Without Corroboration, James Comey's Character May Be His Only Witness
Believe it or not, we had every intention of exploring why the U.S. and Iran can't bury the hatchet long enough to join forces against a common enemy. After ISIS pulled off a brazen terror attack in the heart of Tehran, killing 12 and wounding 42, we thought it was clear, the time had come for cooperation with the only entity in the region that would never waver in their fight against the so-called Islamic State. Iranians are Shia. ISIS are Sunni. In this sectarian conflict, these two entities will never coexist peacefully. The fact that this reality isn't being exploited for the greater good is a mystery. And that sucks!
Unfortunately we'll have to solve that mystery later, because after top intel officials finished testifying before the Senate intelligence Committee (if you can call it that), former FBI Director James Comey found himself a man alone with only his reputation and character for a defense. And considering GOP character assassins will be targeting both as their sole purpose of muddying the waters, it'll be interesting to observe how Comey handles the tough questions, while making his case. And that case was made all the more difficult by Dan Coats, Director of National Intelligence and Michael Rogers of the NSA.
Both Coats and Rogers stonewalled the committee when asked the only question the public wanted answered. During any conversations with the President, was any effort made to interfere, obstruct or impede the FBI Russia probe? Plain and simple. Yes or no. Yes, and we got our case for obstruction of justice. No, and we move on to other business. Again, plain and simple. But despite the contentious and at times, dogged bipartisan inquiries, neither would break from providing prepared statements and talking points. The fact that neither Coats nor Rogers could provide a legal justification for their refusal to comply was of little consequence. No matter how hard Senate inquisitors pressed, Coats and Rogers stuck to their stories. And considering the Washington Post had already reported the damning accusations regarding who said what to whom, it was frustrating, to say the least, watching Coats and Rogers frustrate the committee and the public.
James Comey needed Coats and Rogers. According to the Washington Post, Dan Coats told associates in March that President Trump asked him if he'd intervene with then FBI Director Comey to get the bureau to back off his former national security advisor Michael Flynn. Like Coats, Michael Rogers was also "requested" by Trump to publicly deny the existence of evidence of collusion during the 2016 campaign. So, now that James Comey is the last man standing to have had one or more of these "questionable" conversations with President Trump, he'll have to do so without corroboration. Had Coats and Rogers said under oath what they've already told others, Donald Trump would have been convicted in the court of public opinion before the end of the week.
Bottom line: Because Senate intel inquisitors allowed Coats and Rogers to leave the hearing without threatening them with Contempt of Congress charges, unless they reconsidered their responses, these investigations could continue on for years. With all the lawyers in the room, it's a wonder why so few are familiar with the term justice delayed is justice denied. We the People have a right to know what happened and we have a right to know sooner than later. Podcast below.
Comments
Post a Comment