Top Intelligence Officials “Feel Uncomfortable” Speaking in Front of Congress

On the Eve of Former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony in front of Congress, two other high-ranking intelligence officials testified in front of Congress. They were Admiral Michael S. Rogers, the Director of the NSA, and  Dan Coats, the Director of National Intelligence.

The hearing began as a discussion on legislation that would extend the FISA Amendments Act. Earlier during his presidency, the executive branch asked that they are made permanent, no questions asked. If this is to be granted, intelligence analysts and FBI agents alike would not need a warrant before using American names while searching the messages which have been collected and stored by the NSA.

When asked to obtain an estimate as to how many messages are accidentally swept into the program, Coats said he dropped the investigation since it diverted resources and was an unnecessary intrusion of privacy. He did, however, reveal that an airstrike carried out in March of 2016 was a direct result of this intelligence gathering, and resulted in the death of ISIS leader Haji Imam.

From this point on though, the conversation changed and focused on the role that these two men played in the current special counsel into Trump’s relationship with Russia. Much like the intended topic, they seldom spoke about specifics, if at all, regarding questions about if Trump had asked them to intervene in the investigation.

When asked if Trump had asked him to interfere with Mr. Comey’s investigation into former national security advisor Mr. Flynn, Mr. Coats refused to comment. When Rogers was asked if he had been asked by President Trump to deny the evidence of collusion between himself and the Russians, he also declined to comment. Even though they did not make many comments they did make one thing abundantly clear: Trump never asked them to do anything that they perceived as inappropriate.

In fact, Rogers said, “In the three-plus years that I have been the director of the National Security Agency, to the best of my recollection, I have never been directed to do anything I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate.”

He would go on to conclude this statement by saying that he never felt pressured by the administration to do anything.

The lack of communication frustrated both parties and pushed them to ask more questions that the two would decline to comment on. They were asked if Trump had invoked his executive privilege, barring them from speaking, but both said that after talking with the white house they were able to talk, but since the answer was not clear they did not feel comfortable sharing any information.

This frustrated the Senators further. An Independent Senator from Maine, Mr. Angus King, then asked, “What is the legal basis for your refusal to testify to this committee?”

The men were quick to respond saying that they were unsure if they had any legal basis at all not to speak. They continued though by saying that they would have been much more comfortable and willing to share details had this been a closed-door hearing, not one that was open to the public.

Regardless of the criticism that they drew from the panel of frustrated Senators, they stuck to their guns and refused to give details. This followed suit with the current acting FBI Director and Deputy Attorney General who both said that the special counsel should decide what can be shared with lawmakers as opposed to the public.

One thing is for certain though, and that came in a statement made by Florida Senator Marco Rubio, “If what is being said to the media is untrue, then it is unfair to the president of the United States. And if it is true, then it is something the American people deserve to know, and we, as an oversight committee, need to know in order to conduct our job.”

Whether or not this is a witch-hunt is not the point anymore. The investigation is turning into Watergate and is slowing down the government to the point where it has stopped functioning and is the sole focus of every action. The government needs to let the special counsel do its job, and return to its normal functions and handle the result of the investigation once they are released at the conclusion.