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: 332

Replies to This Discussion

Perhaps you don't recall the 4 years of painstakingly trying to get Benghazi investigated, or the many many months for her email server, which wouldn't have even seen the light of day but for an oopsie. Investigations take time. I've been in a position of taking over 18 months just for one case to come to trial.

Yes,  I think it should be investigated, ultimately however, I don't believe anything will come of it simply because no one in Washington wants to be held accountable for their criminal conduct while in office, and putting him on trial would open that Pandora's box. Even Hillary and Obama don't want to stare down the barrel of the possibility of criminal prosecution for their actions.

Trump is doing a certain amount of talking out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to complaining about leaks and the media. He complains about the leaks and their illegality, and at the same time complains about fake coverage. If the leaks are illegal, then they must contain accurate information and the reporting must be accurate and true. But of course Trump wants it both ways--he accuses the reporting as being fake.

It's also just kind of gross that Trump converts his personal vendetta against the press into the press being the enemy of the American people, while simultaneously denying that he has a personal vendetta against the press. The maneuver fools many people it seems.

This is also classic autocratic behavior: attacks against me are attacks against the state. The underlying assumption is that he is the state, he is the people. Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer. 

Godwin's Law is now in effect.

Yeah, except he's right. This is what he is talking about when he says, "The leaks are real, but the news is fake."

http://www.dailywire.com/news/13498/hit-piece-new-york-times-claims...

CNN spewed the same kind of BS soon after. They say things in headlines that they admit later on are speculative and baseless. This kind of misleading behavior is why he is right about certain hack journalists and papers being enemies of the American people. They use deception to push an agenda. There are entire watchdog sites that have been around for years, screaming what Trump is now saying from his bully pulpit.

Now are you going to quit talking past me and tell me whether Hillary should be prosecuted or no, or is it safe to assume you want both her and Flynn behind bars?

If Hillary had resigned, I doubt anyone would've chanted "Lock her up!". Seems to me Flynn was held accountable extremely quickly in comparison.

JB

Good point, and something I had not considered.

Would you think that resignation would be sufficient to ameliorate further jurisprudence?

Man Who Knows More Than Us Acknowledges Deep State:

https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/831858565535129600

Bill Kristol Prefers Deep State Over Trump:

https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/831497364661747712

NYT Acknowledges the Danger of an Authoritarian Deep State:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/world/americas/deep-state-leaks-...

Democrat Acknowledges Rebellion Within the IC:

www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/02/14/kucinich-pins-flynn-leak-on...

Article Shared by Assange on the Deep State:

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/2/16/greenwald_empowering_the_dee... 

There was an interesting theory put forth in a podcast I was listening to today that the leaks are coming from Trumps own cabinet because he doesn't act unless things become public.

He knew about Flynn for 17 days before he acted on the information, and only acted once the information was made public...

So it's sort of their way of forcing his hand to make moves they want made...

Thought it was an interesting theory...

On 16 January, Trump told reporters, "I have nothing to do with Russia. To the best of my knowledge, no person that I deal with does."

On 16 February, Trump was asked if members of his campaign had contact with Russia. He responded, "Nobody that I know of."

Now we know that his National Security Advisor Michael Flynn did have contact with Russia.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions did, and he subsequently was untruthful under oath about those conversations.

Jared Kushner met with the Russian ambassador to the US at Trump Tower (yes, it was after the election).

Paul Manafort, former campaign manager, was nice and cozy with Putin's Ukrainian surrogate Viktor Yanukovych.

Trump campaign foreign policy advisor Carter Page has extensive business deals in Russia and traveled to Russia in July 2016; at the time, Page declined to answer questions about if he would meet with Russian government officials. Trump himself specifically said in March 2016 that he appointed Page to his foreign policy team, but on 11 January 2017, Sean Spicer told reporters, "Carter Page is an individual whom the President-elect does not know and was put on notice months ago by the campaign."

On 16 February, Trump said, "I have nothing to do with Russia. Haven't made a phone call to Russia in years. Don't speak to people from Russia. Not that I wouldn't. I just have nobody to speak to. I spoke to Putin twice. He called me on the election. I told you this. And he called me on the inauguration, a few days ago."

So within a couple of sentences he contradicts himself: he claims not to have made a phone call to Russia in years, but he's spoken to Putin. On 28 January he had an extensive phone conversation with Putin. Trump literally can't go a few sentences without lying about the most trivial thing. 

And that is what is really suspicious. Why make a hyperbolic claim of never EVER speaking to Russia, when it's a claim that is so easily disproved? And why make such a claim and then disprove it yourself, saving us all the trouble of researching whether you're lying? And why make such a claim when there's nothing wrong with calling up the Russian president, as one might do as the American president?

RSS

Latest Activity

Lionheart commented on Stephen Larsen's group Banya Men!
"Hoping to hit the sauna next week in Dallas. Could use a relaxing spa day. Anyone care to join an AoM brother there?"
49 minutes ago
David R. commented on Shane Belin's group Pennsylvania
"Comment by David R. 1 second ago Delete Comment I'm looking for a quality 4"x6" desk size Pa. flag.  I ordered one from an online company but when it arrived, you simply could not see the coat of arms because it is printed so…"
3 hours ago
Nature of a Man replied to Nature of a Man's discussion A bizarre dating trend I see
"For example, it wasn't so long ago that the well-off married essentially for political and business reasons. Their partners were spouses for the purposes of appearances and to produce offspring but the partners led very separate lives, often…"
5 hours ago
Kit the Odd replied to Xenias Latin's discussion New Leadership Question
"I agree that this sounds more like a management issue than a leadership issue.  I don't really have any good suggestions for management training books. As for leadership, look up the US Army leadership manuals.  ADP 6-22 and ADRP…"
7 hours ago
David R. added a discussion to the group Comedy!
Thumbnail

I know, I know...

I know, I know, I've got a dirty mind sometimes.  But here goes anyway.I passed by the sign in front of a local gym that was promoting how much weight their members had lost.  I saw "Congratulations, Bob Smith!  He lost 75 pounds and 19 inches!"How many men would like to lose "19 inches"?!  Comments?See More
9 hours ago
Jay D replied to J. Exalto's discussion Globalism in the group The Great Debate
"We are discussing two things here. 1. Globalism actually brought as huge relative wealth since the average western household now can afford things that were liited to the aristocracy just 100 years ago. Have you laundry done, babysitters, maids,…"
9 hours ago
Jay D replied to J. Exalto's discussion Globalism in the group The Great Debate
"I agree and being able to patent f.e. new drug recipes is very important for innovation, since there is a lot of money invested. But there are also many areas were patents kill innovation and competition, since they grant a quasi monopoly for…"
10 hours ago
Dal updated their profile
10 hours ago

© 2017   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service