Shan’t
Michelle Goldberg suggests why the four intel officials refused to answer Senators’ questions about Trump’s attempts to mess with the Russia inquiry yesterday.
Officially, the hearing was about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But all the Democratic senators, and some of the Republican ones, used the opportunity to question the men under oath about whether Donald Trump had tried to quash the investigation into his administration’s Russia ties, as the Washington Post and others have reported.
To the senators’ mounting frustration, the intelligence officials repeatedly refused to answer their questions. Those refusals, however, tell us a lot. It appears they couldn’t defend Trump without committing perjury. Nor could they tell the truth without dramatically undermining Trump’s administration. So, in a series of increasingly contentious exchanges, they simply defied the lawmakers tasked with overseeing their agencies.
Yes but it’s my understanding that the fact that the truth would undermine Trump’s administration is in no way a valid reason for their refusing to answer Senators’ questions. Those refusals look to me like what people call a Constitutional Crisis – a situation in which one branch of the government defies another branch. I don’t think Trump’s people get to just say “No, don’t want to.”
Tuesday night, the Post reported that Coats told associates that Trump had asked him to intervene with then–FBI Director James Comey to get the bureau to back off its investigation of fired National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. (The Post had previously reported that Trump asked both Coats and Rogers to publicly deny that there was any evidence of collusion between the president’s campaign and Russia.) Grilled about these conversations with Trump, both men simply refused to answer, over and over again.
Instead they talked about their fee-fees.
In his opening statement, Coats said that he had “never felt pressure to intervene or interfere in any way with shaping intelligence in a political way.” But the senators weren’t interested in how Coats felt—they wanted to know what, if anything, Trump had asked him to do.
What they “felt” is subjective. What Trump actually said is factual. Dodging the factual question by talking about subjective feelings is not what they’re supposed to be doing.
The legal basis for these demurrals was unclear. The White House has not invoked executive privilege, and the information at issue doesn’t appear to be classified—these officials initially described them as “confidential” conversations with the president, then seemed to switch to characterizing them as “classified” midway through the hearing. Several senators seemed infuriated at their stonewalling. “Why are you not answering these questions?” asked Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine.
“Because I feel it is inappropriate,” replied Rogers.
“What you feel isn’t relevant, admiral,” King shot back, reminding Rogers that when he was confirmed, he’d taken an oath before the Armed Services Committee to give the committee the full truth. Rogers still wouldn’t budge.
Then King turned to Coats, who started to echo Rogers’ answer about appropriateness. King cut him off. “I’m not satisfied with, ‘I do not believe it is appropriate’ or ‘I do not feel I should answer,’ ” he said. “I want to understand the legal basis. You swore that oath, to tell us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And today you’re refusing to do so. What is the legal basis for your refusal to testify to this committee?”
In an extraordinary moment, a stumbling Coats replied, “I’m not sure I have a legal basis.”
So that happened.
Yeah, they’re swinging in the wind–if they tell the truth, Donnie Two-Scoops will punish them. If they lie, they might face real consequences for it. So the only option left to them is rank cowardice.
The thing is, Freemage, they knotted the rope themselves when they agreed to work with Donnie. His tendencies were pretty clear during the campaign, and it is only naive to assume he would change as president.
They’ve only knotted the rope if senators have the guts to pursue this to its logical conclusion. Senators should now subpoena these same witnesses, demand answers and then hold them in contempt if they decline to answer. If this doesn’t happen, then effectively the senate will be shielding the president and completely abandoning its constitutional oversight role. You can then kiss goodbye what’s left of democracy in America.
The Consitution of the United States as put into place after the 1776 Revolution was the Founding Fathers’ idea of a Good Thing …. at the time. The President is actually an elected 18th C monarch, and empowered accordingly.
As an Australian, I am pleased to opine that our Aussie Founding Fathers got it right. We have a contsitution inspired by the US Constitution, but without the problems that come with having an elected monarch with enhanced powers: ie a president; head of both government AND state, elected separately from the legislature.
It reflects the shock of 1776 on the English parliamentary system. An extra boon is no elected judges or other public officials.
Trump is a George all right. But he’s no George Washington. He is more a George III.
Omar – initially the president had very limited powers and no budget to do much this vision of president as monarch is quite recent. It started from around the time of Theodore Roosevelt, and each subsequent president has grabbed more and more power. And each subsequent congress has allowed it to happen, even giving the president a “dicretionary budget” to spend as he wishes. That’s one of the reasons the court refused to strike down the “faith based charity” initiative, because it was set up by the president using discretionary funds, and the constitution specifically prohibits congress from establishing religion, not the president. Why? Because the president was given no powers that would allow him go do what was eventually done. They did not perceive a need. These are powers seized by 20th century presidents, not written into the constitution per se. The fact that congress and the courts have allowed such wild interpretations of vague constitutional phrases is a failure of political will.