LIVE - The Senate Intelligence Committee Undercard match is on now...

[brooklynite]

Senior National Security Officials Testify on FISA Authority

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, DNI Director Dan Coats. NSA Director Admiral Michael Rogers and Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe testify at a Senate Intelligence Committee Hearing

https://www.c-span.org/video/?429451-1/senior-national-security-officials-testify-fisa-authority&live

[Persisted]

1. Watching. Burr was deferential.WARNER GoES THERE!! NT

[Persisted]

2. WARNER THROWS DOWN THE TRUMP/RUSSIA OBSTRUCTION!

[Persisted]

3. DEMS WILL ASK ROSENSTIEN ABOUT HIS ROLE COMEY FIRING.

[Persisted]

4. DEMS WILL ASK ABOUT COATES/ROGERS EXPLOITATION BY TRUMP.

[furtheradu]

5. K & R..& thanks!

[FM123]

6. Warren drops the mic

[brooklynite]

7. Steve Clemons (The Atlantic) says he heard Mike Rogers "might have a story to tell"

[awesomerwb1]

8. Unable to watch

can someone tell me if Burr tried to sabotage?

[Persisted]

12. Deferential in opening. He wants this renewed. nt

[awesomerwb1]

27. What does "renewed" mean?

And thanks for the updates!

[Persisted]

29. 702 expires at the end of the year

Look down thread for an explanation as to what the expiration would require from the ic community

[procon]

9. The Dems will be asking the important questions while Republicans

will focus on irrelevant side issues.

[Persisted]

10. Coats gives example of 702 collection.....

email intercepted in Pakistan, Zazi and coconspiritors, planning to bomb Manhattan Subways were stopped.

[yallerdawg]

11. Undercard?

These four are running investigations and intelligence!

There will be no bigger show this week, regardless of endless M$M promotion.

[brooklynite]

13. Let me put it this way...bars are opening tomorrow in DC for Comey viewing

[Persisted]

14. Coats laying out framework for renewal...

1.... collection under 702 is vital and gives intelligence.

2.... there are legal limitations with in fisa
a.. can only be used to Target foreigners and foreign lands
b cannot Target us person anywhere
c cannot Target foreign person in United States
d cannot Target foreign person in foreign land with the intention of entrapping US citizen


3... committed to ensuring intelligence use of 702 is consistent with the law and privacy

Never has been a deliberate breakage of the rules

[Persisted]

15. Coats giving terrific history on 702

On how it is even more protective than what was there previously

[Persisted]

16. But since there is no fourth amendment protection for foreign people in foreign lands

Fisa in 2008 and 2012 addressed that.

[Persisted]

17. Statute requires minimumization of

Incidental collection on US citizens that happens during collection of a targeted Foreigner in a targeted land

[Persisted]

18. Note majority of over steps on over collection are self repported

He's going into a detailed explanation of compliance and oversight

[spinbaby]

19. This reminds me so much of Watergate

Because it involves interminable boring testimony that I am somehow unable to look away from.

[berksdem]

55. just said the same

thing to my wife... unbearable to an extent b/c it is nothing but talking around the issue.

[Persisted]

20. Detailed oversight by the fisa court.....

Coates describes it as the best of the best of the Judiciary

[Persisted]

21. We have never found an intentional violation of this program

There have been over sights and mistakes but none of them have been intentional because this is about humans collecting data

[Persisted]

22. Most compliant incident which resulted in change.....

NSA received inquiries on Upstream data.....

This is a detailed incidents that was addressed by several agencies transparently and is available publicly.... NSA self corrected.

In order to address the fisa courts privacy concerns NSA gave up a particular stream of data collection.

So the NSA is able to self identify compliance issues fix them and be transparent with the fisa court.

[Persisted]

23. How many Americans have been collected?

Coats talks about the fundamental problem in order to determine if someone is an American citizen... It would require extensive inquiry that in and of itself might be violative of the person's civil liberties.

Also it would divert resources.

[Persisted]

24. Haji Iman case.....NSA tracking over 2 year period...

tactical partners and IC.....so #2 is ISIS dead.

[Persisted]

25. burr up.....holder and clapper, 2012 reauth.

has position changed? No.

[Persisted]

26. Burr...any deliberate violations? No, from all panel. nt

[Persisted]

28. Burr.....so, we all good? What about 4th? Rodstien answers

Vet getting rid of 702 with require a probable cause warrant to apply to foreign citizens who do not have protection under the Fourth Amendment it would be cumbersome and frankly not required by the Constitution

[Persisted]

30. Rogers & Bar discussing reverse targeting.....

And how 702 was set up to prevent the targeting of US citizens by targeting foreign entities

[Persisted]

31. Now Rodgers brings up incidental collection of US citizens

One two foreign entities discuss an American citizen who is not currently a Target

Two a US citizen contacts at Target or the reverse

So now they are talking about what happens when you encounter a US person

[brooklynite]

32. Senator Warner bringing up Trump/Russia investigation now.Did Trump attempt to pressure Coates?

[Persisted]

33. Warner goes there...

Rogers up first then coats

[L. Coyote]

34. Here we go, Warner on Trump obstruction efforts.

Finally, the boring stuff is over.

[BumRushDaShow]

35. Rogers sounds like a nasty bastard.

[Persisted]

38. No...he just threw Trump under the bus. nt

[BumRushDaShow]

41. I didn't think so

He gave a very extreme, angry non-answer that claimed that he wasn't pressured to do anything and insisted that he "stood by" it.

And Coats is now saying the same without all the anger.

[Persisted]

43. Nope....you're missing the point. They say, like

Warner notes..... it doesn't matter if they felt pressure or not, it matters what the president asked

[BumRushDaShow]

48. I understand that - i.e., confirming the fact that the conversation did take place

but they are not going any further other than claiming "they weren't pressured" (which then diffuses the assertions being put out there).

[Persisted]

54. The gravaman for obstruction is not the pressure

But the attempt and the asking.

[BumRushDaShow]

62. What I posted in #57

indicates that Drumpf can say that he "was just asking his options" (as a new politician) which may not be considered "obstruction" - notably if the people who he "asked" are now claiming that he didn't "pressure" them.

[Persisted]

67. Again.....that's a defense. A defense. nt

[BumRushDaShow]

72. And the assertion of obstruction is just hearsay until proven otherwise.

[OliverQ]

36. Rogers basically just squashed the Trump meeting

Says he was never directed to do anything wrong.

[Persisted]

37. That's not what he said.nt

[BumRushDaShow]

42. It is what he said and Coats just repeated it

[Persisted]

44. ,Nope...... he said he didn't feel pressured,

Not the Trump didn't say it.

The basis of obstruction is not whether the victim feels pressured.

[OliverQ]

47. No, Rogers also said he didn't feel he was ever directed to do anything he felt was wrong

Meaning Trump telling him to end the investigation.

[Persisted]

58. What he feels doesn't matter to an obstruction charge.

The point is is that he basically confirmed that he was asked but he didn't feel pressured.

[OliverQ]

60. But that would mean Rogers doesn't think Trump asking to intervene in an investigation is wrong.

[BumRushDaShow]

57. The prevailing narrative

was not just that the President had the conversation, but that he was pressuring and they refuse to testify to that (at least at this time).

The danger being that Drumpf can always say that being a neophyte, he was only asking what the options were, which might not be considered "obstruction".

[Persisted]

59. Obstruction doesn't depend on everybody's feelings.

And you've made my point... That's Donald raising an affirmative defense to the charge of obstruction.

[BumRushDaShow]

65. I'm not talking "feelings"

I am saying that unless he is put under oath to tell the public exactly what he said, he can argue that he was only "asking his options" and if he testified that is what he did and is not found to have perjured himself, then it would be difficult to rise to "obstruction". Otherwise we are in a he-said, she-said scenario.

[Persisted]

39. Coats now says he can't answer in public. nt

[Imperialism Inc.]

40. So much for Rogers and Coats. Nothing going to happen with them.

[Persisted]

49. No.....

What it is is a confirmation that neither one of these men are going to accede to the pressure of mr. trump...

They failed to exonerate him from asking however

[OliverQ]

50. I'm feeling really cynical about Comey now

None of this is going to hurt Trump.

[JTFrog]

84. You mean the guy that helped put him in office to begin with.

Yeah, I have no good feelings about Comey.

[L. Coyote]

46. Ask about the President AND any members of the Administration. Coats not answering the question.

Coats a Republican, of course. Previous offices: Senator, IN (2011–2017), Senator, IN (1989–1999), Representative, IN 4th District (1981–1989), United States Ambassador to Germany from 2001 until 2005.

Coats pressed President Barack Obama to punish Russia harshly for its March 2014 annexation of Crimea.[16] For this stance, Coats and several other lawmakers were banned from travelling to Russia. WIKI

[Ninga]

53. Because Coats chose to answer by asserting he never "felt pressure " did he not at least

open the door for Senators to keep hammering him for a complete answer?

[Persisted]

61. Yes. nt

[L. Coyote]

66. Pressure, as in "or I'll fire you." Does not preclude having been asked w/o pressure.

Seems like careful parsing to avoid directly answering the question.

[Ninga]

68. Question. does a parsed answer open the door for a return to the original question? Nt

[Ninga]

74. Seems to me that Rubio knows what these bozos were going to say. Nt

[chelsea0011]

51. Rogers was asked an "if he ever" question and replied he won't answer hypothetical questions....

which it wasn't. That is not a hypothetical. It is like asking someone if they ever saw someone alive and they say I won't answer a hypothetical.

[Pacifist Patriot]

56. Blurted that out loud in my office.

No way was that a hypothetical question.

[still_one]

63. Neither Coates or Rogers will discuss specifics of private conversations with trump

[Persisted]

64. Well....Feinstien just smacked DOJ.....Rogers answering

her unmasking question....


he's being testy.

[L. Coyote]

69. Rubio had dinner with Trump to prepare for these hearings.

[Ninga]

77. Agree.

[Ninga]

90. What about "questions with a Senator, or questions with a lawyer, or questions wi a Congressman or

Any other person about how to answer today!"

Do these people realize we can see through this bull crap.

[OliverQ]

85. So much corruption, so much treason

These people aren't going to face consequences when everyone with power is corrupt to the core.

[brooklynite]

70. Rubio goes for the Leaks angle first; Rogers reiterates he won't discuss Trump in PUBLIC...

[Persisted]

71. Rubio just fucked Trump. nt

[Ninga]

75. Agree. Rubio knew what these guys were going to say. Nt

[BumRushDaShow]

76. THIS

[L. Coyote]

79. He is carrying water for Trump and going after Obama.

[Persisted]

80. I'm not saying he did it deliberately. nt

[BumRushDaShow]

78. Here comes Wyden

[Persisted]

81. Holy Shit. nt

[brooklynite]

86. That's going to leave some marks...

[blogslut]

82. Ooh! 3 out of 4 won't comment on taking notes!

Hmmm.

[Pacifist Patriot]

88. I loved the "don't understand the question" delaying tactic.

Could practically hear the wheels spinning on how to not answer the question in a way that could bite them later when the truth comes out.

[L. Coyote]

89. Yep. There are notes.

[L. Coyote]

83. Wyden finally asking great questions. And getting non-answers.

No answers to questions about #TrumpRussia investigation.

[L. Coyote]

87. Wyden is the best so far. Real questions. Coates is not cooperating.

Some targets are classified, "highly classified" per Coats.

[DeminPennswoods]

91. Rogers and Coates danced around

Coates seems like he wants to answer the question, but Rogers studied at the John Poindexter school of deception.

Warner should have prepped with Adam Schiff about how to ask pointed yes/no questions and how to follow up. For ex, Warner could have pointedly said Rogers' reply indicated Trump never asked him to intervene w/Comey. Rogers says no and it's perjury (Warner clearly said he has confirmed the meeting with other sources), yes and it's confirmation. No wiggle room there.

But the fact that both men said they couldn't answer in open session is pretty compelling evidence Trump did want them to intervene. Otherwise, the truth is simple to say, "Trump never asked me to do anything wrt Comey/Russia/Flynn."

[L. Coyote]

96. Rogers and Coates confirmed Mueller is investingation Trump for obstruction involving them

without saying so directly.

[Persisted]

92. Susan Collins slipped the knife. nt

[Persisted]

97. Understand..... she asked why Obama was able to get

A 17 agency report....
Why the hell can't Donald.

[Persisted]

93. Heinrich just kicked some serious ass. nt

[Pacifist Patriot]

94. He's not backing down! Hell, I'm starting to feel uncomfortable under his grilling. LOL!

[blogslut]

95. I like this Heinrich fellow.

Telling the witnesses they've got selective standards and calling out their filibustering! I dig him.

[Persisted]

98. Blunt.....a rose is a rose. nt

[BumRushDaShow]

99. Angus kicking ass and taking no prisoners!

[Persisted]

100. Oh, holy shit Angus King!!!

[blogslut]

101. Angus King is not having it.

This cherry-picked "classified" bullshit stinks to high hell.

[L. Coyote]

102. General Counsel at the White House is controlling the panel.

That is alarming.

[bettyellen]

112. This is bizarre. Executive privilege would never hold up in court. They know that.

[L. Coyote]

117. This seems an end run around the fact it would not hold up.

In process abatement ploy, apparently.

[Heron5]

103. Asked?

So Rogers and Coats won't say in open hearing if they were ASKED to intervene, and will only say that they weren't DIRECTED or felt PRESSURED. That move pretty much confirms they were indeed asked. It will come out in closed session or at the least during Mueller's investigation.

[Persisted]

104. Precisely. nt

[L. Coyote]

106. It is obvious the Mueller investigation is overlapping some of the inquiries. In other words

the special counsel is investigating Trump's obstruction in relation to them.

[furtheradu]

107. YES. nt

[L. Coyote]

105. The President is under criminal investigation and that has to be the bottom line here.

And that is what is blocking their answers to some questions. But, the White House is apparently making sure they don't answer certain questions also, any about conversations with Trump and White House.

[brooklynite]

108. Continuation thread now up.....

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029171287

[Persisted]

109. And Burr just confirmed that Russia is briefed

in closed session.

[Heron5]

110. Not in today's closed session.

The 2:00 closed deal is reserved solely for technical matters related to 702. Burr says this group will be invited back later for a closed session after conferring with Mueller, if I understand that correctly. Coats and Burr seemed to indicate that they would likely be more forthcoming at that time. Let's hope.

[bettyellen]

115. Rogers and his "I would hope so" is incredibly weasely.

[bettyellen]

111. Kamala! She's good.

[bettyellen]

113. Trying to pin down Rosenstein to tell Mueller he will not be fired.

As has been done before. He won't give a straight answer.

[Persisted]

114. "Folks" Pat Fitgerald

[Persisted]

116. "So is that a 'No'?" nt

[bettyellen]

118. Coates disparaging WaPo in response to McCains questions about their reports.

[Persisted]

119. No..Kabuki. mt

[writes3000]

120. McCain is doing a good job validating The Post's article.

[Ninga]

121. Aw shucks McCain...just trying to be all warm and fuzzy...not a forceful question in his body. Nt

[Persisted]

122. Knife slipping in. nt

[writes3000]

123. Agree.

[DeminPennswoods]

124. These 4 are now officially part of the cover up

They better start thinking about invoking their 5th amendment privilege.

It was also hilarious to hear them all practically begging for Trump to invoke executive privilege, too.