Thoughts on Rogers, Rosenstein, and Coats.

Sounds like a law firm or a musical production collaboration.

So, what's the deal with the lack of openness in the testimonies of Mike Rogers, Rod Rosenstein, and Dan Coats? They frustrated just about everyone in their testimony in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday.

Political

The first inclination is to point to political issues, particularly because Dan Coats' previous job was as a Republican Senator from Indiana. But being politically-motivated will only get these three men into more trouble, first, by destroying the independence of their respective institutions, and secondly, by losing the support of their own staff. As a measurement of what it means to act in a political manner, look at Devin Nunes' actions then contrast that to Rogers, Rosenstein, and Coats.

Job Security

The next inclination is to highlight Donald's loyalty oath requirement that had been pressed against James Comey -- it's not implausible to believe that to maintain job security a person would be willing to sell their soul. But as we saw with Rod Rosenstein's willingness to resign, it appears these three individuals are not willing to sell their souls for the sake of their jobs. I'd especially find it hard to believe that Admiral Mike Rogers would sweat a drop over job security, given that he's got far more doors open to him than most.

Legal Full Stop

Executive privilege has been openly thrown into the forum as a reason why they shouldn't be talking about private conversations with Donald. That's generally bunk. Executive privilege has to be asserted -- it has not -- for it to cause a full stop on the testimony of private conversations, but anyway, the Starr Whitewater investigation showed that executive privilege has its limits. Offering up the excuse of executive privilege is a diversion. Yet, a highly risk-averse person always yields on the side of caution.

Undesirable Spotlight

I think the most credible theory of what's going on, is that these three men are used to operating out of the spotlight, and wish to stay out of it as much as possible. I think this is the most credible because it is completely human nature to do this. By keeping private their conversations with Donald, they have greater room to operate without being in the spotlight. Of course, sticking your head in the ground does not change what's going on around you. My dog likes to do that all the time -- if he can't see it, it's not reality.

De Minimis

Often, there is a desire to interpret any given action as de minimis violations. We, not just these three men, do it all the time; we call it "giving the benefit of the doubt". You could see that in James Comey's recently released opening statements, and under normal circumstances you would tend to give the President of the United States the benefit of the doubt, especially if the actions of POTUS could be misinterpreted as illegal. The problem is, by making such prejudgments, they're the arbiters of facts, not the American People. These conversations are not "classified" or otherwise protected. Yet, it's not necessarily clear that this is their intention. For instance, they wouldn't withhold their testimony to special counsel Robert Mueller, which brings me to the final point...

It's a Trap!

Let's say that you're Robert Mueller and you want to preserve the viability of your investigation. You already know all of the potential criminal violations and the last thing you'd want to do is to have potential witnesses provide a public heads-up into possible criminal violations. By allowing Coats, Rogers and Rosenstein to play it as either an executive privilege or de minimis issue, you're misdirecting Donald into assuming that he's in the clear. You generally see this approach with the FBI, letting out very little information about a criminal investigation so as to catch their unsuspecting prey. Mueller is a former director of the FBI, so it's entirely possible that this is what he's doing. From what we keep hearing, this entire criminal investigation is much larger and wider than what the details that have been made public might lead us to presume.

So Which Is It?

By rank, I think the most likely explanation is the Undesirable Spotlight followed by It's a Trap. The least likely are Job Security and Political.