have been present, could have been absent but privy to the memo or could just be someone in the field asked to comment about the contents of the memo by the reporter, Coates himself may not have ever said he was asked to make a "false statement" for all we know.
Really though it boils down to the fact I just can not imagine a reporter letting that slide and not running with that statement as the main story if s/he felt it was authentic instead of it being a small part of the overall article which it is here unless the meaning of that statement is how I'm parsing it. I imagine there's tons of back and forth's between the sources and the journalist that aren't in the article that'd make it more clear and I figure it was left this way because it's ambiguous and also providing the followup that clarified it to the reporter makes it less sexy and damning, otherwise we'd have a front page news story from the author saying Coates says "Trump colluded with Russians."
