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: 179

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.

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:

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. 

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.


Latest Activity

Sir replied to Sir's discussion Looking for two quotes in the group The Great Debate
"Rockin'! Tx!"
22 minutes ago
David R. added a discussion to the group The Great Debate

"Iron sharpens iron"

Has anyone else noticed that the majority of (if not nearly all) persons who complain about being "politically correct" are white heterosexual men?See More
26 minutes ago
Clinton R. Ausmus replied to Mongoose's discussion Regarding "Muslim Immigrant Woes" in Sweeden in the group The Great Debate
"This statement by our president has made our country the laughing stock of the planet.  I really wish someone would take his phone away from him and tell him to think before he opens his mouth.  It's embarrassing..."
1 hour ago
Lumberjoe replied to Mongoose's discussion Regarding "Muslim Immigrant Woes" in Sweeden in the group The Great Debate
1 hour ago
Lumberjoe replied to Mongoose's discussion Regarding "Muslim Immigrant Woes" in Sweeden in the group The Great Debate
"Hey look! Some mythbusting directly from the government of Sweden:"
1 hour ago
John Muir replied to Conor's discussion I need help moving on, it's been six weeks now.
"Nobody is over a relationship six weeks after it ends. In fact, in my experience, it takes at least a year to mostly get over it, and then about as long as the relationship lasted to totally get over it. You have to go through the birthdays,…"
6 hours ago
Liam Strain replied to Mongoose's discussion Regarding "Muslim Immigrant Woes" in Sweeden in the group The Great Debate
6 hours ago
Lumberjoe replied to Mongoose's discussion Regarding "Muslim Immigrant Woes" in Sweeden in the group The Great Debate
"You might not be reading that article wrong but you have to consider your source and its biases. About this topic specifically, for every article, politician, celebrity, blogger (etc.) you can find that says that Trump is right about Sweden, you…"
7 hours ago

© 2017   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service