In the wake of Michael Flynn's resignation, we know the following:

  • Flynn discussed lifting sanctions with Russia's Ambassador to the U.S. in December 2016.
    • Flynn lied to FBI investigators about the content of this conversation in January 2017.
    • At the Republican National Convention, Flynn led chants of "Lock her up!"--a slogan in favor of convicting Hillary Clinton for, in part, an allegation that she lied to the FBI during an investigation of her emails. Flynn repeatedly stated in interviews that Clinton should be convicted.
  • Flynn lied to VP Pence about the content of the conversations, leading Pence to publicly defend Flynn during interviews in January 2017.
  • Trump knew about Flynn's indiscretions 2 weeks prior to his resignation.
    • Acting Attorney General Sally Yates advised Trump during her 10 day tenure as AAG that Flynn was untruthful about Russian contacts and was vulnerable to blackmail by Russian intelligence.
    • Trump did not act on this information at the time.
      • Trump asked for Flynn's resignation only as media pressure mounted. 
      • During a press conference, Trump blamed the media and leakers for the issue with Flynn and did not mention the fact that he himself asked for Flynn's resignation.
      • Press Secretary Sean Spicer said that Flynn's resignation was a result of lack of trust between the president and Flynn.
    • Trump did not tell his VP that Flynn had lied and put him (Pence) in the position of defending a lie that Trump already knew was a lie.
  • The Army is separately investigating whether Flynn received money from the Russian government during and if he properly filed paperwork for a 2015 trip to Moscow.

Views: 265

Replies to This Discussion

You should note that Presidential Appointees serve at the pleasure of the President.  Flynn's resignation was requested the moment he accepted the appointment.  There were rumblings that Gen'l Flynn was running into the same sort of agency administrative situation that got him relieved from the DIA.

I haven't seen any report that claims that Trump requested Flynn's resignation upon Flynn's acceptance of the position. On the face of it, that just seems impossible because (1) if Trump wanted Flynn's resignation on 20 January, why did Trump even offer the position, and (2) if Trump wanted Flynn's resignation on 20 January, why did Trump allow Flynn to work for more than 3 weeks.

And, if anything, Flynn's lack of managerial skills would make him fit right in with the Trump administration.

Flynn has also earned the dubious distinction of being fired by two presidents, one from each party.

False.

Get a grip. Are you intentionally telling half-truths? Flynn initially told the FBI in the interview that they did not discuss sanctions, but when they pressed him, he said he didn't remember. Now the FBI is not recommending that charges be brought against him. Much ado about nothing.

How can you honestly compare this incident of leaving out a detail to an incident wherein national security was compromised? And are you implying that Hillary should be imprisoned? If you don't answer this question I'll take it as a "yes." Flynn and even his son are loose cannons, but he did nothing illegal or harmful to national security. Hillary, on the other hand...

Trump has every right to complain about the leaks and the media. There were nine sources (that we know of) that unlawfully leaked this and started the witch hunt. Much of the IC is actively working against our elected executive branch. The Deep State is a threat to our Constitutional Republic, and the media is colluding with it. You mention Sally Yates, as if she were a credible member of his cabinet and not someone who works against the President. Of course she would run with this. You have people like Bill Kristol actually saying that the Deep State, when it serves him, is preferable to the elected administration. Trump's complaints about the IC, MSM, and Deep State are valid and backed up by facts.

It's the "I don't recall" that kept Flynn from getting prosecuted.  If he'd stuck to his "I didn't" story, he still might not have been prosecuted.  

The much ado is this.  If you outright lie (and it can be proved) in an interview with the FBI, that's a federal felony.  That's the law on the books.

Not to put too fine a point on things, but the "loose cannon" at least skated pretty darned close to privately giving a heads up policy statement to a foreign power, while acting under the color of an incoming senior administration official.  The usual nature of pre-confirmation contacts with foreign powers is introductions, not disseminating upcoming policy.

Oh, you might be interested to know that NOBODY in the federal government swears personal loyalty to the President...which seems to be a YUGE problem with the President and his trusted inner circle.

One other thing.  The President loves leakers when the leaks embarrass his opponents.  But when he perceives himself embarrassed by leaks, suddenly leakers are committing unlawful acts.  If you really thing the President is suffering from an excess of hostile leaks, you should look at a few of the print back copies of US News and World Report.  The magazine had a column called "washington Whispers."  Nothing but leaks about official Washington DC.

You are right, but when he recanted the definitive "no," he gave himself plausible deniability. If it was a deceptive tactic, I certainly don't approve, but it's impossible to prove. The man means well, I believe, but he's reckless. The everlasting cynic in me says it was a slick move, but I honestly don't know with this dude. Like I said, he's a loose cannon.

Of course they don't take some sort of fealty oath. But, they serve at the President's pleasure. They work for him, and he is their boss. If they try to backstab him, they should be fired.

Your last paragraph is irrelevant. There is a Deep State rebellion against our elected government. This is a threat to our Republic. If he can't weed out the traitors, we will be well on our way to having a puppet government.

"Deep State rebellion?"   A significant number people outside the Intelligence Community knew about Flynn's contacts.  Including at least three very senior White House Officials, and enough information was circulating within the administration to cause changes in the Presidential Daily Brief's attendee list.  The leaks could have come from one of many places within the White House, the DOJ, or other agencies within the "Intelligence Community."  

Hostile leaks from within the administration are literally nothing new, and I provided a cited direction to a relatively recent example.

For a historical perspective on leaks and leakers within the US government, see George Washington's cabinet.  Hamilton and Jefferson actively disliked each other, and leaked "the dirt" to friendly newspapers and pamphleteers. 

"Deep State rebellion" seems to be a phrase gaining currency in far-right/conspiracy-theorist circles as a way to blame the established bureaucracy for the poor management and lack of leadership from the White House.

I have something for you, since apparently you want Hillary behind bars along with Flynn:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/charge-hillary-rodham-cli...

Ok a couple points which I find salient.

1) If sanctions were mentioned, but not in a substantive manner. (IE: the word and concept came up, but were not negotiated or expounded upon) Thus He could be incorrect about the actual reference in that he attached no meaning or importance and was later unable to recall. I know I could certainly be mistaken about the entire contents of a conversation yesterday, not to mention weeks or months later. There is intent here as well as action. 

2) The accusations of Treason or the like are typically based upon an act put into place in the late 19th century which was specifically placed on the books to twit the administration then.

3) Yes, Trump likes the leakers when they are in his favor. That's human nature. He may even capitalize on that information when it comes out. That's the nature of politics.

4) Finally, there is a big difference, a YUGE difference if you will, between a "Leak" and unlawful disclosure of classified material. If you recall, Hillary fell in the later column, and was awarded leniency for far more egregious violations, over time, repeated and expounded upon for YEARS, under the "Intent versus Action" rationale which you are now not allowing for Flynn. 

Regarding #4
What we want is an investigation not just of Flynn, but of the entire situation, so we can find out the extent of, and type of problem we are dealing with here. Right now, we don't know what we don't know. Much less what the appropriate course of action should be. It may be a small thing, which is what the WH claims. But it very well may not be.

There were years worth of investigations on Clinton before even the least of the charges could be levied at her - here, it's like pulling teeth to get even one committee to half-heartedly take a second look at what's going on. That's a bit disturbing, from my perspective. 

RSS

Latest Activity

Todd McFarland replied to Loren C's discussion Manly Hello from San Diego
"Welcome!"
1 hour ago
Todd McFarland replied to Valentin's discussion Hello from Paris (France)
"Welcome!"
1 hour ago
Jay D replied to Nick H's discussion Has AOM jumped the shark or is it's just cyclical in the group The Great Debate
"Since iam here, there never has been much action in any group other then TGB. I stopped spending time there, because... well i lack time and in the end it was less of a debate and more of just throwing around opinions. Right now i have to admit,…"
3 hours ago
Brian Wolfe replied to Nick H's discussion Has AOM jumped the shark or is it's just cyclical in the group The Great Debate
"I haven't been a member long enough to notice what you you are describing. However I did try to initiate some discussion with one of the groups I joined and realized very quickly how little activity there is. Is it typical of social media sites…"
3 hours ago
Eddy Kirdland replied to Tim's discussion Are You the Initiator or the Follower? in the group The Shirtless Man
"I don't think it matters.  If I'm running or working out and it's hot and it's okay to take my shirt off, I take it off whether or not anyone else has his off. "
12 hours ago
Stewart M. Davenport posted a discussion

Your favorite things about raising a boy

So today my wife and I found out that we are having a boy. This is our first child, so we are still experiencing everything for the first time, and it's a wild ride. We're very excited. I thought that since we're having a boy, I'd ask all you fathers of boys what your favorite parts of raising boys are. What do you enjoy most? On the other hand, what do you enjoy least?
13 hours ago
Edward Warden replied to Peter O'Reilly's discussion Every Time You Finish A Book, Post The Title Here in the group Book Group
"I've read everything by Grisham and Grafton, and have just started Evanovich's fourth Stephanie Plum. Of the first three, "Three for the Money" was my favorite."
14 hours ago
Edward Warden updated their profile
14 hours ago

© 2017   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service