Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
Thu Jun 15, 2017, 11:00 AM Jun 2017

Trump Tried to Convince NSA Chief To Absolve Him of any Russian Collusion: Report

Source: Newsweek



BY GRAHAM LANKTREE ON 6/15/17 AT 9:36 AM

A recent National Security Agency memo documents a phone call where U.S. President Donald Trump pressures agency chief Admiral Mike Rogers to publicly state there is no evidence of collusion between his campaign and Russia, say reports.

The memo was written by Rick Ledgett, the former Deputy Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), sources familiar with the memo told The Wall Street Journal. Ledgett stepped down from his job this spring.

The memo said Trump questioned the findings of America’s intelligence community that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. American intelligence agencies issued a report early this year that found Russian intelligence agencies hacked the country’s political parties and worked to sway the election to Trump.

The Russia investigation’s special counsel Robert Mueller plans to interview Ledgett as part of his investigation into Russia’s efforts to manipulate in the 2016 vote, a source told the WSJ . Mueller is also probing whether Trump himself obstructed justice when he fired former FBI Director James Comey on May 9, according to the Washington Post .

Read more: http://www.newsweek.com/trump-tried-convince-nsa-chief-mike-rogers-russia-investigation-fake-report-626073

11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Trump Tried to Convince NSA Chief To Absolve Him of any Russian Collusion: Report (Original Post) DonViejo Jun 2017 OP
He's in a whole heap of trouble SHRED Jun 2017 #1
It's complicated. Calista241 Jun 2017 #3
The Comey firing is less straight forward Bradical79 Jun 2017 #5
Trump said the word "Russia" and the implication behind that Calista241 Jun 2017 #7
Yeah Bradical79 Jun 2017 #4
So can someone please explain to me why Rogers was protecting Trump? hamsterjill Jun 2017 #2
Pure speculation on my part... DonViejo Jun 2017 #8
Sounds reasonable coming from Donald. hamsterjill Jun 2017 #9
That's another issue Matthews addressed... DonViejo Jun 2017 #11
Ok, so here's an easier question: VWolf Jun 2017 #6
Rogers and Coats were not so much protecting Trump blueinredohio Jun 2017 #10

Calista241

(5,586 posts)
3. It's complicated.
Thu Jun 15, 2017, 11:08 AM
Jun 2017

Firing Comey for not publicly saying he's not under investigation, which apparently was true, is not obstruction. Talking to other people about saying he's not under investigation is not obstruction.

Ordering Comey to stop his investigation of Mike Flynn is obstruction. Pressing others to try and influence Comey on the Flynn case is also obstruction.

Basically, if Flynn's name isn't involved in these stories, then he's not at risk for obstruction.

 

Bradical79

(4,490 posts)
5. The Comey firing is less straight forward
Thu Jun 15, 2017, 11:19 AM
Jun 2017

A lot also depends on what was testimony was given behind closed doors. He was careful to specify Trump was not personally under investigation. The campaign was though, and Trump fired him over "Russia".

Calista241

(5,586 posts)
7. Trump said the word "Russia" and the implication behind that
Thu Jun 15, 2017, 11:31 AM
Jun 2017

Is open to interpretation. I would assume Trump is going to be able to produce witnesses or staff that will say "he wanted what Comey told him privately to be public information."

 

Bradical79

(4,490 posts)
4. Yeah
Thu Jun 15, 2017, 11:13 AM
Jun 2017

I don't know how long it will take to finish the investigation, but it's bad when you have documented incidents with the former FBI director who you fired, and the head of the NSA. Especially when you lied about such things occuring.

hamsterjill

(15,223 posts)
2. So can someone please explain to me why Rogers was protecting Trump?
Thu Jun 15, 2017, 11:08 AM
Jun 2017

All of this Trump "breaking news" makes it hard sometimes for those of us with full time jobs to keep up, and it's quite possible that I've missed a link or a story that explains this.

But I don't understand why, if Trump asked this of Rogers, that Rogers was refusing to answer questions posed at the public hearing. I mean, I know he probably couldn't say much, but he was flat out contemptuous of questions asked of him. Whose side is he on????

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
8. Pure speculation on my part...
Thu Jun 15, 2017, 11:32 AM
Jun 2017

I think it's a part of Trump's loyalty oath. Rogers, Coats and Sessions all refused to discuss their conversations with him. The other night, Chris Matthews discussed the fact anyone and everyone that works for Trump (even campaign volunteers) had to sign non-disclosure agreements before they were hired. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he insisted his cabinet appointees do the same thing, sign the pledge.

hamsterjill

(15,223 posts)
9. Sounds reasonable coming from Donald.
Thu Jun 15, 2017, 11:35 AM
Jun 2017

But I still don't understand why someone like Rogers would put himself personally at risk (contempt???) rather than just retire and be done with it all.

I thought his comment about "wanting to be back on the bridge of a destroyer" was rather telling.

blueinredohio

(6,797 posts)
10. Rogers and Coats were not so much protecting Trump
Thu Jun 15, 2017, 11:55 AM
Jun 2017

They were trying to save their jobs and added. Now that the truth is out they're probably hoping now they don't get fifed

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Trump Tried to Convince N...