# New allegation: Trump tried to use NSA, DNI to reign in FBI investigation **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 23, 2017, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-allegation-trump-tried-to-use-nsa-dni-to-reign-in-fbi-investigation/787278 "2017-05-23T14:24:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2017, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-allegation-trump-tried-to-use-nsa-dni-to-reign-in-fbi-investigation/787278/61 "2017-05-24T15:14:23Z")
> [@ganthet](#): > > I doubt the FBI/CIA know all of the actual names of the Russian hackers, their associates, or the actual names of any intermediaries they used, particularly with Wikileaks. Without that information, it would not be possible to immediately identify whether Trump’s associates had talked with them, even on the calls/contacts/messages that the FBI/CIA already know about. We knew all of that back in January: > [@](#): > > Russia’s intelligence services conducted cyber operations against targets associated with the 2016 US > presidential election, including targets associated with both major US political parties. > > We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence > Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and [DCLeaks.com](http://DCLeaks.com) to release US victim data [https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA\_2017\_01.pdf](https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2017, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-allegation-trump-tried-to-use-nsa-dni-to-reign-in-fbi-investigation/787278/62 "2017-05-24T15:15:24Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > This is a standard right wing talking point, and for a reason; while nonsensical, it sounds convincing to people who aren’t really paying attention. > > Criminal investigations take a very, very long time, and this one just started, and it’s a VERY complex case. The Russia investigation, from the perspective of the FBI and DOJ, is in the early stages of what promises to be an incredibly difficult and complicated job. I doubt Mueller has even hired all his staff yet. Your claims of “we know what happened” are simply not true; again, you are referring to the observation that the government of Russia engaged in underhanded tactics to sway the results of the election. Hell, man, I knew that last year, that’s not news; they just confirmed it. What this is now about is actually different; whether there was collusion between Trump and/or his agents and the Russian government. > > Imagine two cops are called to a bank alarm and, walking in, see that someone has cracked open the safe. One cop says “Hmm, we’d better investigate what might have been taken; we need to have the bank do a full count and see what was stolen, if anything. We also need to bring in the lab guys to check for evidence. Let’s put some feelers out to see if any of our informants know about anyone who’s been planning a job…” and the the second cop says “But the vault is cracked open so we know what happened. If someone had taken any money we’d know who it was by now.” > > You’re the second cop. A near year long investigation, at this point, is not equivalent to doing nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2017, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-allegation-trump-tried-to-use-nsa-dni-to-reign-in-fbi-investigation/787278/63 "2017-05-24T15:31:50Z")
Beyond that, the fact is that the whole place - both the Trump people and anti-Trump Deep Staters - is leaking like a sieve. There has been a non-stop bombardment of stories all involving less incriminating matters. The notion that there’s this genuine incriminating stuff out there that has yet to be disclosed by anyone, of all the people looking for it and with access to that info, seems increasingly unlikely. You never know. By my guess is that the more you look into the Trump-Russia matter the more you’re just going to find more of the same as what you’re seeing now. Time will tell. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2017, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-allegation-trump-tried-to-use-nsa-dni-to-reign-in-fbi-investigation/787278/64 "2017-05-24T16:01:42Z")
We will see indeed. But I think most of the leaking is coming from what you describe as “deep state” people. Election shenanigans by people not brought into the administration could still be safe from leaks but be exposed by the investigation. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2017, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-allegation-trump-tried-to-use-nsa-dni-to-reign-in-fbi-investigation/787278/65 "2017-05-24T16:28:47Z")
Of course. The point is that the Deep Staters currently working for the government would have access to this type of information if it turned up in investigations, and - if the patterns hold true - would likely have leaked it by now. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2017, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-allegation-trump-tried-to-use-nsa-dni-to-reign-in-fbi-investigation/787278/66 "2017-05-24T16:30:21Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I imagine if the Trump administration created an independent commission with the level of independence and narrow scope of this one, you and others would not be mollified. I understand that you’re a frequent defender of all things Trump, but the quality of the people is the distinguishing element here, not right-wingers’ conspiracy theories of people of bipartisan and non-partisan characters with extremely distinguished reputations suddenly becoming Clinton flaks because of who appointed them. Thomas Pickering is basically a legendary figure in diplomacy, who held extremely important senior diplomatic posts under Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. You think he was in the tank for Clinton? Mike Mullen was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs nominated by both Bush and Obama. He was Bush’s Chief of Naval Operations. You think he compromised his integrity in this investigation? And I’ll note that Bob Muller’s appointment as independent counsel – not the doing of Trump of course – has been acclaimed by all sides. But we know that Trump wouldn’t dare appoint anyone of the caliber of Muller, Pickering, or Mullen to any such position, because Trump has a practice of expecting loyalty to him to override professional integrity. But if Trump did appoint people of integrity to conduct a probe, I’d cheer it. But let’s remember the original question: a poster made the silly assertion that there was no way for Trump to not be criticized for looking like he had something to hide. The answer is quite obviously that this is not true: he could appoint a commission to get to the bottom of things. But he won’t, which is part of the reason why he looks like he has things to hide. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2017, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-allegation-trump-tried-to-use-nsa-dni-to-reign-in-fbi-investigation/787278/67 "2017-05-24T16:53:42Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I understand that you’re a frequent defender of all things Trump, but the quality of the people is the distinguishing element here, not right-wingers’ conspiracy theories of people of bipartisan and non-partisan characters with extremely distinguished reputations suddenly becoming Clinton flaks because of who appointed them. > > Thomas Pickering is basically a legendary figure in diplomacy, who held extremely important senior diplomatic posts under Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. You think he was in the tank for Clinton? > > Mike Mullen was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs nominated by both Bush and Obama. He was Bush’s Chief of Naval Operations. You think he compromised his integrity in this investigation? That seems like a false dichotomy here, between these people’s “extremely distinguished reputations” and the possibility of them being “Clinton flaks”. But it’s not that simple. I have no reason to believe any of these people compromised their integrity, but nonetheless, having the possible target of an investigation get to choose the panel which does the investigation does compromise to an extent the independence of that body. It’s like one side in a trial getting to pick the judge and jury. Doesn’t impugn the judge and jury chosen, but not purely independent either. That, in combination with other staff members chosen by State, and other information-sharing with, and report input by, State. And even at that I only said it was “shaky”. Plus limited in scope. > [@](#): > > But let’s remember the original question: a poster made the silly assertion that there was no way for Trump to not be criticized for looking like he had something to hide. The answer is quite obviously that this is not true: he could appoint a commission to get to the bottom of things. But he won’t, which is part of the reason why he looks like he has things to hide. Most people, innocent or not, are not pleased at the prospects of having commissions investigating their actions. I myself am innocent of any crimes that I can think of offhand, but if a commission was just appointed to investigate my actions for potential wrongdoing I would not be pleased. And I’m not even a politician. The way these things work is that they drag on forever and hang over the head of whoever is the subject of the investigation. Plus, the real world being what it is, it’s almost inevitable that any commission investigating anyone will find someone who did something wrong, whether to the point of being criminal or not following proper procedures. (As did the Benghazi commission that you reference.) That’s normal. And that kind of relates to my comments. They were not about Trump ion a vacuum. You brought up the Benghazi example as a contrasting example of the way things were properly done, suggesting that Trump was to be faulted by the comparison. And my response to that is that the Benghazi commission was not valid comparison and your depiction was not accurate. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2017, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-allegation-trump-tried-to-use-nsa-dni-to-reign-in-fbi-investigation/787278/68 "2017-05-24T18:41:12Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I have no reason to believe any of these people compromised their integrity, but nonetheless, having the possible target of an investigation get to choose the panel which does the investigation does compromise to an extent the independence of that body. It’s like one side in a trial getting to pick the judge and jury. Doesn’t impugn the judge and jury chosen, but not purely independent either. My god, this is a bunch of doubletalk and nonsense. “I’m not saying that we can’t trust the commissioners, but can we really put our faith in them?” > [@](#): > > Most people, innocent or not, are not pleased at the prospects of having commissions investigating their actions. I myself am innocent of any crimes that I can think of offhand, but if a commission was just appointed to investigate my actions for potential wrongdoing I would not be pleased. And I’m not even a politician. If you don’t want to have your affairs reviewed by people who aren’t your lackeys, don’t go into public office. We know that Russia engaged in a campaign to manipulate our election for their own benefit. Yet, the President doesn’t want to get to the bottom of it, because he is not only doing nothing to get to the bottom of it (like appointing a commission), but it’s now basically a fact that he’s working against people getting to the bottom of it. If you were in his shoes, would you be trying to sandbag investigations of this attack on our democratic institutions, because you might be personally embarrassed? And really, isn’t that a good reason for such an investigation? > [@](#): > > You brought up the Benghazi example as a contrasting example of the way things were properly done, suggesting that Trump was to be faulted by the comparison. And my response to that is that the Benghazi commission was not valid comparison and your depiction was not accurate. Well, eight years of a mostly scandal-free Administration is indeed a difficult comparison to the raging dumpster fire that’s been going on for four months. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2017, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-allegation-trump-tried-to-use-nsa-dni-to-reign-in-fbi-investigation/787278/69 "2017-05-24T19:04:48Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > My god, this is a bunch of doubletalk and nonsense. “I’m not saying that we can’t trust the commissioners, but can we really put our faith in them?” I gave you an analogy that I think captures the issue I was raising. That being a guy who gets to select the judge who gets assigned to his case. Perhaps you might want to comment on that. If someone says the judge is honorable but that was not a truly “independent” trial with all that implies, would you consider that doubletalk and nonsense? I wouldn’t have thought you needed to have this explained, but the obvious issue is that it gives the person being investigated (or tried, as the case may be) to select someone with an eye to how that person is likely to judge their specific issue or case. So it’s not impugning anything about the person selected. But to the extent that the person being investigated is trying to prove their innocence by saying that “hey I chose an independent bunch of guys to investigate etc.”, that becomes less compelling if that person had input as to which people did the investigating. I would have thought this is obvious, but if you think it’s wrong and can explain why this is double-talk and nonsense, you might want to elaborate. > [@](#): > > If you don’t want to have your affairs reviewed by people who aren’t your lackeys, don’t go into public office. That’s all very nice. But that’s not the context of this discussion. The context here is whether the fact that a guy who is averse to being investigated can be assumed to be guilty on that basis. That was your claim, and I explained why it’s wrong. Your new claim is that “well that’s tough luck, you signed up for that when you ran for office”. That’s fine, but it doesn’t change the aversion to investigation into evidence of guilt, which is your original claim. > [@](#): > > We know that Russia engaged in a campaign to manipulate our election for their own benefit. Yet, the President doesn’t want to get to the bottom of it, because he is not only doing nothing to get to the bottom of it (like appointing a commission), but it’s now basically a fact that he’s working against people getting to the bottom of it. > > If you were in his shoes, would you be trying to sandbag investigations of this attack on our democratic institutions, because you might be personally embarrassed? And really, isn’t that a good reason for such an investigation? I’d like to think that I’d do better than Trump in all sorts of ways. Again, the issue here is whether that’s evidence that he has something to hide - which is your claim - or whether he dislikes being investigated as anyone else would, and being Trump, doesn’t appreciate that like it or not the best thing is to let it go forward anyway. > [@](#): > > Well, eight years of a mostly scandal-free Administration is indeed a difficult comparison to the raging dumpster fire that’s been going on for four months. There’s no doubt that the Obama administration was better run than the Trump one, to this point. But a lot of the “scandal free” claim is based on the subjective determination that Obama’s scandals were just trumped-up by Republicans for partisan purposes. For example, Eric Holder stonewalled the Fast and Furious investigation based on (later struck down) Executive Privilege claims. Do you support Trump and/or Sessions doing that? Or would you interpret that as having something to hide, and “if you don’t like it don’t go into public office”? Let me guess. You think the Fast & Furious investigation was just a partisan exercise by congressional Republicans, and Holder was right to resist them. Is that it? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2017, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-allegation-trump-tried-to-use-nsa-dni-to-reign-in-fbi-investigation/787278/70 "2017-05-24T19:33:18Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’d like to think that I’d do better than Trump in all sorts of ways. Again, the issue here is whether that’s evidence that he has something to hide - which is your claim - or whether he dislikes being investigated as anyone else would, and being Trump, doesn’t appreciate that like it or not the best thing is to let it go forward anyway. I can’t speak for Ravenman, but I personally will meet you in the middle here - any even slightly competent, moral, intelligent, or educated politician would find themselves incapable of being seen openly interfering with an investigation into treason of this level (for _numerous_ reasons), but Trump has none of those positive qualities, so there is a slim chance that he’s just such a complete personal trainwreck that he’s incapable of perceiving the inevitable self-destruction that attempting such a hamhanded coverup would result in. This would require him to literally be unable to either perceive consequences or listen to more reasoned advice. Honestly, I’m not sure he could be called sane if he did this without the added motivation of personal culpability to hide. But, nobody really thinks he’s sane, so there’s an infinitesimally tiny chance that he’s blindly blundering about like he is without any personal reason to do so. (If he was a _sane_ corrupt shitbag, I would expect him to be throwing people under the bus instead.) Of course, the microscopic possibility that he could be doing this innocently is greatly overshadowed by the possibility that he’s guilty as fuck, and is engaging in this hamhanded coverup because he thinks he doesn’t have much choice. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2017, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-allegation-trump-tried-to-use-nsa-dni-to-reign-in-fbi-investigation/787278/71 "2017-05-24T19:34:12Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I gave you an analogy that I think captures the issue I was raising. That being a guy who gets to select the judge who gets assigned to his case. Perhaps you might want to comment on that. If someone says the judge is honorable but that was not a truly “independent” trial with all that implies, would you consider that doubletalk and nonsense? The President makes all sorts of appointments as part of his official duties. In some cases, he simply appoints people to do a job; in others, they must be confirmed by the Senate; and in a few cases, there are commissions in which some of the officers are appointed by the President and others are appointed by congressional leadership. In my opinion, in none of those methods of appointment is a commissioners, officer, or someone else of importance, presumed to be unfair simply by the method of their appointment. It depends on the job and the person. The fact that you impugn the judgment of people like Pickering and Mullen simply on the basis of how they were appointed, and yet you deny that you are impugning their judgment, clearly is double-talk. Trump could call for Congress to pass a law creating a commission in which he appoints a few commissioners, and the bipartisan congressional leadership appoints others. I won’t hold my breath. > [@](#): > > The context here is whether the fact that a guy who is averse to being investigated can be assumed to be guilty on that basis. Okay, clearly you don’t understand the comment that I have responded to. I have never said, and would never say, that his failure to appoint a commission means he’s “assumed to be guilty.” That’s an assertion that is made of whole cloth, or straw, or something else unfortunate. **treis** asked, if Trump’s dealings with Russia were all above board, how should Trump act? The answer is simple. Empower people to get to the bottom of the matter in a comprehensive way. That is literally the opposite of what Trump is doing, which isn’t proof that he’s guilty of something; it is evidence that he is not acting in a rational way especially if there’s nothing to hide. > [@](#): > > For example, Eric Holder stonewalled the Fast and Furious investigation based on (later struck down) Executive Privilege claims. Do you support Trump and/or Sessions doing that? Or would you interpret that as having something to hide, and “if you don’t like it don’t go into public office”? Let me guess. You think the Fast & Furious investigation was just a partisan exercise by congressional Republicans, and Holder was right to resist them. Is that it? Blaming Obama for a program that started under Bush is indeed a partisan exercise. Let’s not kid ourselves. I don’t recall the specifics of the claim of executive privilege in this case, but I’ll say as a general matter that I think that all Presidents, of either party, have a perfectly defensible privilege to obtain confidential advice from their advisers, among other things. But I don’t agree that it is appropriately invoked if it is used as a simple “I’d rather not tell you these things.” I take you at your word that it was struck down (by a court?), so shame on them. That hardly constitutes scandal; seems like more of the usual push and pull of our system of checks and balances. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2017, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-allegation-trump-tried-to-use-nsa-dni-to-reign-in-fbi-investigation/787278/72 "2017-05-24T19:56:55Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The President makes all sorts of appointments as part of his official duties. In some cases, he simply appoints people to do a job; in others, they must be confirmed by the Senate; and in a few cases, there are commissions in which some of the officers are appointed by the President and others are appointed by congressional leadership. In my opinion, in none of those methods of appointment is a commissioners, officer, or someone else of importance, presumed to be unfair simply by the method of their appointment. It depends on the job and the person. > > The fact that you impugn the judgment of people like Pickering and Mullen simply on the basis of how they were appointed, and yet you deny that you are impugning their judgment, clearly is double-talk. You’re continuing to ignore what I said. I’m not going to keep repeating it. > [@](#): > > Okay, clearly you don’t understand the comment that I have responded to. I have never said, and would never say, that his failure to appoint a commission means he’s “assumed to be guilty.” That’s an assertion that is made of whole cloth, or straw, or something else unfortunate. **treis** asked, if Trump’s dealings with Russia were all above board, how should Trump act? The answer is simple. Empower people to get to the bottom of the matter in a comprehensive way. That is literally the opposite of what Trump is doing, which isn’t proof that he’s guilty of something; it is evidence that he is not acting in a rational way especially if there’s nothing to hide. Context. treis was responding to Airbeck who said (post #38) “_Innocent people simply do not act this way. Just about everything he’s been doing regarding the FBI investigation has made it look worse for him, this is not rational behavior if he truly believed there was nothing there._” So we are in fact discussing whether Trump’s actions show that he knows he’s guilty. (Perhaps you lost track of the discussion?) > [@](#): > > Blaming Obama for a program that started under Bush is indeed a partisan exercise. Let’s not kid ourselves. I don’t recall the specifics of the claim of executive privilege in this case, but I’ll say as a general matter that I think that all Presidents, of either party, have a perfectly defensible privilege to obtain confidential advice from their advisers, among other things. But I don’t agree that it is appropriately invoked if it is used as a simple “I’d rather not tell you these things.” I take you at your word that it was struck down (by a court?), so shame on them. That hardly constitutes scandal; seems like more of the usual push and pull of our system of checks and balances. OK, but that’s markedly different than your attitude in this case. And I’ll bet you can find Republican talk-radio types using this exact type of language in the current Trump case. I’ve noticed that people’s attitudes about investigations tends to correlate very strongly with their prior attitudes about the guy being investigated and the guys doing the investigations. Cite for the F&F executive privilege claims: [Federal judge reopens "Fast and Furious" controversy - CBS News](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-judge-reopens-fast-and-furious-controversy/) ---
**Author:** ![ganthet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de0a6/32.png) [@ganthet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ganthet)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2017, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-allegation-trump-tried-to-use-nsa-dni-to-reign-in-fbi-investigation/787278/73 "2017-05-24T20:01:03Z")
> [@treis](#): > > We knew all of that back in January Identifying the likely agency that the hackers worked for is not identifying the actual individual hackers themselves. More importantly, if there was any kind of collusion between any Trump associates and Russia, the actual hackers themselves would not likely be directly interacting with anyone from Trump’s camp and it would instead likely be other people doing that within the GRU or some other Russian agency responsible. So, again, without knowing the actual names of the hackers or anyone responsible for providing information and documents to Wikileaks, any investigation into Trump’s associates (which was most certainly not complete in January 2017) would take a great deal of time as the individual contacts that Trump associates had made that were already known could not be instantly ruled out as to whether it was potential collusion or not. ---
**Author:** ![Silver\_lining](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aca169/32.png) [@Silver\_lining](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silver_lining)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2017, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-allegation-trump-tried-to-use-nsa-dni-to-reign-in-fbi-investigation/787278/74 "2017-05-24T20:20:07Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Could you imagine the shitstorm if Trey Goudy found out that Obama had asked agency heads for help in shutting down any Benghazi investigations? The Democrats are using the press to take politics to a new low, using suggesting news titles with next to no proof in the context. I’m sure if Trump or the Justice department wanted to, they could one up with a conspiracy theory based on top Democrats meeting, or taking campaign money from foreign nations who disliked us even more than the Russians do. Which brings me to this point. Make foreign donations from companies, dictators, kings, and normal citizens illegal. They are buying out our politicians! Clinton herself took millions from Iran and others. The quid pro quo list here is longer than Trump’s by a country mile. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2017, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-allegation-trump-tried-to-use-nsa-dni-to-reign-in-fbi-investigation/787278/75 "2017-05-24T20:26:05Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Okay, clearly you don’t understand the comment that I have responded to. I have never said, and would never say, that his failure to appoint a commission means he’s “assumed to be guilty.” That’s an assertion that is made of whole cloth, or straw, or something else unfortunate. **treis** asked, if Trump’s dealings with Russia were all above board, how should Trump act? The answer is simple. Empower people to get to the bottom of the matter in a comprehensive way. That is literally the opposite of what Trump is doing, which isn’t proof that he’s guilty of something; it is evidence that he is not acting in a rational way especially if there’s nothing to hide. People have already gotten to the bottom in a comprehensive way and we’ve seen that report. Obviously, that hasn’t satisfied everyone. But like the Benghazi investigation there will always be a segment of people that won’t be satisfied. Guilty or Innocent, the normal response isn’t to say investigate me until your hearts content. It’s something to the effect of there being nothing there so move on. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2017, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-allegation-trump-tried-to-use-nsa-dni-to-reign-in-fbi-investigation/787278/76 "2017-05-24T20:30:07Z")
> [@treis](#): > > People have already gotten to the bottom in a comprehensive way and we’ve seen that report. Obviously, that hasn’t satisfied everyone. But like the Benghazi investigation there will always be a segment of people that won’t be satisfied. Guilty or Innocent, the normal response isn’t to say investigate me until your hearts content. It’s something to the effect of there being nothing there so move on. The special prosecutor was just appointed like a week ago, and Trump just hired a lawyer. Calm down, there’s a long way to go before this all goes away. You and Trump will just have wait and see what former Director Mueller finds out in his investigation. Cooperation would be the best way to defuse some of the negative attention. What he’s currently been doing is about the worst option. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2017, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-allegation-trump-tried-to-use-nsa-dni-to-reign-in-fbi-investigation/787278/77 "2017-05-24T20:57:48Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > You’re continuing to ignore what I said. I’m not going to keep repeating it. I’m not ignoring what you said. I’m saying its wrong, and there’s no need to keep repeating it. > [@](#): > > Context. treis was responding to Airbeck who said (post #38) “_Innocent people simply do not act this way. Just about everything he’s been doing regarding the FBI investigation has made it look worse for him, this is not rational behavior if he truly believed there was nothing there._” So we are in fact discussing whether Trump’s actions show that he knows he’s guilty. **treis** turned that statement into a more general question, which I responded to. > [@](#): > > OK, but that’s markedly different than your attitude in this case. No, it isn’t. You’re just seeing this through your own political slant. For example, Dan Coats refused to answer the question of whether Trump asked him to intervene in his favor on these investigations. I do not fault Coats one bit for not answering that question, as it seems like that’s a reasonable thing for Executive Branch officials not to discuss during congressional testimony. > [@](#): > > I’ve noticed that people’s attitudes about investigations tends to correlate very strongly with their prior attitudes about the guy being investigated and the guys doing the investigations. Ain’t that the truth, buddy. I’ll state that I thought the ARB investigation and the first couple congressional investigations into Benghazi, carried out by the intelligence and armed services committees of Congress, were generally thoughtful and reasonable, and entirely warranted. The Benghazi Select Committee was a total joke. But I bet you think it was the best one of the bunch, eh? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2017, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-allegation-trump-tried-to-use-nsa-dni-to-reign-in-fbi-investigation/787278/78 "2017-05-24T20:58:48Z")
> [@treis](#): > > People have already gotten to the bottom in a comprehensive way and we’ve seen that report. Please point me to the report that has recommendations for how the U.S. Government should respond to the Russian meddling. Linky, please. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2017, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-allegation-trump-tried-to-use-nsa-dni-to-reign-in-fbi-investigation/787278/79 "2017-05-24T21:04:21Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’m not ignoring what you said. I’m saying its wrong, and there’s no need to keep repeating it. Sure, you’re saying it’s wrong, but you didn’t address it = ignoring it. > [@](#): > > **treis** turned that statement into a more general question, which I responded to. I don’t know about that. I understand treis’ response in the context of what s/he was responding to. > [@](#): > > Ain’t that the truth, buddy. I’ll state that I thought the ARB investigation and the first couple congressional investigations into Benghazi, carried out by the intelligence and armed services committees of Congress, were generally thoughtful and reasonable, and entirely warranted. The Benghazi Select Committee was a total joke. But I bet you think it was the best one of the bunch, eh? I have no idea. I actually thought the whole Benghazi thing was overblown and didn’t follow it all that closely, not to the point of distinguishing one congressional committee from another, let alone ranking their various performances. But I would have remembered had there been an independent commission of the sort you were describing, hence my reaction in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2017, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-allegation-trump-tried-to-use-nsa-dni-to-reign-in-fbi-investigation/787278/80 "2017-05-24T21:06:14Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Please point me to the report that has recommendations for how the U.S. Government should respond to the Russian meddling. Linky, please. There isn’t going to be a public report like this for what should be obvious reasons. Remember that Obama already responded to the hacking: > [@](#): > > President Obama struck back at Russia on Thursday for its efforts to influence the 2016 election, ejecting 35 suspected Russian intelligence operatives from the United States and imposing sanctions on Russia’s two leading intelligence services. [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/us/politics/russia-election-hacking-sanctions.html?\_r=0](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/us/politics/russia-election-hacking-sanctions.html?_r=0) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-allegation-trump-tried-to-use-nsa-dni-to-reign-in-fbi-investigation/787278.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-allegation-trump-tried-to-use-nsa-dni-to-reign-in-fbi-investigation/787278.md?page=5)