Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats testifies with NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 7. | John Shinkle/POLITICO Coats and Rogers refuse to say if Trump asked them to sway Russia probe The two intelligence chiefs say they never felt pressured, but dodged when asked if Trump tried to get them to intervene.

Two of the nation’s top intelligence officials refused to say Wednesday whether President Donald Trump asked them to intervene in or downplay the FBI’s ongoing Russia investigation, though they said they have never felt pressure to act inappropriately.

Testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee, NSA Director Mike Rogers and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats repeatedly stonewalled when asked about news reports that Trump asked each of them to downplay or refute the FBI’s probe, which is examining whether Trump’s associates colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election.


Both men insisted they’d never felt pressured to do anything improper, but they parsed their words carefully and stopped short of outright denials that Trump had asked them to undermine the FBI’s probe.

Reports about the president’s interactions with his intelligence chiefs have raised serious questions about Trump’s involvement in the politically sensitive investigation — an investigation helmed by FBI director James Comey until he was abruptly fired on May 9. Trump has said his decision was based in part because of Comey’s pursuit of the Russia probe.

Comey will testify before the Senate intelligence panel Thursday in one of the most intensely anticipated Capitol Hill hearings in years.

Sign up here for POLITICO Huddle A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

But those hoping Coats and Rogers would help fill in details about the backdrop of Trump’s actions, which critics say could amount to obstruction of justice, were left disappointed. Coats and Rogers mostly sidestepped questions and left senators venting about their silence.

"It just shows what kind of an Orwellian existence we live in,” Sen. John McCain said, pointing out that Coats was refusing to discuss interactions that had been printed in that morning’s edition of the Washington Post. He called the report “more than disturbing.”

Coats replied, “Just because it’s published in the Washington Post doesn’t mean it’s now unclassified.” It’s unclear what elements of Coats’ conversation with Trump would be considered classified.

Throughout the hearing, he and Rogers described feeling no pressure to act improperly.

"In the three-plus years that I have been director of the National Security Agency, 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 recall ever feeling pressured to do so," Rogers said.

Still, their silence on the question of whether Trump asked them to interfere with the FBI was an ominous sign for a White House that’s become consumed and imperiled by the Russia probe.

“I'm not prepared to answer your question today,” Coats said when pressed by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) whether he had ever “been asked by the president or the White House to influence an ongoing investigation.”

Rogers also refused to comment. “I’m not going to discuss the specifics of discussions with the president of the United States,” he said.

Senators pointed out how simple it would have been for Coats and Rogers to deny the substance of the news reports suggesting Trump asked them to downplay or interfere in the FBI’s probe. Instead, both men said they’d tell lawmakers as much as possible behind closed doors, and were still waiting for an indication from the White House about whether the president might invoke executive privilege.

Alongside Coats and Rogers, acting FBI director Andrew McCabe also appeared to slightly walk back a suggestion from previous testimony to Congress that there had been no attempt to impede the FBI’s Russia investigation.

“My response was then and is now that the FBI investigated and continues to investigate, and now, of course, under the rubric of the special counsel, the Russia investigation in an appropriate and unimpeded way. Before Director Comey was fired and since he's been gone,” McCabe said.

McCabe described his earlier comments as a response to questions about whether the FBI had enough resources for the Russia investigation. He said it’s still accurate that there has been “no effort to impede the Russia investigation.”

McCabe also frustrated senators when he refused to say if Comey had told him of his own concerns about Trump attempting to shut down the FBI’s investigation. McCabe repeatedly deferred to Comey’s upcoming Thursday appearance. He also said he didn’t want to reveal information that might interfere with the probe now being conducted by special counsel Robert Mueller.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller to the role, tangled with Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) at one point over how much independence Mueller would have. Rosenstein also pledged — without mentioning the president directly — that any plausible claim of obstruction of justice will be run to ground.

“If anybody obstructs a federal investigation, it would be a subject of concern, I don’t care who they are,” Rosenstein declared.

Senators’ frustration with their inability to get straight answers boiled over repeatedly.

“Your unwillingness to answer a basic question speaks volumes,” Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) said after Coats refused to illuminate the committee on his interactions with Trump.

The officials’ refusal to speak publicly appeared to be, at least in part, a nod to the president’s executive privilege powers. However, Coats’ indication that he was willing to appear at a closed session to discuss his conversations with the president, but was not willing to discuss them publicly was an unusual stance. Presidents’ claims of executive privilege are usually aimed at blocking Congress from intruding at all on executive branch communications.

But some presidents have used confidential disclosures to Congress as a kind of fallback position short of full disclosure.

“An executive privilege claim would normally be made to prevent testimony, period,” said George Mason University professor Mark Rozell. “Going before Congress in a closed session may be a compromise to avoid the need for executive privilege if the president’s only major concern is about information getting out to the media and ultimately the public.”

Of course, any disclosure to Congress risks leaks about the discussions, which in this instance have already leaked to the media.

Later in the hearing, Coats indicated his concerns about discussing his conversations with Trump were due to Mueller’s investigation.

“When there’s an ongoing investigation, I think it’s inappropriate,” Coats said.

The Director of National Intelligence eventually acknowledged there was no legal ground on which he was declining to discuss his conversation.

“I’m not sure I have a legal basis,” Coats said.

Rogers said that after he inquired with the White House about whether it wanted to assert executive privilege to block testimony about conversations with Trump, there was no clear response.

“To be honest I didn’t get a definitive answer and both I and the DNI are still talking,” Rogers said.

The White House had no immediate comment on what guidance it gave to officials.

The witnesses’ unwillingness to discuss conversations with Trump irked several senators, drawing a particularly testy response from Sen. Angus King (I-Maine.)

“Is there an invocation of executive privilege? If there is, let us know about it. If there isn’t, then let’s answer the question,” King said.

King also challenged the notion that Mueller’s probe entitled witnesses to refuse to answer the Congress’ questions.

“The special counsel is entitled to ask you questions about this but not an oversight committee of the United States Congress?” the senator said.

“It is my position I have to be particularly careful about not stepping into the special counsel's lane, as they have now been authorized by the Department of Justice,” McCabe said.

“I don't understand why that lane takes precedence over the lane of the United States Congress in an oversight committee,” King shot back.

