Report: President Trump Asked Top Intelligence Officials to Push Back Against FBI
Unnamed sources tell The Washington Post that Trump approached the director of national security and head of the NSA to publicly denounce FBI's Russia probe.

President Donald Trump approached several top intelligence officials, asking them to speak out against the FBI's ongoing investigation into the connections between Trump's campaign and the Russian government.
According to a new bombshell report from The Washington Post, Trump approached Daniel Coats, the director of national intelligence, and Admiral Michael Rogers, director of the National Security Agency, after then-FBI director James Comey in March told the House Intelligence Committee that the bureau was continuing to probe connections between Trump's associates and Russia. Trump reportedly asked both Coats and Rogers, separately, to publicly denounce the probe. Both men refused the request, believing it to be inappropriate, the Post was told by four unnamed sources within the intelligence community.
The Post reports that other White House officials "sounded out top intelligence officials about the possibility of intervening directly with Comey to encourage the FBI to drop its probe of Michael Flynn," Trump's former national security adviser who, also on Monday, said he would not answer a subpoena from the Senate Intelligence Committee, invoking his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.
In a statement, the White House refused to confirm or deny the Post report, calling it "unsubstantiated claims based on illegal leaks from anonymous individuals."
Like the other recent revelations about Trump's supposed abuses of power—including last week's Washington Post story that claimed Trump tried to get Comey to close the investigation into Flynn prior to firing the head of the FBI, and the report that Trump gave top secret intelligence to Russian officials visiting the Oval Office—we should be careful to avoid jumping to conclusions about details of a report that's based entirely, or mostly, on unnamed sources. Skepticism is the appropriate response, surely, until an independent investigation can get to the bottom of all this.
Still, Monday's report is a stunning one, even by the standards of the past two weeks. Some, including the Post itself, are immediately drawing parallels to Nixon's attempt to use the CIA to undermine the FBI's investigation into the Watergate break-ins. Even if Trump did not commit a crime by attempting to get intelligence agencies to publicly undermine an ongoing FBI investigation, this is another worrying sign that Trump does not understand—or does not care about—the longstanding, and important, boundaries between the presidency and the nation's top law enforcement agency.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
...we should be careful to avoid jumping to conclusions about details of a report that's based entirely, or mostly, on unnamed sources.
WRONG. It's obvious that the president is attempting to weaken his internal enemies by provoking a deep state civil war. He's always thinking five steps ahead. Unfortunately those disloyal backstoppers are reluctant to participate in their own doom.
For now.
It's obvious ?
You mean you have proof and evidence of that ?
Which do you want first? The proof or the evidence?
+1 WaPo.
nice lol
Is he really that clever? If so, he had me totally fooled into thinking that he wasn't (that clever).
If you're going to rely on questionable accounts from anonymous sources how about a story on John Podesta and Hitlery Kkklinton ordering the hit on Seth Rich?
WaPo wouldn't publish that story if HRC herself showed up with the murder weapon and confessed.
Are there anonymous sources reporting what Rich said to the cops while he was being treated at the hospital?
I have a purloined Clinton campaign staffer's diary right here that says exactly that! Any idea who at the Post or NYT I should call to read it to? Do you know if they pay for these sorts of things?
You're a joke right?
He is. Yes.
"President Trump Asked Top Intelligence Officials to Push Back Against FBI"
Reason posts that as a fact despite it is only a claim by those un-named sources - something I think news agencies ought to be more clear about - including their propaganda titles like this one Reason has.
It's a shame that I couldn't have sourced my papers in college like the media sources their anti-Trump articles.
Well who the fuck do you think you are? Certainly not an important progressive 'journalist' at a newspaper who is supposed to tell everyone what they must think. That's for damn sure.
Reason is a repost for the New York Times and Washington Post when it comes to 'leaks' these days. At least they bother to point out that it's all unsubstantiated rumor after spending many breathless posts on the subject? Even if it's in the 5th paragraph, that's still one paragraph better than Reuters right?
That's about the best I can say about them at the moment.
Yeah, how is anyone reading this supposed to know it's based on info leaked by unnamed sources? Tell us the whole story, Reason!
Certainly lots of ambiguity expressed there in the closer.
Here's the WaPo's claim: "Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and to Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election."
Reason hack Eric Boehm's gloss on this is, as you quote, "...Trump... attempt[ed] to get intelligence agencies to publicly undermine an ongoing FBI investigation..."
How does it "undermine an ongoing FBI investigation" if someone says something true about it?
"Yeah, how is anyone reading this supposed to know it's based on info leaked by unnamed sources? "
It's in the WaPo, being repeated by Reason, and it's about Trump.
Agree, hpearce. I see no reference to Coats and Rogers actually saying that Trump approached them - only "unnamed sources" saying so. Apparently, Reason has also lost all ethical standards of journalism, as has most of the media.
But, but, they can't be expected to go out and attempt to verify anything with alternate sources.
This is major stuff, and if they don't run with it now they might lose the scoop!
Before the current administration ends, at least some of the reporters citing un-named sources about Trumpgate will get the Judith Miller treatment. Then you can be happy.
Even though I am one of those unnamed sources, you are spot on!
The sheer quantity of these leaks is evidence that lower levels of the state apparatus are just appalled by Trump's gall.
You buried the lead, which should have been about the SUB-title: "Unnamed sources tell The Washington Post that Trump approached the director of national security and head of the NSA to publicly denounce FBI's Russia probe."
But if you go to the body of the article you find out, first paragraph: "President Donald Trump approached several top intelligence officials, asking them to speak out against the FBI's ongoing investigation into the connections between Trump's campaign and the Russian government."
Reason is conflating two different things. It makes a difference that there's credible allegations that Russia-sponsored hackers attempted to undermine Clinton's campaign, or at least the legitimacy of her expected administration, but that "connections between Trump's campaign and the Russian government" seem entirely nominal. If they ARE nominal why is it wrong for Trump to ask people to say that the hysteria is overblown?
"Skepticism is the appropriate response, surely, until an independent investigation can get to the bottom of all this."
No such thing as an independent investigation.
http://www.washingtonexaminer......le/2623836
How many times....? Don't call me Shirley.
Washington Post?
Unnamed sources?
Who hired this guy?
I hereby declare I heard an unnamed source somewhere on the web report that the electoral college met on the same sound stage as the moon landings, and elected Elvis. This has not been reported because the story was accidentally emailed to Hillary's server.
Go ahead Eric, make a scary headline out of that one.
Uh, I claimed the unnamed source crown long ago.
Take off poser!
"...we should be careful to avoid jumping to conclusions about details of a report that's based entirely, or mostly, on unnamed sources."
Unnamed sources have reported to yours truly that Barack Obama has converted to Islam, and will be singing the call to prayer every morning from the minarets at the Ground Zero mosque.
The same unnamed sources have confirmed that Hillary Clinton is readying herself to make the brave, pantsuit announcement we've all been expecting for years.
I can't name these sources, but I have to tell you, my Magic 8 Ball unnamed sources haven't led me wrong yet!
uh huh.
you mean the "stunning", "bombshell", "worrying" details?
I remember, prior to the New Year, that the "details" of Trump's supposedly "inappropriate contacts" with some Russians (which contacts, nudge, nudge, 'influenced' the elections), were to be released "Thursday".
Pretty sure we've had somewhere near 20 Thursdays since then, so I'm willing to wait several more of them for the details of this "bombshell".
Maybe he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar this time, but he's been accused often enough with zero evidence that the BS meter is worn out.
Yep. Does anyone believe ANY of this bullshit anymore? I mean other than the progtards who think Trump personally gassed the Jews years before he was even born. I'm guessing most regular people hear this as shrill white noise in the background anymore.
At this point WaPo has noticeably less credibility than the National Enquirer.
I saw Trump on the grassy knoll in Dallas. I skipped school that day and personally observed him ? there ? with his rifle. Oh, the humanity!
Prove me wrong. Go ahead. Try!
I know it's a day late, but the progressives would go easy on Trump if he did gas the Jews. The progressives are shockingly open about their anti-Semitism.
FFS, if I wanted to read the BS at the Washpost, I would go there. "Reason" indeed... more like "Speculation".
Yeah, well if you aren't going to read the BS at the WaPo, then what's the point of putting it there?
Put it here where it shouldn't be--and now you can't unsee it . . . Muhahaha!
Is John McCain being investigated for handing the dossier over to Comey at the FBI?
Why did the Russians and the British give the dossier to McCain? Are there any emails between the Russians and McCain?
Surfing a bit to see any news on Manchester, find CNN doing a special: "The White House in Crisis". I'm surprised they didn't add 10 or twelve exclamation points.
Facebook is awash with Trumps terrible blunder of claiming to have just come from the Middle east while in the middle east.
The horror of such a flub, impeachment can't wait any longer
"bombshell", as in literally just the metal casing.
Ironically he actually asked them to tell the truth, that there was no evidence.
Oh, how can you be so crass as to state the obvious.
and? This can be spun in 2 ways and no way surprises me and is in no way shows unethical behavior.
Why wouldn't he ask them to stop this insanity. Susan Rice has already admitted she unmasked the surveillance of Trump associates' communications with the Soviets, ?. excuse me ?.. with the Russians. If there were anything incriminating, we'd already have it. This is little more than an insane witch hunt by the Dems. If they can just keep this hysteria up for four full years (I have no doubts that they can) they'll insure Trump's election to another term.
"Unnamed sources tell The Washington Post"
Yep, I was one of them
Prove different.
Use before I saw the paycheck which said $9025 , I didnt believe that my friends brother was like they say actualey receiving money part-time on their computer. . there great aunt haz done this for under 19 months and as of now repayed the depts on there appartment and bourt Mazda
Use before I saw the paycheck which said $9025 , I didnt believe that my friends brother was like they say actualey receiving money part-time on their computer. . there great aunt haz done this for under 19 months and as of now repayed the depts on there appartment and bourt Mazda
Use before I saw the paycheck which said $9025 , I didnt believe that my friends brother was like they say actualey receiving money part-time on their computer. . there great aunt haz done this for under 19 months and as of now repayed the depts on there appartment and bourt Mazda
Most of us want to have good income but dont know how to do that on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn huge sum, but whenever Buddies try that they get trapped in a scam/fraud so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the page. I am more than sure that you will get best result.
Best Of Luck for new Initiative!
?????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
?????????????????????????
????????????????????-????
Most of us want to have good income but dont know how to do that on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn huge sum, but whenever Buddies try that they get trapped in a scam/fraud so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the page. I am more than sure that you will get best result.
Best Of Luck for new Initiative!
?????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
?????????????????????????
????????????????????-????
??????O Make 7500 bucks every month? Start doing online computer-based work through our website. I have been working from home for 4 years now and I love it. I don't have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use this website. ??????? ?????____BIG.....EARN....MONEY..___???????-
nothing wrong or criminal about asking
unless the WAPO has an un named source to speculate that it might be kinda sorta not the way we like it so it's goota be dead wrong!!!
I'm no Trump fan but all these accusations based on unnamed sources is garbage. What ever happened to real investigative reporting and finding at least some tangible evidence behind the "news" story.
how about some named sources...don't these fuckwads have any balls at all?
Boehm just wants his WaPo Magic Decoder Ring.
A few more of these breathless re-hashings of unsubstantiated rumors and he'll have it!
I have an unnamed source within Reason magazine that confirms that Eric Boehm performs the patented Richard Gere gerbil maneuver every day at lunch. See how that works?
Hey don't laugh at unnamed source. Unnamed Source call the D.E.A, A.T.F, F.B.I or Social Service. Then you get your dog shot, guns and ammo removed and kids taken away. Plus being charge with a crime for what ever Unnamed Source said.
===|||=====|||== My Uncle Aiden just got an awesome red Honda Ridgeline Crew Cab just by parttime work from a home computer... more info here ????-