Dan Coats was going after Russian election interference

[edhopper]

Do we need to look any further why Trump got rid of him?

[blueinredohio]

1. We are so screwed.

[watoos]

3. Is it still too soon?

[ehrnst]

42. For what?

Is this another "impeachment NOW is the way to fix this, why aren't Democrats stopping him?" posts?

To someone with a hammer, everything looks like a nail...

[Blue_true]

13. I doubt it.

One thing that I know for sure is that this country has a lot of good people in it. There are patriots in the intelligence agencies that will leak information damaging to Trump at exactly the right time. There are lots of people in those agencies that are highly skilled at psychological warfare, they know how to keep their powder dry until the right time.

How do you know that some of those people have not already talked to Speaker Pelosi and told her impeachment hearings would help Trump, that they have ways of outing him at the right time? I don't know that it has happened, but you also can't say that it hasn't potentially happened.

[pangaia]

18. We are screwed.

[Blue_true]

21. I disagree. nt

[pangaia]

22. i hope you are right and not me...

[bearfan454]

37. I hope to heck you're right

We cannot count on the repukes to be honest, ever.

[Blue_true]

43. Maybe I am a romanticist.

But I believe good always overcome evil, the long arc of history validates that belief. People like Trump reign for a while, but their greed and other excesses bring them down. The happiest news on election night 2020 would be that Donald Trump was defeated, along with McConnell and Collins along three or four other repug Senators, and the democrats measurably increased the advantage in the House - all that would be the good, even getting rid of Trump, McConnell and Collins would be a great night.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. I'm sure he was telling (or trying to tell) Dolt 45 things he didn't want to hear or believe

about Russia and North Korea. Dear Leader doesn't want to hear truth that displeases him.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Well, the new guy certainly won't make that mistake.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. It will be hard for him to speak at all with his lips affixed to Trump's ass,

just the way Trump likes it.

[edhopper]

9. Trump knows full well

that Putin got him elected. Putin tells him every time they meet.

[Blue_true]

15. Or Trump is trying to cripple US Intelligence and was told by Putin how he

could do it.

But I think that Trump will fail. Putin was a top KGB operative that also led that agency. He had decades to get rid of people that would resist him within Russian intelligence. Trump may put a lackey to lead an intelligence agency and he may install lackey deputies, but there are thousands of people that he won't be able to replace, many of those people have special skills that will likely be used to bring him down.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

16. It's more likely Trump is what they call a useful idiot.

He's too dumb and impulsive to be a Russian agent, though he's certainly a Russian asset.

[defacto7]

39. I agree.

[KPN]

41. I dunno, there are milions of Repugs for him to pick from. The House needs to impeach him, and then

we need to run his ass out of the WH in 2020 -- both. We know impeachment won't get him gone, and we don't know for sure that the 2020 election will (partly because of continued Russian interference despite what the intelligence agencies are supposedly doing). I would think that all those people with all those skills to bring him down might have already stepped up and done something, especially after McConnell put the kaibosh on election security legislation.

[malaise]

5. Then he must speak loudly

and sing like a canary

[Dennis Donovan]

8. The fact that more haven't sung...

...is terrifying.

[malaise]

10. Precisely - which is why I want to know why Dems continue to refer

to any of them as 'my friend on the other side'.
They are not friends of anything starting with the truth

[uponit7771]

24. +1

[Takket]

38. Drumpf has screwed over countless people

And they all have this bizarre sense of “honor” that they serve at the pleasure of the president and shouldn’t talk about it.

Subpoena him

[Dennis Donovan]

6. Is today Putin's "Michael Coroleone's 'settle all family business'" day???

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212326834

Was Coats "Moe Greene"?

[Blue_true]

11. I hope that there are patriots in the intelligence agencies that will start leaking

information on Trump's efforts to kill our democracy. Even if he puts them in jail, the democrat that defeats him should promptly pardon them and hold them up as national heros.

[C_U_L8R]

12. I hope he testifies. Soon.

In public.

[dawg day]

14. He also supposedly warned Barr to be careful what he declassified--

in his Trump-spleen "investigation" of the intelligence agencies.

Barr wouldn't like to be told that, because you're not the boss of me and no one tells me what to do except trump of course.

[barbtries]

17. nope.

i hope he writes a book. fast.

[INdemo]

19. Did Coats get fired When?

[world wide wally]

20. Subpoena him

[Tanuki]

23. Departure announced today

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/07/28/us/politics/dan-coats-intelligence-chief-out.amp.html
"President Trump announced on Sunday that Dan Coats would step down as director of national intelligence after a fraught tenure marked by tension with the Oval Office, and he tapped one of his staunch defenders, Representative John Ratcliffe, to take over the country’s expansive network of spy agencies.

Mr. Coats, a former senator and longtime pillar of the Republican establishment who angered the president by providing unwelcome assessments of Russia, North Korea and other matters, told Mr. Trump last week that it was time to move on, officials said. His departure removes from the national security team one of the most prominent figures willing to contradict the president.

If Mr. Ratcliffe is confirmed by the Senate, he will offer a starkly different perspective in the Situation Room, one more in line with Mr. Trump’s thinking. Mr. Ratcliffe, a third-term Republican from Texas and former prosecutor, has embraced Mr. Trump’s theories about the origins of the Russia investigation and was among the sharpest questioners of Robert S. Mueller III, the former special counsel, at last week’s hearings.
....

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, on the other hand, did not hold back, saying that Mr. Ratcliffe was clearly “selected because he exhibited blind loyalty to President Trump with his demagogic questioning” of Mr. Mueller and that his confirmation “would be a big mistake.”.....(more)

[dem4decades]

25. Do you have evidence?

[edhopper]

26. I have eyes, ears

and a brain.

Do you think Trump wanted Russian interference investigated?

[TomCADem]

27. Politico - Intelligence chief Coats defends finding that Russia meddled in the election

I think most everyone knows that Dan Coats publicly rebuked Trump's denial alongside Putin that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/16/coats-russia-meddling-trump-putin-724373

The U.S. director of national intelligence is defending American spies’ assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 election — a push back against President Donald Trump, who appeared to indicate Monday that he believes Russian leader Vladimir Putin's denials on the matter.

In a statement issued not long after Trump held an extraordinary news conference with Putin in Helsinki, Dan Coats said the U.S. intelligence community has "been clear" about its findings.

"The role of the Intelligence Community is to provide the best information and fact-based assessments possible for the president and policymakers," said Coats, who took over as U.S. director of national intelligence in March 2017. "We have been clear in our assessments of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and their ongoing, pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy, and we will continue to provide unvarnished and objective intelligence in support of our national security."

U.S. intelligence agencies have long concluded that Russia, using cyberattacks and other means, interfered in the 2016 presidential election in favor of Trump. Special counsel Robert Mueller last week indicted 12 Russian intelligence officials over alleged interference.

[Hoyt]

28. Even Barr admitted Ruskies interfered.

[TomCADem]

29. How Did Barr Admit Interference and When?

I think the difference is pretty apparent. Lets see Barr publicly contradict Trump a few days after he was sucking up to Putin.

[Hoyt]

30. Read his 4 page summary after Mueller's Report was released. He specifically said, Ruskies mounted

Disinformation campaign and hacking. Would have been late March. First few paragraphs.

Does anyone read this stuff?

[TomCADem]

31. You Mean The Summary That The Trump Administration Celebrated...

...as a total vindication for Trump? Or, is there some other Barr summary that you had in mind? If it is, maybe what I view as trying to water down the Mueller report, you see as showing a backbone. It is just a difference of opinion:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/24/mueller-report-white-house-claims-vindication-ag-barrs-summary/3261486002/

Trump claims 'total exoneration' from Mueller summary despite lack of answers on obstruction

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump claimed vindication from a summary made public Sunday of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, despite unanswered questions about whether the president's actions constituted obstruction of justice.

“It was a complete and total exoneration,” the president said as he boarded Air Force One in Palm Beach, Florida, en route to Washington.

"It's a shame that our country had to go through this," Trump said. "To be honest, it's a shame that your president has had to go through this. Before I even got elected, it began. And it began illegally.”

Trump, who has attacked Mueller's investigation since he was appointed special counsel in 2017, referred to the investigation as an "illegal takedown that failed."

[Hoyt]

32. Obviously, you haven't read the summary -- Just the BS trump said and people who

refuse to read official documents.

Look it up, you only have to read the first 1.5 pages.

He said Ruskies interfered and he quoted Mueller’s Report that said they could not exonerate trump on Obstruction.

[TomCADem]

33. Wow. Just Can't Accept That Someone Has a Different Opinion...

...then you, so you have to go with the , "you obviously, you must be unimformed" route, rather than actually argue your.point. feel free to expand on your defense of Barr or just make more ad hominem attacks to confirm that you have nothing. Your choice.

[Hoyt]

35. I'm just saying you didn't read it. If you had, you wouldn't be debating this matter of whether

even Barr admitted Russians interfered in the election.


Barr's March 24th summary said the following:

"Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.

"The Special Counsel's report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel's investigation was whether any Americans - including individuals associated with the Trump campaign - joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."1

"The Special Counsel's investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.

"The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple. offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign."

__________________

Barr's short summary of Mueller's 200 pages on Russian interference is pretty much what Mueller's Report says. It clearly does on deny Russia interfered.

[TomCADem]

44. Perhaps You Are Mistaken About the Point I Was Making...

...I was talking about difference between Coats and Barr when I wrote:

How Did Barr Admit Interference and When?

I think the difference is pretty apparent. Lets see Barr publicly contradict Trump a few days after he was sucking up to Putin....

You read this as a denial that Barr did not dispute that Russians attempted to interfere with the election. If you read this as a denial, that was not my intent. It was a question. Hence, the use of the question mark.

You do not appear to disagree with my point that there is a big difference between the conduct of Coats and Barr. Coats directly contradicted Trump. In contrast, Barr tried to soften the impact of the Mueller report. For example, Barr’s summary left out that Mueller’s report said it identified "numerous links" between Trump’s campaign and Russia, and that the campaign expected to benefit from Russia’s efforts.

While you are suggesting that we should give Barr a lot of credit for not completely fabricating the contents of the Mueller report, I think we all know that would have been stupid. Instead, Barr tried to mitigate its impact without creating any low hanging fruit for the media and Democrats to point to.

I read the summary and your post. I just disagree with you. Barr was hardly speaking truth to power in his efforts to mitigate the significance of the Mueller report.

[Hoyt]

45. Well, you replied to "Even Barr admitted Russians interfered." And you asked How and Why?

Barr said Russians interfered, plain as day. Everyone knows Ruskies interfered, some don’t admit it publicly.

[budkin]

34. Trump won't acknowledge it because it makes him look illegitimate

Which he completely is.

[bearfan454]

36. No we don't n/t

[Kid Berwyn]

40. If only there were some way to dump Trump the Traitor!?

I know! Let’s ask Mitch McConnell. He’ll know what to do!