Rogers and Coats state they were never pressured to act inappropriately, but most media focus on refusal to give details

MEDIA CRITIQUE
By Tatiana Prophet

The burden of proof in the current climate of Washington, D.C., appears to be on those accused by anonymous sources.

"Coats and Rogers refuse to say if Trump asked them to sway Russia probe," wrote Politico.

"Coats, Rogers Refuse to Discuss Trump Requests on Comey, Russia," wrote U.S. News.

"Intelligence Officials Sidestep Senate Questions on Trump and Russia," wrote The New York Times.

Witness the headlines after Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency Director Admiral Mike Rogers answered questions regarding an anonymously sourced Washington Post article stating that President Donald Trump had contacted them to minimize or lay off the investigation into collusion between his presidential campaign and the Russian government with respect to the 2016 election.

The bias is unmistakable here. Remember on May 3, when James Comey testified before the same body? He refused to answer literally dozens of questions about investigations into Senator Clinton as well as the Russia investigation. Was that the substantive takeaway from the event? No, it was that Comey had felt "mildly nauseous" that he may have affected the Presidential election. And that was after saying he would make his revelation about the Anthony Weiner laptop, and not about any investigation into Russian interference in the election, all over again.