home

Another One Bites the Dust: Flynn's Resignation Letter

By Jeralyn, Section Trump Administration
Posted on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 12:53:38 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Here is Michael Flynn's resignation letter. The NY Times reports Trump was told weeks ago he lied about his contacts with Russia.

The Trump administration is in turmoil, a rudderless ship facing constant upheavals. Trump is bad for the nation and bad for the world. He should just admit the job is over his head and resign, taking his unimportant, ill-equipped counselors with him.

< Valentine's Day Open Thread | Gun Buyer in San Bernardino Shooting Pleads Guilty >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Another One Bites the Dust: Flynn's Resignation Letter | 202 comments (202 topical)
    Competence (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 01:20:47 PM EST
    Obama shows his competence post administration.

    Sally Yates warned Trump before he took office that Flynn was lying and could be blackmailed.  So, the Obama people got it right, right off the bat.  And, of course, Trump fired Sally Yates for refusing to implement the unconstitutional Executive Order on immigration.

    So, two big points for Sally Yates and the Obama people.   They got it right.

    Sally Yates is young.  She would be top of the list for AG under a Dem.

    Janaury 26 (none / 0) (#4)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 01:39:39 PM EST
    is when Yates told Trump's White House Counsel about the Flynn lies.

    So, it was just after Trump was inaugurated.  But the Obama people figured it out and acted appropriately.

    Parent

    It was 6 later days and Trump immediately asked (1.00 / 3) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 01:57:48 PM EST
    for an investigation and it was determined there was no illegality involved... I think the investigation took 11 days and after thinking about it Trump decided that he couldn't trust Flynn.

    If Sally knew on 1/20, why did she wait?

    SO much for your paeans of praise for the Obama admin.

    Of course IF the Demos had not blocked sessions then you could be blaming him! lol

    Parent

    Your comment makes no sense (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 02:03:58 PM EST
    even if it were reciting correct facts.

    Yates waits six days--bad.

    Trump waits from Jan 26 until today (19 days)--good.  So, for almost three weeks a man who Trump had lost trust in (if you believe Spicer) was privy to our most sensitive secrets.

    What a crock.  No excuse.

    Parent

    First of all Trump waited for an investigation (3.00 / 2) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 04:14:42 PM EST
    was complete into the legality.

    It was determined  were was no illegality.

    He then took a while to mull over whether or not he could trust Flynn.

    He decided he could not, asked for and received his resignation.

    Seems simple enough to me.

    On one hand you criticize Trump for hip shooting. On the other you claim he should have shot from the hip.

    Make your mind up.

    Parent

    Trump made up his (none / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 04:33:46 PM EST
    mind when the Press got the story.

    If the issue were trust, as Spicer says, then Trump knew that Flynn could not be trusted as soon as he was told.  He did not need to wait until it was determined whether or not Flynn acted illegally to fire Flynn based on losing trust in him.

    But you are right, the entire official explanation makes no sense.

    Flynn did exactly what Trump wanted him to do, and once he was outed by the Press, Trump fired him.  That is a much better explanation.  Flynn going rogue makes no sense.

    Parent

    "Investigation" - heh (none / 0) (#190)
    by Yman on Thu Feb 16, 2017 at 07:40:33 AM EST
    You need to put that in quotes, along with anything else this lying administration claims.  What's funny is conservatives claimed to be offended by Hillary's/Obama's "lies", while supporting Trump's constant barrage of lies.  They also claimed to be the party of faith and family values.

    They're a joke.

    Parent

    And of course the truth (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 02:08:30 PM EST
    is Trump fired Flynn only after the Press got a hold of it.

    Only after the issue became public did Trump take action.

    And I believe that Flynn talked to the Russian Ambassador with Trump's authorization.  

    Parent

    How/why did press get ahold of this? (3.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Green26 on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 02:12:30 PM EST
    Seems very inappropriate for something like this be leaked, i.e. a communication between a senior US official and the Russian ambassador.

    Parent
    Thank goodness for the leak (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 02:26:01 PM EST
    People concerned about national security and Trump's actions.....or inaction.

    Parent
    What harm to you think Flynn's (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Green26 on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 04:26:53 PM EST
    conversation with the Russian ambassador created?

    The conversation seems to have kept the Russians from retaliating. I assume that Trump will likely reverse some of what Obama did.

    Parent

    That Putin has too much influence (4.00 / 4) (#46)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 04:47:41 PM EST
    should be something most can agree to.

    Weakening NATO, supporting Russian activity in Eastern Europe, or looking the other way, are problematic.

    Flynn was literally paid by the Russians.  And now he is having an illegal call to them never mind about the Obama sanctions.

    Parent

    No way, your comments are silly (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Green26 on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 12:04:29 AM EST
    in my view.

    Parent
    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 10:02:00 AM EST
    It is undisputed that Trump has questioned NATO and has been accepting of Russia's action in the Ukraine.

    How silly?  You are making no sense.

    Parent

    Current status of NATO (none / 0) (#168)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 07:30:39 PM EST
    The new US defence secretary has hailed Nato as the "fundamental bedrock" of trans-Atlantic co-operation, as he met defence ministers for the first time.
    James Mattis's reaffirmation of US commitment to the alliance comes after disparaging comments from President Donald Trump.
    But Mr Mattis also reiterated Mr Trump's demand that many Nato countries raise military spending.
    The meeting comes amid concern over the new administration's ties with Russia.
    It also follows reports that Russia violated a landmark arms control treaty by deploying a new cruise missile, reports the Kremlin has dismissed
    .

    http://tinyurl.com/jy8jm7b

    Moving in the right direction, NATO countries need to pay up the 2% for military spending

    Germany, by contrast, spent 1.19 percent of its overall budget on defense. Ten countries spend even less, and seven -- including Canada, Italy and Spain -- would have to virtually double military spending to reach the target. One, Luxembourg, would require a four-fold increase to get close.

    http://tinyurl.com/h3epk35


    Parent
    We just watched it and Bingo (none / 0) (#170)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 07:47:16 PM EST
    The problem having Marines run everything. Callous, lack of nuance, lack of facts outside of the battlefield they envision before them. Good for a battle, unable to comprehend the war. Same thing seen with Kelly on the EO. There is a certain kind of vapid Marines have that makes them easily identifiable from other more well adjusted branches :)

    Parent
    estonia pays the full 2% gdp (none / 0) (#174)
    by linea on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 08:04:11 PM EST
    one sunny sunday morning, when russian tanks are parked in front of toompea castle in tallinn; nato will cease to exist.

    neither the british, the french, nor the americans will order aircraft or missles to attack moscow.


    Parent

    Right back at you (none / 0) (#111)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 05:54:52 AM EST
    ... and his comments are completely accurate.

    Parent
    Where's a good Whitehouse plumber (none / 0) (#19)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 02:31:49 PM EST
    when you need one?

    Parent
    You know, I just realized (none / 0) (#21)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 02:36:32 PM EST
    for the first time, why they were called plumbers.

    All this time.   Hmm.  And I watched the hearings and all.


    Parent

    A 5am Trump tweet today (none / 0) (#129)
    by Green26 on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 10:19:53 AM EST
    "Information is being illegally given to the failing @nytimes & @washingtonpost by the intelligence community (NSA and FBI?).Just like Russia
    5:19 AM - 15 Feb 2017"

    Parent
    What is that tweet supposed to be? (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 11:39:02 AM EST
    a pithy utterance from the Oracle at Delphi to be remembered centuries from now?

    So unfair. The failing New York Times, Crooked Hillary supporters and the intelligence community ganging up!

    Let Little Boots go to war with the NRA and FBI. Good luck with that.

    He's been in office less than a month, and he's already swinging wildly at imaginary enemies like Nixon at his most paranoid.


    Parent

    Nixon complained (none / 0) (#130)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 10:20:44 AM EST
    about leaks too.

    Parent
    At the time Flynn made the call (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 03:17:39 PM EST
    he was not "a senior US official." He was just another civilian.

    Parent
    Oh, honestly! Use your head here! (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 03:39:17 PM EST
    Given that (a) Trump didn't take office until January 20 of this year, and (b) Gen. Flynn's conversation with Ambassador Kislyak occurred in late December of last year, Flynn was quite obviously not "a senior U.S. official," and thus he had no legal standing to be formally discussing or otherwise negotiating federal policy matters with the diplomatic representative of a foreign power.

    And further given that the U.S. Intelligence Community monitors the communications of Russian diplomatic personnel as a matter of agency routine, it's seems far more likely than not that Flynn got caught because IC operatives were eavesdropping on Kislyak, rather than vice versa.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Actually, it depends when the leak occurred (none / 0) (#34)
    by Green26 on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 04:23:00 PM EST
    When was it? After he was a senior official, or before?

    It is highly inappropriate for leaks like this to occur. My guess is that Trump is going to start going after the leakers.

    Lying about the conversation, especially to the VP, is bad, but it doesn't bother me that the designated national security advisor talked to the Russian Ambassador several weeks prior to being in office.

    Parent

    Jesus H Christ (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 11:55:48 AM EST
    on a popsicle stick.

    Connect the dots Einstein.

    The Russians interfere in the election to help Little Boots right around the time Flynn is talking to them about lifting or modifying sanctions.

    And All you're concerned about is the public being informed about it through (gasp) LEAKS!!

    Parent

    The leak occurred after Flynn was (1.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Green26 on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 06:25:04 AM EST
    a senior public official. He started on Jan. 20. The first communication to the white house came on Jan. 26. The leak came after that.

    Parent
    The WaPost article referring to multiple sources (none / 0) (#118)
    by Green26 on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 06:57:56 AM EST
    i.e. the leak with 9 sources, was released on Feb. 7. Earlier in January, there had been mention in the press of possible contact between the two, but there was no detail at all then.

    Parent
    Before (none / 0) (#43)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 04:34:15 PM EST
    as is clear in coverage.  Catch up.

    Parent
    Obama basically canned Flynn (none / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 04:37:16 PM EST
    who by all accounts is bitter and bombastic.

    Guess Obama was right about Flynn.

    Parent

    Do try to keep up with the coverage. (none / 0) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 05:09:01 PM EST
    Trump's transition team were certainly aware of Flynn's phone conversation(s) by January 15. And as the Russian Foreign Ministry itself admitted last November 10, its officials were in regular contact with the Trump campaign. The question now is when senior Trump officials themselves knew of these Russian contacts, and who instigated them and for what purpose.

    Parent
    The conversation was legal (none / 0) (#63)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 07:33:12 PM EST
    Lying about it, and having the VP go out and defend him is what got him fired

    Parent
    The conversation was both illegal and unethical. (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 08:54:41 PM EST
    Since Gen. Flynn was still a private citizen during the last week of December, he had no legal standing to be negotiating with the Russian ambassador about the future disposition of U.S. sanctions against Moscow, which is what he was doing if sources are to be believed. As such, his actions were in direct violation of the Logan Act.

    But honestly, I'm no longer interested in Flynn's contacts with Russians during the last week of December. Rather, I now want to know about the Trump campaign's contacts with the Russian Foreign Ministry prior to Nov. 8, 2016.

    That's likely to be much more revelatory.

    Parent

    Only if you believe (none / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 08:07:59 PM EST
    Spicer.  I don't.  He mislead before.  Why not now?

    Moreover, Trump saying on plane he didn't know about the Flynn thing yesterday was blatantly false.

    Parent

    Because (4.43 / 7) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 02:17:42 PM EST
    someone is sick of Russian stooges in the white house. And Trump apparently is fine with Russian stooges in the white house. Someone leaked it to force Trump's hand or Bannon's hand because otherwise Flynn was going to continue to be in contact with the Kremlin. For all we know Flynn is just the tip of the iceberg on this and I seriously doubt that he was in contact with the Kremlin for his own sake. Remember there are several other Trump people with ties to the Kremlin.

    Parent
    So do you expect to like the next (none / 0) (#36)
    by Green26 on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 04:25:19 PM EST
    national security better than the departed one?

    Do you think it's appropriate for Trump's calls with foreign leaders to be leaked too?

    Parent

    Have no idea (3.67 / 3) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 06:13:23 PM EST
    about the next national security leader but what the heck is Bannon doing on the NSL? There's another possible Putin contact. There's still the Putin stooge Tillerson at state. I'm not sure getting rid of Flynn changes a whole lot in the equation.

    And those leaks were from foreign leaders relating their conversations with Trump. Should foreign leaders not talk about how inept and insulting Trump has been to them?

    Parent

    You have Putin on the brain (3.50 / 2) (#108)
    by Green26 on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 12:05:48 AM EST
    Funny. No credibility with me on that subject.

    Parent
    Obviously (3.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 07:07:51 AM EST
    you'll apologize for Trump until the cows come home. That is your choice. 11 Trump campaign members had ties to Russia. A number of them have been reported as being investigated by law enforcement.

    I have been repeatedly right about Trump and Putin. This story is going to go on until we get a resolution and find out all the facts.

    I am concerned about the rise of white nationalism in this country aided and abetted by Trump and Putin. Our national security could be compromised but you can continue to put your head in the sand.

    Parent

    I have never apologized for Trump (2.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Green26 on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 09:41:59 AM EST
    and you can't cite/quote a single time I ever have. You also can't find/cite a single time I have supported Putin.

    Like I said, you have Putin on the brain. By the way, what do you think you have ever been right on regarding Putin. Nothing comes to mind.

    Parent

    Green, you seem to support Trump (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 10:23:48 AM EST
    in this latest controversy.   You agree the leaks are the problem--not the contacts with Russia.

    That is supporting Trump.  And indirectly Putin's influence over Trump.

    Parent

    Nope, don't support Trump (none / 0) (#132)
    by Green26 on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 10:32:40 AM EST
    Leaks like this are just one part of the problem. My view would be the same for any president. Have said I support a bipartisan or independent investigation of the Russian election interference allegations and now whatever else should be investigated. You need to do your homework before you make false allegations. Ha.

    I see that the FBI talked to Flynn about this subject in January. If he also liked to the FBI, then he may have legal problems.

    Parent

    I go by your comments on this thread (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 11:16:06 AM EST
    Those comments support Trump and express concern over the leaks and minimize the seriousness of the contacts with Russian intelligence operatives--which is Trump's position.

    So, you repeatedly and assiduously take the Trump position here, but say that somewhere else, perhaps long ago, you made a perfunctory and pro forma expression of opposition to Trump.

    I go by what you say here....If it walks like a duck.

    Parent

    MKS, first, my body of work is greater (none / 0) (#139)
    by Green26 on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 11:28:59 AM EST
    than one thread. Perhaps this surprises you, but I don't continue to repeat all of my TL views in every thread. Second, I believe I have said that I support investigations of the subject, twice in this thread. Have actually said that 2 or 3 times on TL in the last 24 hours.

    As I said, you need to do your homework.

    Parent

    "Supporting investigations" (4.20 / 5) (#147)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 12:34:23 PM EST
    is a very cautious, timid response.  Conservative GOP people say that.

    That position does not somehow contradict your taking Trump's position that the leaks are more concerning than the ongoing communications between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence operatives.

    Your "body of work" consists primarily of criticism of Democrats and those who oppose Trump.  You try to hedge your bets with pro forma support of Democrats, once in a while, and some obvious criticism of Trump, albeit in muted tones.

    Parent

    Nope, supporting investigations is (none / 0) (#149)
    by Green26 on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 12:58:05 PM EST
    perfecting fine. I believe in gathering the facts before drawing important conclusions.

    Have never said or indicated that the leaks are more important than other aspects of the allegations.

    What Dems have I criticized over this? Don't believe I have criticized any Dems.

    Parent

    Never indicated.. (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 01:18:22 PM EST
    Oh, not at all.

    How many times do you bring up "leaks" just on this one thread?

    You've got leaks on the brain. So to speak.

    Parent

    No, it's not inappropriate (none / 0) (#62)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 07:32:13 PM EST
    It's a crime!

    And a explanation will be forthcoming as to why wiretaps were on a government officials calls.

    That is how fascist governments operate, their secret police release wiretapped information of their political enemies

    Parent

    Hello? Anyone there? (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 07:43:43 PM EST
    And a explanation will be forthcoming as to why wiretaps were on a government officials calls.

    The tap wasn't on a government official, it was on the Russian embassy.  It's not a military secret that we listen to them, but apparently this escaped Mr. Flynn's attention.

    Flynn was at that time a private citizen, not a "government official."  He was caught negotiating with the Russian ambassador on behalf of the Tr*mp administration, even though Mr. Obama was then president.  This is a federal crime, but it seems unlikely that the current DOJ will investigate it.

    Remember the Patriot Act?  If you have a problem with unaccountable wiretaps, call Mr. Bush in Midland, TX.  He will explain it to you, and then you will get a transcript from the FBI.

    Parent

    He what? (1.00 / 2) (#75)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 08:26:36 PM EST
    He was caught negotiating with the Russian ambassador on behalf of the Tr*mp administration, even though Mr. Obama was then president.

    I don't think so. That was not a "negotiation"

    Lol, the only crime was the release of classified information to the press

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#76)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 08:30:36 PM EST
    If Flynn misled the DOJ, Martha Stewart may be Flynn's best source of what can happen next.

    Parent
    I think you completely pulled that (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 07:59:15 PM EST
    out of your ass about "fascist governments" and wiretaps, especially when it's obvious that what you're upset about is the public being made aware of your heroes cutting deals with with Russian fascists who undermine democratic elections and murder their political opponents.

    Parent
    The wiretap was on the Russian official (5.00 / 7) (#69)
    by Peter G on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 08:03:33 PM EST
    an obvious national security wiretap. Doesn't count as a wiretap "on" anyone else if the Russian was the target, as the NSA has argued to justify all its challenged surveillance activities.

    Parent
    Yessss! (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 11:26:38 PM EST
    How did Flynn forget all this Peter? It's almost as if he were an eroding ego maniac or something.

    Parent
    Sigmund Freud (none / 0) (#145)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 12:26:12 PM EST
    used to talk about unconscious guilt and the need to be found out and confess..

    Or maybe it's just that the GOP attracts not only crooks, but dumb crooks.

    Parent

    Should have looked for other (none / 0) (#71)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 08:06:02 PM EST
    replies before posting my own.

    Peter has got this one.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#169)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 07:33:02 PM EST
    But there are special privacy protections placed when American citizens are also caught up in the wiretapped call.

    Parent
    Good One! (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 08:22:52 PM EST
    But there are special privacy protections placed when American citizens are also caught up in the wiretapped call.

    Two words for you: Patriot Act.  Why don't you describe the "protections" you are referring to.

    The reason to tap the Russian's phone to catch traitors.  The Russian Embassy is officially Russian territory, and is not subject to the Constitution.

    Just so I understand your point, why should the US government take steps to protect traitors from exposure resulting from their phone calls to a foreign country?

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 09:12:51 PM EST
    They take steps to protect the privacy of private citizens caught up in their wiretapping web

    Just so I understand your point, why should the US government take steps to protect traitors from exposure resulting from their phone calls to a foreign country?


    Parent
    Asked and not answered (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Feb 16, 2017 at 11:20:24 AM EST
    But there are special privacy protections placed when American citizens are also caught up in the wiretapped call.

    I challenged you to describe these "protections" and you whiffed.  Until you provide evidence of your claim, we can safely assume that it is a complete fabrication, i.e. an "alternative fact."

    They take steps to protect the privacy of private citizens caught up in their wiretapping web

    Allow me to point out that this is the exact same claim (reproduced above) that you failed to support when I challenged you.  Next time try ALL CAPS to be more convincing.

    Let's do a little mental experiment.  We know the Russian embassy's phone was tapped and that General Flynn was heard on an intercepted call. His version of the conversations turned out to be quite a bit different from the actual transcripts.  AFAIK those are "facts" that are beyond dispute.

    Why do you suppose the FBI would tap the Russian embassy phone inside the United States if at least one of the purposes was not to find out what Americans might be selling out to a foreign power?

    Do you think the FBI should be interested in finding traitors before they harm the country?

    Actually, we already know the answer to that one.  You would like to extend Constitutional protections to spies operating on foreign territory (the embassy), on behalf of foreign powers, which means we can only act AFTER the harm is done.  I don't believe we heard anything from you about protecting the citizens when law enforcement illegally infiltrated the Occupy movement in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments, and tried to incite crimes, but I will stand corrected if you show me evidence of your opposition to this practice.  

    You have a First Amendment right to the opinion that we should protect traitors from exposure, but I don't have to be impressed by the mental gymnastics it takes for you to hold it.

    Parent

    Some of the protections were gotten rid of (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Green26 on Thu Feb 16, 2017 at 12:12:20 PM EST
    by Obama when he signed something in the last month before he left.  I will look for an article. Think it was in the NY Times. Didn't seem to get much attention. Think it was something like this: raw data used to get looked at by one group/agency to filter out personal and irrelevant stuff. Now, 15 or so groups/agencies have the ability to look at the raw data before filtering.

    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#199)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 16, 2017 at 11:27:41 AM EST


    Parent
    The tap was probably on Russiaon Ambassador (none / 0) (#70)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 08:04:55 PM EST


    Parent
    And how would the President's chosen (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by Peter G on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 10:50:38 PM EST
    National Security adviser know that the government probably listens in to the Russian Ambassador's calls? Mindboggling.h

    Parent
    But he in his mind (none / 0) (#106)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 11:53:29 PM EST
    Was about to be the ring that ruled them all.

    Military leadership thinking. Some of them tend to think the rest of the world operates in an authoritarian type framework as well. It is the only world they know. The only prism they've ever viewed the world through, so it must be so.

    His history at DIA before being fired seems to echo to me this belief I see from time to time in the military indictrinated, that the entire world operates under authoritarianism, even the United States of America.

    Parent

    FBI had to interview Flynn (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 02:34:50 PM EST
    first, and he delayed that until only days before Yates finally got -- with info from interview that showed Flynn's "contradictory accounts" (lies) -- Comey's okay to tell the White House . . . as we now know, as media get more info on the calendar of how this unfolded.  

    (Next:  Did Flynn tell others in administration that FBI interviewed him in the White House?)

    But you keep digging yourself a deeper hole, trying to blame this on Yates -- as we also now know why she really was fired by President Bannon and his puppet.

    Parent

    I blame no one. (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 04:20:12 PM EST
    I just see no plaudits.

    Flynn was probably destroying his private email server which took longer than expected because he was dodging sniper fire from irate radical islamist who didn't like the Internet video.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Of course, you don't, because (none / 0) (#49)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 05:16:01 PM EST
    I didn't say anything about plaudits.

    But you implied blame ("if Sally knew"), and I showed that was your usual b.s., so you retreat to your usual misrepresentation for deflection.

    Seriously, despite our pointing out to you repeatedly that you are a joke here, you do it again?  There is a name for that disorder. . . .

    Parent

    The name for your disorder (1.00 / 2) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 07:10:49 PM EST
    is called "reading comprehension failure."

    I was responding to MKS' statement:

    Sally Yates warned Trump before he took office that Flynn was lying and could be blackmailed.  So, the Obama people got it right, right off the bat.  And, of course, Trump fired Sally Yates for refusing to implement the unconstitutional Executive Order on immigration.

    As I noted, it was six days after Trump was sworn in. So.....

    If Sally knew on 1/20, why did she wait?

    You are blustering and making wild claims about what I have written for no reason beyond a desire to disagree with a political opponent.

    Parent

    She waited because Comey (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 08:02:29 PM EST
    held her up.

    As was discussed here.

    Parent

    Speaking of reading comprehension failure (none / 0) (#73)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 08:15:38 PM EST


    Parent
    Comey works for her. (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 08:38:03 PM EST
    Not the other way.

    Parent
    Not really (none / 0) (#81)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 08:39:37 PM EST
    The FBI Director is different has more autonomy.

    Parent
    No the FBI works for her (none / 0) (#172)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 07:54:28 PM EST


    Parent
    Your best bet (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 08:20:50 PM EST
    is to read the article in the Washington Post. They have the best sources it would seem. here

    Parent
    For Republicans (none / 0) (#52)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 06:12:33 PM EST
    supposedly concerned about National Security, Trump should alarm them to no end.  But, no, most defend him--no matter what.

    Parent
    "After thinking about it" - heh (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 09:29:51 PM EST
    You mean,  after it became public knowledge.

    BTW - What investigation are you claiming took 11 days and exonerated Flynn?

    Parent

    But Obama appointee Comey stalled (none / 0) (#6)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 01:55:02 PM EST
    Yates from informing the White House.

    Obama's appointment of Comey again argues against "Obama people acting appropriately," sadly for us.

    Parent

    Oh good (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 01:57:10 PM EST
    And Spicer had blamed DOJ for delay.  

    Your comment provides a missing piece.  

    Parent

    Yet another (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 02:13:54 PM EST
    example of why Comey needs an independent prosecutor assigned to him. The dribbles coming out of the FBI are just awful.

    Parent
    Comey is sui generis (none / 0) (#10)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 02:00:42 PM EST
    Yes, Obama appointed him.  But he is clearly a GOP partisan.

    Parent
    History will look unkindly (none / 0) (#28)
    by smott on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 03:41:08 PM EST
    On O for that.
    And hopefully that's the last Republican Daddy a Dem Prez EVER elevates to such a position.

    Assuming we continue to have elections, of course.

    Parent

    Waiting for the usual suspects (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 01:56:07 PM EST
    to chime in with "Flynn went rogue" without Little Boot's knowledge. In order to curry favor or something.

    Going rogue (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 02:20:40 PM EST
    by Flynn makes no sense at all. Flynn being an intermediary between Trump and the Kremlin makes a lot of sense.

    Parent
    No it doesn't make sense really (none / 0) (#17)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 02:25:23 PM EST
    I'm trying to imagine how they'll try to spin it.

    Besides talking over-and-over about some Democrats who did something remotely similar at some point in history.

    Parent

    Of course w his knowledge (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by smott on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 03:39:27 PM EST
    If not Yates told him.

    And instead of thanking  her, he fired her.

    She's an American hero in my book.

    Comey, on the other hand.....

    Parent

    And boom (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 08:51:06 PM EST
    goes the dynamite

    Trump Campaign had repeated contacts with Russian intelligence officials

    You had to know it was coming (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 08:53:17 PM EST


    Parent
    Lol (none / 0) (#89)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 09:05:32 PM EST
    TDS

    Nothingburger...Isn't that what you call it?

    4 people, none of which are in the administration

    Article had a whole lot of ....nothing

    Parent

    You must be one (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 09:15:46 PM EST
    of those guys that Trump said would support him even if he shot someone.

    Parent
    Hahahahahahahahaaaaa... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 09:39:34 PM EST
    You call it a "nothingburger" because none of the four officials are in the Trump administration?!?

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa...

    Forget TDS.  The problem here is TSS.  Trump SYCOPHANT Syndrome.

    Parent

    (Sigh!) Must you always be a tool? (5.00 / 5) (#109)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 12:44:39 AM EST
    TrevorBolder: "TDS[.] Nothingburger...Isn't that what you call it? 4 people, none of which are in the administration[.] Article had a whole lot of ....nothing[.]"

    Paul Manafort was Trump's former campaign manager. Carter Page was a senior campaign advisor for foreign policy. Roger Stone remains a close confidant. And Michael Flynn was the administration's National Security Advisor until 24 hours ago. According to U.S. intelligence, all four had extensive contacts during the presidential campaign not just with Russian government officials, but with Russian intelligence.

    This is very, very serious matter. There is a growing likelihood that your country's national security has been potentially compromised. For Heaven's sake, pull your head out of your arse, and stop regaling everyone here with your fixation on the view up there.

    >:-|

    Parent

    Stop (2.00 / 1) (#112)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 05:56:28 AM EST
    Running around with your hair on fire.
    it's unbecoming

    Parent
    Stop (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 06:02:53 AM EST
    minimizing the scope of this issue, if you think that Flynn going rouge and demonstrably lying about it is a nothingburger , then you truly are a sycophant of the highest level.

    Parent
    Read the article (none / 0) (#116)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 06:45:30 AM EST
    There is nothing there

    Nothing confirmed, nothing illegal

    Sycophant?  Ha!

    I would be more than happy with President Pence.

    Many here have reading comprehension difficulties,

    I did not support The Donald in the primary, I did not vote for The Donald in the election.

    But keep on lurching leftwards...

    Donald Trump begins his presidency facing unprecedented polling headwinds: Roughly a quarter of voters think Donald Trump is the worst president in the last century. Forty-three percent of voters are ready to vote for a nameless Democrat in 2020, while just over a third say they'll vote for Trump.

    But, in the fourth week of Trump's presidency, a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll shows that Democrats could be in trouble -- and Trump could triumph -- if they continues their lurch to the left.

    Despite the public's increasing misgivings about Trump's behavior and tactics in the White House, he still beats Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in a hypothetical matchup, 42 percent to 36 percent -- a fairly impressive margin for an less-than-popular president against the prominent senator.



    Parent
    This isn't about Trump's poll numbers. (5.00 / 4) (#134)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 10:46:24 AM EST
    Stop trying to change the subject. Rather, of immediate concern was the fact that not only had Trump installed as his administration's National Security Advisor a man who was a potential paid Russian agent, he did so despite numerous concerns expressed to him both publicly and privately about Gen. Flynn's ties to Moscow.

    The effect of this scandal has now broadened with last night's further revelation that several senior Trump campaign officials including Gen. Flynn had maintained regular and active contact throughout the 2016 presidential campaign not just with officials at the Russian Foreign Ministry, but with Russian intelligence as well.

    The Trump campaign had previously denied allegations about its contacts with the Russian government, even though Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov had forthrightly admitted as much publicly to the Moscow Times on November 10 of last year. Last night's revelation has effectively undercut those denials, showing them up as yet more Trump falsehoods.

    Moreover, Flynn wasn't the only Russophile who held a senior position in the Trump administration. Others include chief strategist Steve Bannon and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. What did they know about Flynn's discussion with the Russian ambassador and other pro-Moscow activities, and when did they know it? And now, their own prior dealings with Russia are going to receive renewed public scrutiny.

    Given the blatant interference by Russian FSB operatives in our 2016 national elections, this is a very serious matter, and potentially constitutes the gravest threat posed to our country's national security by a foreign power since the end of the Cold War.

    As for you, Trevor, your overly strenuous denials of the obvious have now given me pause to rethink your own public stances here regarding Trump.

    Alas, such are the times in which we now live.

    Parent

    Prop or not? (none / 0) (#166)
    by desertswine on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 05:29:32 PM EST
    Black Friday Report...

    Russia�s attempts to influence the U.S. election via hacking and selectively leaking sensitive U.S. government and political data were not conducted in isolation. They were accompanied by large-scale, long-term efforts to build online �fake news� propaganda outlets with
    significant audiences in the U.S. PropOrNot has so far identified over 200 distinct websites, YouTube channels, and Facebook groups which qualify as Russian propaganda outlets according to our criteria and target audiences in the United States. Drawing on existing research and using a combination of automated and manual review techniques, we estimate the regular U.S. audiences of these outlets to number in the tens of millions. We are currently gathering data to measure that more precisely, but are confidant that it includes at least 15 million Americans.


    Parent
    Lurching leftwards.. (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 12:46:46 PM EST
    the site is called Talkleft.

    Quit lurching around under that white sheet with your Bible and your copy of The Fountainhead.

    Mike Pence.  What he supposed to be? some sort of moderate, reasonable product of the enlightenment?

    The guy who thinks dinosaur bones were placed here by Satan to confuse people?

    Parent

    Sure, Warren may not beat Trump (none / 0) (#153)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 02:34:36 PM EST
    That is why I got on the Gavin Newsom bandwagon early.   (Sorry, Donald H; I forgive him.)

    He could really give Trump a run for his money.  The cabbies talked for weeks after he walked the picket line for striking hotel workers when he was Mayor of S.F.  You want someone who can connect with working people, he can do that.

    You heard it here first.

    Parent

    I would respectfully suggest that ... (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 04:59:15 PM EST
    ... we have far more important tasks before us right now than speculating about the 2020 elections -- because if we don't take care of the immediate business at hand, those elections won't be worth the paper used to print the ballots.

    Parent
    Hmm repeated (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 09:16:41 PM EST
    contact with the Kremlin is a "whole lot of nothing" in your book? And since then it has been pretty much proven that Putin was helping Trump?

    Oh, and that Michael Steele dossier? They're finding a lot of it true so far.

    Parent

    LOL! Freudian slip? (none / 0) (#135)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 10:53:47 AM EST
    Christopher Steele is the former British MI6 operative who compiled the dossier in question. Michael Steele is the former RNC Chair.

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#142)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 11:55:40 AM EST
    apparently so!

    Parent
    Time to either circle the wagons, or ... (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 09:07:28 PM EST
    ... circle the drain. This was just posted 37 minutes ago:

    New York Times | February 14, 2017
    Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence - "Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.

    "American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time that they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.

    "The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation. But the intercepts alarmed American intelligence and law enforcement agencies, in part because of the amount of contact that was occurring while Mr. Trump was speaking glowingly about the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin. At one point last summer, Mr. Trump said at a campaign event that he hoped Russian intelligence services had stolen Hillary Clinton's emails and would make them public."

    In the immortal words of Rick Perry, Secretary of Energy wannabe: "Oops!"

    Yes, very interesting article (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Green26 on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 06:34:00 AM EST
    However, note the following:

    "The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation."

    ("The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.")

    "Mr. Manafort, who has not been charged with any crimes, dismissed the officials' accounts in a telephone interview on Tuesday. "This is absurd," he said. "I have no idea what this is referring to. I have never knowingly spoken to Russian intelligence officers, and I have never been involved with anything to do with the Russian government or the Putin administration or any other issues under investigation today."

    He added, "It's not like these people wear badges that say, `I'm a Russian intelligence officer.'"

    Several of Mr. Trump's associates, like Mr. Manafort, have done business in Russia. And it is not unusual for American businessmen to come in contact with foreign intelligence officials, sometimes unwittingly, in countries like Russia and Ukraine, where the spy services are deeply embedded in society. Law enforcement officials did not say to what extent the contacts might have been about business."

    Parent

    Another interesting article on the Flynn stuff (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Green26 on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 06:54:05 AM EST
    "No evidence has surfaced to suggest that Flynn's contacts with Kislyak were in any way tied to the Russian operation."

    Flynn had known the Russian ambassador since 2013. They had multiple contacts in late 2016. The ambassador had called Flynn, who was on vacation in Puerto Rico, when the discussion regarding sanctions occurred.

    WaPost article.

    Parent

    And your point here is -- what, exactly? (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 11:02:16 AM EST
    That everything which has thus far become known really constitutes nothing more than a rather amazing series of random coincidences?

    Parent
    ha ha (none / 0) (#121)
    by mm on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 09:02:30 AM EST
    Manafort, who represented pro-Russian forces in the Ukraine for years, getting paid big bucks, had no idea who he was working for.  Sounds pretty stupid to me.  I wonder why Trump hired him in the first place.

    Parent
    Manafort said he hadn't knowingly talked to (none / 0) (#122)
    by Green26 on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 09:38:40 AM EST
    Russian intelligence.

    "I have never knowingly spoken to Russian intelligence officers, and I have never been involved with anything to do with the Russian government or the Putin administration or any other issues under investigation today."

    "And it is not unusual for American businessmen to come in contact with foreign intelligence officials, sometimes unwittingly, in countries like Russia and Ukraine, where the spy services are deeply embedded in society."

    Parent

    However (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 09:44:31 AM EST
    it is highly unusual for the campaign manager for a major party nominee to be in constant contact with foreign intelligence officials. Of course in Trumpland it's business first, party second and country a distant third.

    Keep showing your true colors by defending the indefensible.

    Parent

    He said he had never knowingly talked to (none / 0) (#128)
    by Green26 on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 10:06:59 AM EST
    intelligence officials. The article said that in business over there, businessman often don't know who is in intelligence and intelligence people are integrated into business.

    I am not defending anything. I am just trying to decipher the facts and be objective. You seem to just want to be partisan and misstate the facts.

    Also note that I have said multiple times that I'd be fine with a bipartisan or independent investigation of Russian election interference allegations.

    Parent

    Ha, Ha (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 10:38:23 AM EST
    and you believe him. Do you really think he would fess up to "knowingly" communicating with Russian intel?

    If this is a truism(and I don't doubt it),  

    in business over there, businessman often don't know who is in intelligence and intelligence people are integrated into business.
    why did he ignore that fact? It seems to me that a prudent fellow would have taken that into account and avoid such contacts like the plague, just to protect his boss if nothing else.

    Deflect and defend is all you ever do.

    Parent

    Joe, I took this info (none / 0) (#138)
    by Green26 on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 11:25:38 AM EST
    from the linked WAPost article. If it can't be known who is in Russian intelligence, how does one avoid talking to someone who may be in Russian intelligence? How does one do business or work in Russia or the Ukraine? Is it your view that no one should travel to Russia or the Ukraine, because they might talk to a Russian intelligence official?

    Parent
    That's (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 11:38:04 AM EST
    exactly what I am saying, if Manafort knew he could not tell the difference, maybe he should have been a bit more careful. If he was unable or unwilling to give up his "business" dealings he should have declined the gig with Trump.

    Being willfully ignorant when playing the "useful idiot" is particularly damning IMO.

    Parent

    Those aren't questions. These are questions. (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 12:04:01 PM EST
    how does one avoid talking to someone who may be in Russian intelligence?

    The Russian accent should be a clue.

    How does one do business or work in Russia or the Ukraine?

    Better question is WHY anyone would "do business" with a ruthless dictatorship.  Does money "trump" patriotism and the desire to support countries that respect their citizens?  But Tr*mp didn't have any problem working with the US Mafia, so we know ethics would not get in the way.

    Is it your view that no one should travel to Russia or the Ukraine, because they might talk to a Russian intelligence official?

    I used to tell my employees this about our customers.  "Everybody lies.  All the time.  About everything."  If you go into the conversation knowing that, you can only be pleasantly surprised when you hear truth, and you won't get burned by a lie.

    When in Russia, you assume that everyone you talk to is a spy.  Because if you do not work under that assumption, one will certainly be a spy and you will have given away the store.

    As we have seen.

    Parent

    yeah, that's what he says (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by mm on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 09:46:39 AM EST
    Well then, as I said, for someone so stupid, he's getting paid an awful lot of money.

    Parent
    My question (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 10:03:42 AM EST
    is WTF was he talking to anybody in Russia during the campaign? What dealings did he have with them that he needed to even contact any Russians? Even if you believe what he is saying (I don't) he's still admitting to contact with Russians.

    Parent
    Very entertaining thread (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 05:23:30 PM EST


    This whole thing is such BS (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Feb 16, 2017 at 10:13:36 AM EST
    where the GOP and the appeasers who post here are  concerned. It is proof that none of them have any conscience, honor, integrity or self-respect. The general attitude seems to be "move along, nothing to see here." Whereas had anything, and I mean ANYTHING remotely like this happened under Obama's watch, or if HRC had won the election, the GOP and the Talkleft appeasers would have been on the White House lawn with torches and pitchforks. In the case of President Obama, I'm sure someone would have brought a noose and tree. The GOP has proved itself to be about the lowest of the low with regard with integrity.

    Surprised Jeralyn didn't inlcude the Queen video (none / 0) (#2)
    by McBain on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 01:21:07 PM EST
    Here it is

    Another One Bites the Dust was the first 45 I bought with my own money at a Tower Records in San Jose.

    As for the Flynn resignation.... I doubt we'll know the real story anytime soon.  

    Flynn did Trump's bidding (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 01:26:13 PM EST
    It would be hard to believe that Flynn was doing anything about Russia that Trump did not authorize.

    Trump was clear about liking Putin and Russia and refusing to criticize them.  Why would it surprise anyone that Trump would authorize Flynn to tell the Russian Ambassador that Trump would unwind the sanctions?

    Parent

    It's certainly in keeping with the grand (none / 0) (#5)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 01:46:24 PM EST
    GOP "October surprise" tradition.

    Just win. By any means necessary.

    It should be a tip off that Bannon's admitted studying the tactics of Lenin, and people like Grover Norquist have admitted studying Trotsky. And it ain't because either has any socialist sympathies.

    When they go low, that just means they're getting ready to start tunneling. With a knife between their teeth.

    Parent

    Now Russia is firing missiles off of our coast (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 03:35:58 PM EST
    Ya'll scared yet? I'm not. Russia has pulled so much $hit in this country recently though they think we are now New Poland.

    Thanks Republicans. What a pack of war mongering dictator enriching idiots.

    Whoops there you are! (none / 0) (#25)
    by smott on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 03:38:06 PM EST
    Yes, and Russian spy ships within 70 miles of US Coast. Not....quite...allowed....

    Parent
    This is going to really piss off the deep (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 03:50:26 PM EST
    Government intelligence community. I think the New Russia Strategy is dead. And Bannon was propagating that as well. I thought Bannon would be hard to get rid of but no more. The spies want his dangerous destructive insane ass out.

    Parent
    So what you are saying is (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 04:29:23 PM EST
    that spies should set foreign policy.

    Do you think maybe they should first get elected?

    Parent

    Nope, not what I'm saying (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 04:48:10 PM EST
    It isn't black and white. There are checks and balances and legal procedures and protocols. A new President does not create a blank slate. Corrupt members of any administration deserve to be exposed and dealt with. This is America. This is how we do it. A President is not a monarch, his staff do not enjoy the luxuries and lack of accountability that the 3rd Reich enjoyed. That is not who we are.

    Parent
    MT, could we have a conversation in which (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 07:36:57 PM EST
    the Nazis or Russians aren't included?

    The question is as old as sin.

    Who will watch the watchers?

    Given that the FISA court was contacted when a US citizen was listened to, and we have no way of knowing that, and the conversation was assumed to have some illegality about it, you would hope and assume that it would be referred to the DOJ.

    The DOJ would then try and determine if the conversation was illegal. Either way, if the person was on the President's staff/employment, you would assume he would be informed.

    Nowhere in that chain do we have any reason whatsoever for any information to be leaked to the press or anyone else.

    Now, IF the actions of the President, in the eyes of the AG,were found to be unacceptable then the AG should go public and resign. If that doesn't happen then others within the chain should go public and resign.

    The press and the voters can then become involved.

    But that isn't what is happening. What we have are people who are political opponents of the President trying to harm the President from the shadows.

    That's wrong.

    And yes, if the "going public" is required I understand that the individuals will be harmed, if not physically, then professionally. But that comes with the job just was the possibility of being killed in training or combat comes with your husband's job.


    Parent

    The thing (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 07:41:52 PM EST
    is the leakers are telling the truth unlike where they lied about Hillary. However you seemed to think those lying leakers were fine but apparently truthful leakers are not. Leaks always happen. There have been investigations into leaks and they never go anywhere.

    Parent
    GA, if you're point is that two (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 08:30:57 PM EST
    wrongs make one right then you have no position.

    If the "leakers" violated the law and lied about Hillary....BAD!

    If the "leakers" violated the law and told the truth about Flynn....BAD!

    Read my response to MT. There is a proper way to report illegal actions by anyone within the government.

    However, I remind you that the "leakers" are said to be Russian hackers who then fed the information to Wikileaks.

    If I am wrong please name those US citizens you now want to claim to he Hillary leakers and what they leaked.

    Parent

    No, that is not (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 08:55:59 PM EST
    my point about two wrongs.

    It doesn't matter Jim. The entire Trump administration has just been blown up because his campaign had numerous direct contacts with the Kremlin.

    Parent

    You are demanding protections and powers (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 09:11:56 PM EST
    For the leader of the United States and his aides similar to what Hitler and the Third Reich demanded. I'm just telling you the answer from the people is NO!

    Parent
    You are making things up (none / 0) (#173)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 07:56:40 PM EST
    Go back and read what I wrote.

    Parent
    Spy ships off the coast and following (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 04:25:30 PM EST
    our ships has been happening forever and ever.

    But it does get annoying when you get launched on patrol to go out and show them we're not asleep.

    Parent

    Uhhhh NO (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 04:34:12 PM EST
    They deployed banned missiles and violated a treaty. It's not an average day Jim.

    Parent
    Not an average day, but not unheard of, either. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 06:34:19 PM EST
    Is Russia testing Trump? The country has secretly deployed a new cruise missile, The New York Times reported Tuesday, just a day after President Trump's national security adviser resigned. After being in the testing phase for years, the Russian missile is now apparently being designated an operational system.

    Back in 2014, the Obama administration warned Russia that the missile's existence was a violation of a 1987 treaty that prohibits both the U.S. and Russia from having "intermediate-range missiles based on land." A review by the U.S. State Department determined in July 2014 that Russia's missile testing was indeed in violation of the treaty, which was integral to ending the Cold War. The State Department reminded Russia of its findings again in 2015, prompting Russia to accuse Washington of "megaphone diplomacy."



    Parent
    But they do it in response to something (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 06:55:35 PM EST
    Flynn fired....missile go boom. Sort of like little Kim in North Korea. But I'm supposed to see Russia as completely 180 degrees out from North Korea?

    Parent
    And then.. (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 08:54:08 PM EST
    A Russian spy ship was spotted patrolling off the East Coast of the United States on Tuesday morning, the first such instance during the Trump administration -- and the same day it was learned the Kremlin had secretly deployed controversial cruise missiles inside Russia and flew within 200 yards of a U.S. Navy destroyer, U.S. officials told Fox News.

    The Russian ship was in international waters, 70 miles off the coast of Delaware and heading north at 10 knots, according to one official. The U.S. territory line is 12 nautical miles.

    Since Fox reported it it must not be true.

    Just kidding.

    I saw your point as if the spy ship had missiles. Which it may have. And as SUO notes this is a rather obvious "string pulling" by the Russians and North Korea, just as China forced down one of our patrol plans in May of 2001.

    We can expect more. Iran should be next.

    The scary point is that neither of these three countries are use to any significant push back. My guess is that Trump will pick one to slap very hard as an example to the other two.

    I wouldn't want to be in the Iranian navy buzzing around a US ship.

    Parent

    "Pick one" (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 09:10:49 PM EST
    as in, the one without nukes.

    No matter how much you want to attack Iran, Ms Geller, or how much you'd love for them to provoke a military response, it probably isn't going to happen.

    You're just going to have to find some other way to fill the void in life.

    Parent

    You are a disgrace (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 07:18:16 PM EST
    to the uniform you claim you wore.

    Parent
    You don't think it is annoying (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 09:02:01 PM EST
    to be woke up at some ungodly hour because Russia has decided to play games?

    Well, maybe you can find some way for some unnamed group to eliminate the Russians the way you wanted them to act against Trump.

    God knows some very good men and women died tracking those spy ships and subs.

    Parent

    May I just momentarily medaciously (none / 0) (#156)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 03:22:34 PM EST
    meander about how much of a griping Geller groupie you are?

    And just add that the only thing Pamela hates more than Iran is the idea of living without a rich sugar daddy to bankroll her unhinged neocon-on-steroids schtick?

    Parent

    Where's MTracy? (none / 0) (#24)
    by smott on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 03:37:07 PM EST
    Always look fwd to her opinions on Flynn.

    Mostly I'm wondering if he lied to the FBI.

    And can they get him to flip on Trump.

    I don't know (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 04:08:29 PM EST
    But he came away way too easy for Flynn. There is some bad stuff in those intercepted conversations is what a lot of military and affiliated think. Plus, who was paying him then? He wasn't on the government dole yet. He did all this Russia lobbying on his USA patriot retirement?

    Parent
    It seems (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 04:15:39 PM EST
    that he did lie to the FBI from what I have read. However charging him is up to Comey and I'm not sure Comey would do that. Getting him to flip on Trump? Again left up to Comey who seems to think his number one job is protecting Trump.

    What I fear is that we are going to have the Russians running the country until the next election. Pence, McConnell and Ryan are all compromised.

    Parent

    Flynn will probably squeak out of most charges (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 04:30:26 PM EST
    He will flip on Trump when he feels ignored and too smeared and not anyone's hero. He will predictably tantrum. He always spews eventually.

    Parent
    Yes, Yates went to WH (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 04:37:08 PM EST
    to report "contradictions" between Flynn's interview with the FBI and other statements.

    (Need we note that "contradictions" is the nice word for lies?)

    Parent

    My husband and I were cooking dinner last night (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 04:23:44 PM EST
    Flynn had issues for like forever.  And his buddies would just promote him after giving him a lecture. I said that maybe the Generals will realize they shouldn't allow baby Generals to drive drunk. I was told that will never happen. IMO there is new problem child in the nursery though, General Lundy.

    Parent
    I am reading that Gen. Harwood (none / 0) (#50)
    by caseyOR on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 06:00:25 PM EST
    has the inside track to replace Flynn. He worked for Mattis at one time.

    MT, what do you know about him?

    Parent

    Harward, not Harwood. (none / 0) (#51)
    by caseyOR on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 06:02:27 PM EST


    Parent
    We know someone who worked (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 06:13:29 PM EST
    For him when he was a Colonel. He seems very solid and stable. An awful lot of Marines though, the zealots of the service branches.

    Parent
    As long as the former Marine ... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 09:09:18 PM EST
    ... is not Oliver North, I'm okay with it. Semper Fi!

    Parent
    Too many Marines pinging off of each other Donald (none / 0) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 09:40:55 PM EST
    Dunford, Harward, Mattis, Kelly. Marines aren't Marines Donald because they want to be grounded and in touch with/in search of serenity. But that's just me....and everyone military affiliated I know.

    Kelly fell on so many swords bull$hitting about his Muslim ban failures, that he learned of as it was going down in real time, we had to wake blacksmiths up. We completely ran out of swords. A good Marine, dysfunctional as hell to the appropriate civilian functioning of the republic.

    Parent

    My father was one of the founding officers ... (none / 0) (#110)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 12:58:17 AM EST
    ... of Force Recon. I grew up with Marine Corps lore, and I've known a lot of senior USMC officers over my lifetime. You don't need to tell me about Marines.

    My experience has been that with a few notable exceptions like former Commandant Paul Xavier "PX" Kelly, who was in my parents' wedding party and whose internal clock strings were clearly wound too tightly, most of the USMC senior brass are in fact pretty well grounded in reality.

    As in any government-related profession, there are going to be the occasional zealots. I think we ought to guard against our tendency toward sweeping generalizations.

    Aloha.


    Parent

    I know who your father is Donald (none / 0) (#120)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 08:41:27 AM EST
    I've heard many times. It's not disrespecting your father to point out that individuals who work joint operations  with Marines can tell you there is a downside to organizing when you have too many Marines and the Marine mindest. It is a different mindset. Kelly made certain Trump didn't have to be responsible for anything. It became ridiculous. Civilian government isn't the Marine corp, nor should it ever start to overtly or covertly resemble it. Kelly was pretty overt.

    Parent
    That's one individual, MT. (none / 0) (#146)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 12:27:34 PM EST
    Not all senior USMC officers are like that. "Marine Corps mindset" aside, you can't define them lump sum as mere variations of Gen. Kelly and Col. North, any more than you can do the same for Army brass with regards to crackpots like Gen. Flynn or zealots like the late Gens. Patton, LeMay and Westmoreland, or for their Navy counterparts by pointing to nutballs like Adm. Poindexter or the late Adm. Yates Sterling. Jr.

    (Adm. Sterling was a racist bigot whose penchant for repeatedly threatening public officials in Honolulu with the imposition of martial law ultimately resulted in his removal from command of the U.S. Pacific Fleet in late 1932.)

    In consideration of current or former senior military officers for positions of public leadership, you have to assess the general quality and personal temperament of the individual in question. Gen. Mattis passes muster. Gen. Kelly probably does not. As for Gen. Flynn, WTF were they thinking?

    Personal quality and temperament were the primary reasons why President Franklin Roosevelt -- at the recommendation of Gen. George C. Marshall -- elevated a then-obscure general staff officer, Col. Dwight D. Eisenhower, over the entirety of the U.S. Army's senior command, promoting him to the rank of lieutenant general and then appointing him first as Commanding General, European Theater of Operations (ETOUSA) and then as Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Forces (SHAEF) during the Second World War.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Donald I know many (none / 0) (#151)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 01:23:23 PM EST
    Individuals who work joint operations. Go ahead and argue. I don't care. Marines don't play well with others. They are heavily indoctrinated and it was an Air Force General recently who I heard with my own ears being concerned about so many zealots running our government. He's working a joint operation. The person living nextdoor to him is a Marine General.

    What is even sadder though is that we haven't found it uncomfortable or even peculiar yet that we have all these retired heavily military minded running everything.

    Parent

    There has always been rivalry and friction ... (none / 0) (#167)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 06:18:59 PM EST
    ... between the various branches of the armed services. Regular Army types will always chafe at being under the command of a non-Army officer. Marines have always resented the fact that they are still under the Department of the Navy. That just goes with the territory. A good commander would keep that down to a minimum, and not let it interfere or distract from the immediate task at hand.

    The primary reason for the friction between USMC and Army officers / commanders is basically simple, if you look first to the respective mission of both branches. By Congressional mandate, the U.S. Marine Corps has a general mission which is entirely different from that of the much larger, land-based U.S. Army. Using the mobility of the U.S. Navy, the Marines are the branch of service solely designated for the immediate projection of U.S. military power abroad, which is reflective of their historical origins as naval shock troops.

    (Somehow, that latter part gets lost on some of those Marines who complain about being under the administrative auspices of the U.S. Navy.)

    Essentially, Marines are trained to be a highly specialized mobile strike force, and that accounts for their combative and even elitist mentality. (I call it the "Jarhead Syndrome.") The Marine Corps is also the smallest branch of the armed services at 182,000 active duty personnel and 35,000 reservists.

    The U.S. Army's official mission is "to fight and win our Nation's wars, by providing prompt, sustained land dominance, across the full range of military operations and the spectrum of conflict, in support of combatant commanders." As our country's major ground-based offensive and defensive force, Army personnel are generally oriented for sustainability over the long haul.

    If Marines sometimes "don't play well with others," as you've noted, it's likely because Marines are best deployed in a hit-and-run offensive capacity, rapidly securing a beachhead or bridgehead perimeter from which the Army can then effectively deploy, expand and occupy en masse.

    From my study and observation, the U.S. Marine Corps is ill-suited to supplement / complement the Army's mission to carry out sustained ground combat or occupational operations over a lengthy period of time. Deploying Marines in that capacity likely constitutes both a misuse of their capabilities and a significant deviation from the Corps' official mission.

    Were I in charge of the Defense Dept., I'd consider it far better instead to expand the Army's own capacity to the extent necessary to carry out that particular task on its own, so that Army commanders don't have to depend upon Marines to "fill out the ranks," so to speak.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Good luck attempting to absorb any branch (none / 0) (#171)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 07:50:24 PM EST


    Parent
    Duffle blog, satire written by unnamed soldiers (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 06:24:18 PM EST
    Writes in on all these Marines in the White House.

    Flynn Resigns after Mattis and Kelly Repeatedly Steal His Lunch Money

    Parent

    Flynn had better (none / 0) (#78)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 08:34:12 PM EST
    not mislead the DOJ. They don't like that.....

    Parent
    Is this why the Yemen raid failed? (none / 0) (#55)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 06:20:43 PM EST
    I would not be surprised if one of the reasons the Yemen Raid failed, or was hurriedly and premature authorized, was because of the turmoil with Flynn.

    I don't think so (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 08:52:06 PM EST
    I think the Yemen raid was a failure because Flynn was part of the planning. And this was supposed to be a big intel raid, like how Bin Laden turned out to be. Except the intel was not expected in the Bin Laden operation. Most CIA believed Bin Laden was almost completely removed from his Al Qaeda peeps. They expected intel, they were prepared, but nothing like what they got. They followed specific protocols, they did what they could to control civilian death, they walked away with an unbelievable cache.

    The first reports on this raid attempted to paint it in the same light. It was almost as if someone was jealous of the Bin Laden operation intel. But there was no way they could have gotten that kind of intel because the target knew they were coming. When Al Qaeda knows you're coming everything goes into a kerosene fire.

    And under Obama administration protocols, if a target knew you were enroute route the op was cancelled. This one wasn't. Why?

    On the eve of President Trump's inaguration it was reported that certain elements at the Pentagon were told they wouldn't have to ask to wipe their asses anymore. Why? And is it Bannon who could have communicated such a concept to the Pentagon or made that phone call? I don't think so, none of it is in his vernacular. It was Flynn.

    I think Flynn resented the Obama administration with the heat of a hundred suns and he resented Obama oversight of military operations with the heat of a thousand suns. Obama oversight though consisted of taking the measure of numerous experts.

    Yemen was all Flynn IMO with Trump throwing Eric Prince UAE commandos in for fun, and broken soul fractured personality Flynn said the more the merrier. And the children were killed and no significant intel was gathered while Trump slept his geriatric after supper sleep and the situation room was populated with the failures. Wasn't Mattis there too?

    Parent

    So, Yemen is on Flynn (none / 0) (#92)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 09:10:33 PM EST
    Not surprised.

    Parent
    Mattis was there too according to reports (none / 0) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 09:21:06 PM EST
    And also Dunford. This is the problem with having so many Marines up front like this. They don't tell people over them NO. That's left to the Army Shinseki of the world. Marines just try to figure out how to make what they are ordered to do happen. And the Marines "suck up" deaths. Not in a healthy way anyone can live long term by.

    Parent
    Neither Mattis or Dunford committed their (none / 0) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 10:06:22 PM EST
    Life service to Special Operations and these sorts of raids either, Flynn did. The Marine Generals left to their own devices would have gone to experts. Flynn was THE expert, just ask him.

    Parent
    Who knows? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 06:31:19 PM EST
    I can imagine Trump botching that mission with or without Flynn.

    Parent
    I still have hope (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 08:35:15 PM EST
    that Mattis would be more prepared and cautious if allowed to call the shots.

    Parent
    Me too (none / 0) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 09:28:33 PM EST
    So far he had been a little lackluster for lefties. It is his way though. He is risk averse as all hell. Throwing down on a new President isn't prudent.

    Parent
    CNN has retired Gens Hurtling, Spider Marks (none / 0) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 14, 2017 at 10:14:18 PM EST
    And Wes Clark all up together when good folks are half in bed. What the hell? You couldn't get these guys together earlier? Probably not, but we are trying to go to sleep around here before midnight :)

    How bout all 3 of you get up at 6:00 am tomorrow instead?

    What's wrong with (none / 0) (#152)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 02:18:51 PM EST
    O' Dark Thirty?

    Parent
    I am afraid of the news today (none / 0) (#154)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 03:00:35 PM EST
    I'm reading sparingly because things are just a terrible mess. Labor sec withdraws, an old member of the Intel community tweets Flynn? will now spend the rest of his life in jail.

    Good times good times in the USA

    Parent

    Tracy (none / 0) (#155)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 03:09:22 PM EST
    the sad thing is it's bad news for the country almost everyday these days.

    David Frum's advise to Republicans: Do you really want to run a campaign where you have to defend Putin and Russia?

    Parent

    I would have never foreseen Democrats with no (none / 0) (#157)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 03:37:01 PM EST
    Power and Trump's choice for Labor is out.

    That has to be unpresidented

    Parent

    I have no idea. (none / 0) (#158)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 03:53:15 PM EST
    My senator Isakson was one of the ones that pulled the bullet on labor sec. Good for him. I have to wonder though if he took one for the team as maybe Republicans did not want to go on record as having voted for this guy. I guess unqualified as in DeVos is fine but Republicans draw the line at wife beating. I guess this is what it has come to. Sad!

    Parent
    I think DeVos was a wake up call (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 04:46:31 PM EST
    For Republican Senators. I'm not sure they could quite believe the constituency rage over DeVos.  But it hasn't gone away. Everyone is waiting for her first outrage and preparing to go to court.

    Parent
    Who is tweeting (none / 0) (#159)
    by smott on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 04:10:45 PM EST
    FLynn is going to jail?
    I'd expect him to throw everyone under the bus to save his skin, including Trump.

    Where did you see that MT?

    Parent

    Here is (none / 0) (#160)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 04:21:31 PM EST
    one story
    On Wednesday, former NSA intelligence analyst John Schindler provided some insight into the reaction of national security officials.

    "Now we go nuclear," he wrote on Twitter. "[Intelligence community] war going to new levels. Just got an [email from] senior [intelligence community] friend, it began: `He will die in jail.'"

    Personally I think he might end up spending the rest of his life in Moscow.

    Parent

    Moscow (none / 0) (#161)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 04:40:30 PM EST
    or as Trump likes to call it, the lemonade springs where the bluebird sings.

    Parent
    Talking heads are saying tonight (none / 0) (#178)
    by Green26 on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 10:12:51 PM EST
    that FBI has indicated that Flynn won't be charged. Saw that Brian Williams said that too.

    Parent
    Notingburger (none / 0) (#179)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Feb 16, 2017 at 05:19:20 AM EST
    But the leaks accomplished what they were intended to do.

    Parent
    So (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 16, 2017 at 05:58:53 AM EST
    will you finally admit that the the whole email thing was a nothing burger?

    Parent
    2 different animals (none / 0) (#181)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Feb 16, 2017 at 06:29:46 AM EST
    Contact with individuals in Russia is NOT illegal

    Those contacts appear to have been accepted as benign to the hacking of the DNC.

    Taking governmental data. offsighting it, against the law, for purposes of obstructing FOIA, should be prosecuted. If a grand jury was impaneled, there would have been a different result. Immunity agreements would not have been issued like Monopoly cards. If a different Justice Department wanted to enforce the law, a totally different result.

    Hmmm, it also appears that Cordray of CFPB also used private communication devices to keep official governmental communications hidden from FOIA law

    Overall, I am not upset , and am actually pleased with Admiral Harward's selection.

    Parent

    You are not an attorney, Trevor. (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 16, 2017 at 06:46:51 AM EST
    TrevorBolder: "Taking governmental data. offsighting it, against the law, for purposes of obstructing FOIA, should be prosecuted. If a grand jury was impaneled, there would have been a different result. Immunity agreements would not have been issued like Monopoly cards. If a different Justice Department wanted to enforce the law, a totally different result."

    You are merely re-reciting shopworn and long-since-discredited right-wing talking points from elsewhere -- or in other words, you're once again talking out of your a$$.

    Parent

    A different DOJ or prosecutor (none / 0) (#185)
    by Green26 on Thu Feb 16, 2017 at 07:04:50 AM EST
    could have done what Trevor said. Not saying they would have. Not saying they should have. While I believe Hillary was wrong to do what she did with the server, made her own mess, and was often untruthful about it, that doesn't mean that a former Sec of State and current presidential candidate should have been pursued as Trevor suggests. Oh, and I am an attorney. I have faced off with the DOJ and Independent Counsels. I have had multiple partners who were former US Attorneys (not assistants). I had dinner with the recent former no. 3 attorney at the DOJ last weekend. Donald, I may not be right on this, but don't think you can say I don't have experience as an attorney.

    Parent
    Oh, for Heaven's sake, give up the ghost already! (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 16, 2017 at 07:20:32 AM EST
    Honestly, Green, you're as bad as Trevor, and this is exactly why I and others here don't believe your claims that you voted for Hillary Clinton last November. If she had been untruthful, she would've been duly charged to that effect. She wasn't. That overblown case is closed.

    Good night.

    Parent

    Donald, you previously said you went to bad (none / 0) (#193)
    by Green26 on Thu Feb 16, 2017 at 08:01:43 AM EST
    How many times are you going to bed tonight? I don't care what you think about anything, let alone who I voted for.  I certainly don't care what you say about legal things.

    Parent
    Well, lookie at your (5.00 / 3) (#196)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 16, 2017 at 09:55:21 AM EST
    former partners.  Well, I can say my former partners include Governors and big city Mayors, and former Presidential candidates, people who were internationally famous.....Do I get points for that?

    Parent
    Yes, you get points (1.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Green26 on Thu Feb 16, 2017 at 12:08:43 PM EST
    And, to supplement, my partners and former partners include former ambassadors, cabinet members, US senators, state attorney generals, and presidential and vice presidential candidates. Even a former Sup Ct member. So there. Ha.

    Parent
    Totally (5.00 / 3) (#195)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 16, 2017 at 08:12:40 AM EST
    disingenuous there, Trevor. You assert that the lack of charges against Flynn = nothingburger, while lack of charges against Hillary = she got away with a crime.

    It's amazing how you can use the same yardstick giving the same measurement and come up with such wildly different outcomes.

    Parent

    Admiral Harward is a former Navy Seal (none / 0) (#187)
    by Green26 on Thu Feb 16, 2017 at 07:10:55 AM EST
    Looks like he has considerable experience. Saw that he would likely bring his whole team to the position and replace a less experienced team.

    Parent
    So (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 16, 2017 at 07:59:01 AM EST
    You can't speak to and treat civilian America and the world the way Kelly did right out of the gate. And I just love how Mattis went and told our allies who most during the Bush Administration could barely dare touch us because we were so toxic, but came back to us and went to Afghanistan as well as many many other joint anti-terrorism missions all over the world to now MOW MY LAWN.

    Eight years ago Bush brought the whole world to its financial knees and damn near ruin. Just like a Marine unschooled and uncaring about who or what came before him, Mattis got up there, acted like he was going to hawk a loogie and send it sailing right after publicly telling our NATO allies they were all hobos he found on his train.

    I know that no one has paid the attention to their speeches and testimony like I have because Jesus, Trump sets something new on fire everyday. But I've paid attention and the Marine personality of both Kelly and Mattis will eventually only serve to further destroy this administration's credibility. Another such personality is an enormous mistake. Not that this administration cares. I thought these guys were grown up enough to distinguish between troops and civilians but they aren't. It will only lead to a bigger sweep in 2018, so soldier on Green. I do not give AF. Just having a conversation.

    Parent

    The FBI doesn't get to make that call. (none / 0) (#182)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 16, 2017 at 06:37:38 AM EST
    That's the purview of DOJ attorneys. The FBI can only recommend a course of action.

    Parent
    Are you thinking a Sessions led (none / 0) (#183)
    by Green26 on Thu Feb 16, 2017 at 06:43:59 AM EST
    DOJ would overrule the FBI and decide to pursue Flynn?

    Parent
    It's way too early to render that sot of judgment. (none / 0) (#186)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 16, 2017 at 07:06:15 AM EST
    Gen. Flynn only resigned -- under pressure or otherwise -- on Monday night. It's been less than three days. And since that the FBI itself hasn't issued any public statements to that effect, it's pretty obvious that the source of the pronouncement is both unattributed and unauthorized.

    For all we know, this may be nothing more than a red herring tossed out there by Trump's people to influence public opinion. Every other effort that's thus far sought to cast Flynn's activities in a benign or favorable light has either been misleading or false. Therefore, I prefer to wait and see where this is going.

    It's 3:00 a.m. out here, and I'm going back to bed. Aloha.

    Parent

    Sessions (none / 0) (#188)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 16, 2017 at 07:14:23 AM EST
    is not in complete control. There are many career prosecutors there who could go to the press if Sessions tamped down evidence.

    Parent
    Sorry someone else had to answer for me smott (none / 0) (#163)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 04:50:38 PM EST
    Our whole household feels overload. It's emotionally exhausting after awhile. Even my son said after school he has had enough. Everything feels wrong, it doesn't feel like we are going to be okay, and it goes on and on.

    Parent
    Flynn's security clearance has been suspended (none / 0) (#176)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 15, 2017 at 08:40:52 PM EST
    So technically he shouldn't be able to be much of a consultant until he is cleared of wrong doing. Not that our current President gives a fig about following procedure and protocol.

    His getting clearance at all (none / 0) (#191)
    by smott on Thu Feb 16, 2017 at 07:46:35 AM EST
    Is an insult to rank and file workers who submit to clearance procedures.

    Parent
    He got away with so much crap (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 16, 2017 at 08:08:11 AM EST
    And was still promoted. Today, our President is going after corrupt leaky spies :) Pretty comical.

    Parent
    Good article on Logan Act and its history (none / 0) (#202)
    by Green26 on Thu Feb 16, 2017 at 12:52:22 PM EST
    WaPost.

    Contains multiple examples of possible or alleged violations. Jane Fonda, North Viet Nam. Only 1 person ever charged; no conviction.

    Another One Bites the Dust: Flynn's Resignation Letter | 202 comments (202 topical)