President Trump asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against an FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and the Russian government, according to current and former officials. Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and to Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election. Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the requests, which they both deemed to be inappropriate, according to two current and two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president. Trump sought the assistance of Coats and Rogers after FBI Director James B. Comey told the House Intelligence Committee on March 20 that the FBI was investigating “the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.” Trump’s conversation with Rogers was documented contemporaneously in an internal memo written by a senior NSA official, according to the officials. It is unclear if a similar memo was prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to document Trump’s conversation with Coats. Officials said such memos could be made available to both the special counsel now overseeing the Russia investigation and congressional investigators, who might explore whether Trump sought to impede the FBI’s work. White House officials say Comey’s testimony about the scope of the FBI investigation upset Trump, who has dismissed the FBI and congressional investigations as a “witch hunt.” The president has repeatedly said there was no collusion. Current and former senior intelligence officials viewed Trump’s requests as an attempt by the president to tarnish the credibility of the agency leading the Russia investigation. A senior intelligence official said that Trump’s goal was to “muddy the waters” about the scope of the FBI probe at a time when Democrats were ramping up their calls for the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel, a step announced last week. Senior intelligence officials also saw the March requests as a threat to the independence of U.S. spy agencies, which are supposed to remain insulated from partisan issues. “The problem wasn’t so much asking them to issue statements, it was asking them to issue false statements about an ongoing investigation,” a former senior intelligence official said of the request to Coats. https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.0120c8335db2
"A senior intelligence official said" More bull shit out of the deep state. Well Trump must fire these guys, the lot of them. "The officials said the White House appeared uncertain about its power to influence the FBI." WTF? Trump fired the boss and rightfully so.
He asked them to tell the truth, which is that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN LEADING UP TO THE ELECTION. Zilch.
The whole fucking election was a clusterfuck.... These rich folk are pounding the shit outta us right now... Donald Trump the populist??? Y'all Drumpf supporters got fucking DUPED...
Not necessarily. Perhaps Medicaid recipients wanted to give up their healthcare so that Donald could pay less taxes... barfo
In spite of all the negative PR, Trump's Gallup approval/disapproval numbers are better (for him) now than in March.
For every $5 spent on food stamps it generates $9 and economic stimulus. FACT. We throw away over 50% of our food. FACT. Buuuuut, let's not feed people who need to eat. Let them starve while we continue to waste more food than we consume... BALLS ON THAT SHIT..... FAT, HAIRY, PURPLE BALLS ON THAT SHIT....
NOT FACT. And who cares about us throwing away 50% of our food? We're also paying farmers to not grow crops. How about we stop paying them.
I saw massive increases in # of bums/scavengers in my neighborhood the past 8 years. During most nights, you can hear the various the garbage cans being rummaged through. Thanks Obama.
And while that's happening, while we throw away our food, we'll continue to say "fuck them. Let's cut funding further for food stamps" (WWJD?). All the while, flying back and forth to Mar-a-lago, "wife" not living at the WH, budget proposal blows the deficit and debt right the fuck up, while handing out more tax breaks to the rich and increasing military spending when we spend more money on that than the next 9 countries down... Because you know, priorities... Does it make sense to say that you are cutting food stamps to help balance the budget when you are doing so many other things that blow the deficit and debt to smithereens?
From Forbes: Food & Drink Beth Hoffman , SUBSCRIBER Sep 23, 2013 12:29 PM 55,407 Last week, the House passed a measure aimed at cutting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as “food stamps,” by $40 billion over the next ten years. This despite the program feeding more Americans than ever before, with the lowest amount of error and fraud in the program’s history. Representative Marlin Stutzman, Republican of Indiana, told the New York Times, “In the real world, we measure success by results. It’s time for Washington to measure success by how many families are lifted out of poverty and helped back on their feet, not by how much Washington bureaucrats spend year after year.” But wishing everyone had adequate work and enough food to eat does not make it so. The infographic below, created by Christine Batten of the Community Food & Justice Coalition, shows that, in the real world, 48.7 percent of those receiving food assistance are children (who are, of course, unable to work to pull themselves out of poverty). Those who are able-bodied and without children can currently only receive 3 months of assistance unless they are working 20 hours a week. And although many say the economy has improved over the past few years, those qualifying for the SNAP program (without the qualifications changed) has increased by more than 6 million individuals since 2010. That number means that there are today more than 22 million children in need of food in the United States. These are critical facts lawmakers need to keep in mind when considering to rip the rug out from millions of Americans in need of food. I would venture to bet that all of the more than 47 million people receiving SNAP would rather be “back on their feet.” But in a country with more food than anywhere else in the world, it is morally reprehensible to not help those who need it. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bethho...why-it-is-critical-to-continue-their-support/
Yep. The idea is to make good jobs for the people who had no alternative to food stamps under Obama. Then they can eat 1/2 the food on their plates and throw out what they don't want.
