Former CIA Dir: Intel Chiefs 'Misjudged The Gravity' Of Situation | The Last Word

>>> IN HIS MUCH ANTICIPATED TESTIMONY TODAY, HERE IS WHAT
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE DAN COATS SAID.
WHEN ASKED IF A "WASHINGTON POST" REPORT IS TRUE THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED DAN COATS TO INTERVENE WITH FBI DIRECTOR
JAMES COMEY TO STOP THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION.
>> I DO NOT FEEL IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO IN THE
PUBLIC SESSION IN WHICH CONFIDENTIAL CONVERSATIONS
BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND MYSELF, I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S
APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO ADDRESS THAT IN A PUBLIC SESSION.
>> BUT DIRECTOR COATS AND NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY
DIRECTOR MIKE ROGERS GOT THEMSELVES INTO TROUBLE AT THE
HEARING WHEN AFTER CLAIM THANKSGIVING COULD NOT DISCUSS
CONFIDENTIAL CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT, THEY THEN
CHARACTERIZED THOSE CONVERSATIONS.
>> TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, I HAVE NEVER BEEN
DIRECTED TO DO ANYTHING I BELIEVE TO BE ILLEGAL, IMMORAL,
UNETHICAL OR INAPPROPRIATE. AND TO THE BEST OF MY
RECOLLECTION, DURING THAT SAME PERIOD OF SERVICE, I DO NOT EVER
RECALL FEELING PRESSURED TO DO SO.
>> HAVE I NEVER BEEN PRESSURED. HAVE I NEVER FELT PRESSURE TO
INTERVENE OR INTERFERE IN ANY WAY WITH SHAPING INTELLIGENCE IN
A POLITICAL WAY OR IN RELATIONSHIP TO AN ONGOING
INVESTIGATION. >> AFTER THAT, SENATOR ANGUS
KING OF MAINE CHALLENGED THEIR REFUSAL TO ANSWER QUESTIONS
ABOUT CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT.
>> SO THEN I'LL ASK BOTH OF YOU THE SAME QUESTION.
WHY ARE YOU NOT ANSWERING THESE QUESTIONS?
IS THERE AN INVOCATION BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE? IS THERE OR NOT?
>> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. >> THEN WHY ARE NOW NOT --
>> BECAUSE I FEEL IT ISN'T RELEVANT.
>> WHAT YOU FEEL ISN'T RELEVANT, ADMIRAL.
WHAT YOU FEEL ISN'T THE ANSWER. WHY ARE YOU NOT ANSWERING THE
QUESTIONS? IS IT AN INVOCATION OF EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE? IF THERE IS, LET'S KNOW ABOUT
IT. IF THERE ISN'T, ANSWER THE
QUESTIONS. >> I STAND BY THE COMMENTS I
MADE. I'M NOT INTERESTED IN REPEATING
MYSELF, SIR. AND I DON'T MEAN THAT IN A
CONTENTIOUS WAY. >> WELL, I DO MEAN IT IN A
CONTENTIOUS WAY. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'RE
NOT ANSWERING OUR QUESTIONS. YOU CAN'T -- WHEN YOU WERE
CONFIRMED BEFORE THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, YOU TOOK AN
OATH. DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR TO GIVE
THE COMMITTEE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE
TRUTH SO HELP YOU DO. >> I DO.
AND I'VE ALSO ANSWERED THAT THOSE CONVERSATIONS WERE
CLASSIFIED. IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE IN AN OPEN
FORUM TO DISCUSS THOSE CLASSIFIED CONVERSATIONS.
>> WHAT IS CLASSIFIED ABOUT A CONVERSATION INVOLVING WHETHER
OR NOT YOU SHOULD INTERVENE IN THE FBI INVESTIGATION?
>> SIR, I STAND BY MY PREVIOUS COMMENT.
>> MR. COATS, SAME SERIES OF QUESTIONS.
WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR YOUR REFUSAL TO ANSWER THESE
QUESTIONS TODAY? >> THE BASIS IS WHAT I'VE
PREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED. I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS
APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO -- >> WHAT'S THE BASIS?
I'M NOT SATISFIED WITH "I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS APPROPRIATE" OR "I
DO NOT FEEL I SHOULD ANSWER." I WANT TO UNDERSTAND A LEGAL
BASIS YOU. SWORE THAT OATH TO TELL US THE
TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.
AND TODAY YOU ARE REFUSING TO DO SO.
WHAT IS THE LEGAL BASIS FOR YOUR REFUSAL TO TESTIFY TO THIS
COMMITTEE? >> I'M NOT SURE I HAVE A LEGAL
BASIS. BUT I AM MORE THAN WILLING TO
SIT BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE AND DURING THIS INVESTIGATIVE
PROCESS IN A CLOSED SESSION AND ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.
>> JOINING US NOW, JOHN McLAUGHLIN, FORMER ACTING
DIRECTOR OF THE CIA. HE IS AN MSNBC SECURITY ANALYST.
AND NED PRICE, FORMER SENIOR DIRECTOR AND SPOKESPERSON FOR
THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND A FORMER CIA ANALYST.
HE IS AN MSNBC NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST.
JOHN McLAUGHLIN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY MEANT BY
THOSE CONVERSATIONS WERE CLASSIFIED.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT COULD BE CLASSIFIED ABOUT A CONVERSATION
IN WHICH THE PRESIDENT IS ASKING YOU TO INTERVENE IN AN FBI
INVESTIGATION. AND HOW DO YOU THINK THEY SHOULD
HAVE ANSWERED THAT QUESTION TODAY?
>> WELL, LAWRENCE, YOU KNOW, I RESPECT BOTH OF THESE
INDIVIDUALS. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT ON
OCCASION, YOU DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS WITH
THE PRESIDENT. I THINK TODAY WITH RESPECT TO
THEM, I THINK TODAY THEY MISJUDGED THE GRAVITY OF THE
SITUATION. IN OTHER WORDS YOU HAVE DIRECTOR
COMEY RECOUNTING CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT.
AND THESE CONVERSATIONS THAT THEY HAD ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT,
AND THEY BEAR ONEAR ON THE CASE. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ANSWER
THOSE QUESTIONS EVENTUALLY. IT WAS AMBIGUOUS WHETHER THEY
WERE AGREEING TO ANSWER THEM IN CLOSED SESSION.
THAT WOULD BE ONE WAY TO DO IT. BUT SOONER OR LATER, THEY'RE
GOING TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS. AND GIVEN THE GRAVITY OF THIS
SITUATION, I THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BEST FOR THEM TO JUST
ANSWER THE QUESTION TODAY. I LEARNED IN LOTS OF TESTIMONY
OVER YEARS THAT NOTHING MESSES UP YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH
CONGRESS MORE THAN REFUSAL TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT IMPORTANT
MATTERS. >> NED PRICE, YOUR REACTION TO
THAT EXCHANGE WITH SENATOR ANGUS KING.
>> WELL, LAWRENCE, WATCHING TODAY'S HEARING AND THAT
EXCHANGE IN PARTICULAR, I WAS REMIND TO HAVE HAD OATH I TOOK
AS MY -- ON MY FIRST DAY IN GOVERNMENT AS A BRAND-NEW CIA
OFFICER, NAMELY, THE OATH TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
IT'S NOT AN OATH TO PROTECT AND DEFEND A PRESIDENT OR AN
ADMINISTRATION. IT'S AN OATH TO PROTECT AND
DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. AND YOU GOT THE IMPRESSION
LISTENING TO THOSE TWO INDIVIDUALS TODAY THAT THEY WERE
ATTEMPTING TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
AND NOT FULFILLING THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION.
WHY DO I SAY THAT? I SAY THAT BECAUSE AS SENATOR
KING SO ARTFULLY AND POINTEDLY I SHOULD SAY POINTED OUT, THEY HAD
NO LEGAL BASIS NOT TO ANSWER THESE VERY FACTUAL CASES.
BOB MUELLER, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DID NOT ASK THEM TO REFRAIN FROM
ANSWERING THESE QUESTIONS. THE WHITE HOUSE APPARENTLY DID
NOT INVOKE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN THIS.
AND OF COURSE THESE EXCHANGES WERE NOT CLASSIFIED.
THAT RENDERS THEM WITHOUT A JUSTIFICATION TO ANSWER THESE
SIMPLE QUESTIONS WHICH FRANKLY CONGRESS DESERVES ANSWERS TO IN
ITS OVERSIGHT ROLE. >> I WANT TO SHOW ANOTHER ANGLE
IN THE QUESTIONING THAT CAME UP TODAY.
AND THAT IS SENATOR KAMALA HARRIS.
AND SHE POINTED OUT THAT THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR IS NOT TRULY
INDEPENDENT AND ACTUALLY IS STILL IN A POSTURE WHERE SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR MUELLER COULD BE FIRED UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES. SHE TRIED TO GET THE DEPUTY
ATTORNEY GENERAL TO AGREE TO GIVING A WRITTEN GUARANTEE THAT
MUELLER COULD NOT BE FIRED. AND SHE COULDN'T GET THAT
GUARANTEE. LET'S LISTEN TO THIS.
>> WOULD YOU AGREE, MR. ROSENSTEIN, TO PROVIDE A LETTER
TO DIRECTOR MUELLER SIMILARLY PROVIDING THAT DIRECTOR MUELLER
HAS THE AUTHORITY AS SPECIAL COUNSEL, QUOTE, INDEPENDENT OF
THE SUPERVISION OR CONTROL OF ANY OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT
AND ENSURE THAT DIRECTOR MUELLER HAS THE AUTHORITY THAT IS
PLENARY AND NOT, QUOTE, DEFINED OR LIMITED BY THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL REGULATIONS? >> SENATOR, I'M VERY SENSITIVE
ABOUT TIME. AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A VERY
LENGTHY CONVERSATION AND EXPLAIN THAT ALL TO YOU.
I TRIED TO DO THAT -- >> CAN YOU GIVE ME AN ANSWER?
>> WELL, IT'S NATO SHORT ANSWER, SENATOR.
>> IT IS. EITHER YOU ARE WILLING TO DO
THAT OR NOT AS WE HAVE PRECEDENT IN THAT REGARD.
>> OKAY. >> CHAIRMAN SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO
ANSWER THE QUESTION. >> I REALIZE THAT THEORETICALLY
ANYBODY COULD BE FIRED. SO THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR
UNDERMINING INVESTIGATION. I AM CONFIDENT, SENATOR, THAT
DIRECTOR MUELLER, MR. McCABE, AND I AND ANYBODY ELSE WHO MAY
FILL THOSE POSITIONS IN THE FUTURE WILL PROTECT THE
INTEGRITY OF THAT INVESTIGATION. THAT'S MY COMMITMENT TO YOU.
AND THAT'S THE GUARANTEE THAT YOU AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
HAVE. >> SO IS THAT A NO?
>> JOHN McLAUGHLIN, VERY IMPORTANT POINT.
SHE WAS CITING A PREVIOUS PRECEDENT THAT ACTUALLY JAMES
COMEY SET WHEN HE APPOINTED A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR THAT THERE
WAS THE GUARANTEE COULD NOT BE FIRED.
THAT SEEMS TO BE IMPORTANT IN THIS SITUATION.
>> I THINK IT IS. AGAIN, ANYONE WHO HESITATES TO
GIVE THAT GUARANTEE IN THIS SITUATION IS MISJUDGING THE
GRAVITY OF WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE.
THIS ISN'T PATTYCAKE. THIS GOVERNMENT AT ITS MOST
DANGEROUS MOMENT. IT'S ABOUT AN UNPRECEDENTED
SITUATION IN MANY RESPECTS, EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE PARALLELS TO
SOME PREVIOUS SCANDALS. SO I THINK IT WAS A MISTAKE TO
NOT JUST MAKE THAT STATEMENT UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT BOB MUELLER
WILL NOT BE FIRED. >> NED PRICE, DID YOU HAVE THE
FEELING THAT THESE ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS
MISJUDGED WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO FACE WITH THESE SENATORS
TODAY? THEY SEEMED UNPREPARED TO DEAL
WITH SENATOR HARRIS, SENATOR WYDEN, AND OTHERS ON THE
COMMITTEE WHO WERE -- WHO WERE COUNTERING THEIR POINTS WITH
MUCH MORE FORCE THAN THEY SEEMED PREPARED TO DEAL WITH.
>> IT SEEMS THEY COMPLETELY MISJUDGED IT.
AND THE PLOY THEY CAME IN WITH WAS AS CLEAR AS DAY.
THEY DIDN'T WANT THE TALK ABOUT FACTS.
THEY DID NOT WANT TO TALK WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAD ASKED OF THEM
OR DIRECTED OF THEM OR ORDERED OF THEM.
INSTEAD THEY WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THEIR FEELINGS.
THESE ARE HARD-NOSED NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIALS, INTELLIGENCE
OFFICIALS, LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS AND OTHERS.
AND HERE THEY ARE JUST TALKING ABOUT THEIR FEELINGS.
THEY DIDN'T FEEL THEY HAD BEEN PRESSURED.
THEY DIDN'T FEEL THEY WERE UNDER ANY OBLIGATION TO TAKE A
PARTICULAR COURSE OF ACTION. THOSE WERE VERY POINTEDLY NOT
THE QUESTIONS THAT THE SENATORS ASKED.
AND THE SESSION, AS WE'VE SEEN BECOME VERY HEATED BECAUSE OF
THAT. IT WAS LIKE THEY THOUGHT THEY
COULD GET AWAY WITH A SESSION WITH THEIR PSYCHOLOGIST, JUST
TALKING ABOUT THEIR FEELINGS AND IMPRESSIONS RATHER THAN WHAT HAD
ACTUALLY TRANSPIRED IN THE OVAL OFFICE IN THESE DISCUSSIONS WITH
THE PRESIDENT WHERE VERY CLEARLY, ACCORDING TO MULTIPLE
ACCOUNTS, INCLUDING WHAT WE SAW FROM JAMES COMEY TODAY, THERE
WERE EFFORTS TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE.
>> JOHN McLAUGHLIN AND NED PRICE, THANK YOU BOTH FOR
JOINING US ON WHAT HAS CLEARLY BECOME THE MOST

Former CIA Dir: Intel Chiefs 'Misjudged The Gravity' Of Situation | The Last Word | MSNBC

Latest Posts