Gen. Flynn lied concerning his pre-innauguration communications with Russia.

[One Bad Pig]

No way. 24 days to first scandal must be some sort of record.

Never has the press been so eager to dig for dirt (real or imagined) from the get-go. Of course, never has a president been so happy to give the press material to hyperventilate about either. I am amused by the press's being so determined to make mountains out of molehills when a Republican is in office, yet no less eager to make mountains look like molehills (if their presence is acknowledged at all) when a Democrat's keeping the chair warm.

[seer]

It is getting more interesting...

Former Obama Officials, Loyalists Waged Secret Campaign to Oust Flynn
Sources: Former Obama officials, loyalists planted series of stories to discredit Flynn, bolster Iran deal


http://freebeacon.com/national-secur...gn-oust-flynn/

[Raphael]

Exactly. You have to take into account what the sanctions Flynn was talking to the russians about were for, they were in retaliation for the Russians interfering in the U.S. elections. So what could he have been saying to the Russians about them? ' Don't worry, you did a great job helping us win the election, and we will remove those sanctions as soon as we take control! What else? It also raises the question of whether or not there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians during the campaign itself. P. Manafort was fired because of his close ties to Putin, Trump defends Putin at every turn, even comparing the U.S. to Putin, the murderous assassin of dissidents and journalists in his own country, and now you have Flynn, as a private citizen in secret talks with Russia, undermining national security and current U.S. policy. And lets not forget S. Bannon the admitted Lenninest.

Oh lookie MORE ASSERTIONS WITHOUT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE!!!

Are you allergic to providing evidence to support what you're saying?

[Mountain Man]

It is getting more interesting...

Former Obama Officials, Loyalists Waged Secret Campaign to Oust Flynn
Sources: Former Obama officials, loyalists planted series of stories to discredit Flynn, bolster Iran deal




http://freebeacon.com/national-secur...gn-oust-flynn/

Well, that explains the source of the leak. Is this unprecedented in the US, where an outgoing president actively sabotages the incoming administration? Maybe if Obama's legacy was worth a hill of beans he wouldn't have to resort to such dirty tricks to protect it.

[firstfloor]

Always nice to see you, FF. While you're generally WAY wrong, you do so in such a literate manner!

[Mountain Man]

For all you liberals cheering about this, here's something to think about...

Source: Bloomberg

Normally intercepts of U.S. officials and citizens are some of the most tightly held government secrets. This is for good reason. Selectively disclosing details of private conversations monitored by the FBI or NSA gives the permanent state the power to destroy reputations from the cloak of anonymity. This is what police states do.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...-michael-flynn

© Copyright Original Source

Is this really what you guys want?

[JimL]

For all you liberals cheering about this, here's something to think about...

Source: Bloomberg

Normally intercepts of U.S. officials and citizens are some of the most tightly held government secrets. This is for good reason. Selectively disclosing details of private conversations monitored by the FBI or NSA gives the permanent state the power to destroy reputations from the cloak of anonymity. This is what police states do.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...-michael-flynn

© Copyright Original Source

Is this really what you guys want?

Gee, what a turn of events eh. Not to long ago you and the Trump team used to love leaks.

[Mountain Man]

Gee, what a turn of events eh. Not to long ago you and the Trump team used to love leaks.

So you're saying, yes, you do want the US to be ruled by a police state?

[Tassman]

Meanwhile, CNN is waving their pom-poms and crowing about how this is a win for "investigative journalism".

"This has been a story led by the Washington Post, the New York Times"



This wasn't investigative journalism, this was rumor-mongering based on classified information that was leaked by a mole.

And they continue to ignore the fact that Flynn didn't actually do anything wrong. The only reason he was asked to resign is because Trump no longer felt he could be trusted, and, yeah, if you lie to the President, it's pretty much the end of your career. That's really not something you're going to bounce back from.

But other than that, there's no story here. It's over.

Yes it's a "win for "investigative journalism", as opposed to your usual Alt-Right propaganda from Breitbart. And the story is nowhere near over, it's just beginning. There are many questions yet to be answered.

[Tassman]

hilarious, even when Flynn resigns after admitting he lied, Tassman and JimL still want to find a way to make it Trump's fault and accuse HIM of doing something wrong.

We'll see.

Well we know one thing, Trump was told by the Justice dept. about Flynn and his communications with the Russians shortly after they took place, particularly his calls with russian ambassador Kislyak, and Trump did nothing about it. Apparently the Obama Administration was bracing itself for the Russians retaliation for the sanctions that were put on them in December, but to their astonishment they never came. Instead of retaliations, Putin invited U.S. ambassodors and their familes to a Christmas party at the Kremlim, for which Trump praised Putin. Thats what sparked the investigation into the communications between U.S. and Russian officials. So their is no doubt that Trump knew of Flynns communications, whether he ordered them or not is not evident, but the fact that he protected Flynn until the accussations were made public is telling. Apparently, though I haven't seen the details, Flynn had been communicating with the Russians throughout the Presidential campaign, and if that is true then it is likely that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia in its hacking operations.

My sentiments exactly. It's the most reasonable explanation. Not that we expect the local Trumpophiles to accept this.

[Mountain Man]

And the story is nowhere near over, it's just beginning. There are many questions yet to be answered.

Oh, I'm sure the media will continue to beat the dead horse thinking they've really got a scandal here (they don't), but like every other "gotcha" story they've tried to nail Trump with, this one will quickly burn out from lack of substance, then the "journalists" will be distracted by the next shiny thing they see, and the cycle will repeat.

Of course the media is ignoring the real story here: Who is leaking these classified government secrets to the press?

[Mountain Man]

Gee, what a turn of events eh. Not to long ago you and the Trump team used to love leaks.

Anyway, completely different kinds of leaks: one was communication within a private organization -- the Democrat party and Hillary's campaign; these are classified government secrets. This is a much bigger deal than a Hillary staffer falling for a "phishing" scam.

[JimL]

Jim, why do you leap to these unfounded accusations? It is not necessary or right.

Just putting 2 and 2 together seer. Obama put sanctions on Russia Dec. 28th, Putin threatens retaliation, and then Flynn calls Russian Ambassador Kislyak to talk sanctions the very next day on Dec. 29th. Putin then changes his mind, decides not to retaliate by ousting U.S. ambassadors from Russia, and instead he invites them and their families to a christmas party at the Kremlin. Then Flynn lies about it, says he never talked sanctions. Trump is told by the Justice Dept. that Flynn is lying about his communique, yet he does absolutely nothing about it until it becomes public 3 weeks later, his reason then for firing him being a loss of trust. But he knew 3 weeks ago that Flynn lied to him and apparently had complete trust in him still. Trump is asked by the media about being informed by the Justice Dept back in January and claims he hasn't heard anything about it. Why was Pence left out of the loop, why was Preibus left out of the loop, Trump, despite his denial, knew that Flynn had lied, yet Pence and Preibus weren't informed and were allowed to go out and repeat Flynns lie to the press. These aren't unfounded accusations seer, these are all documented facts. Is it possible that Flynn just went rogue, sure its possible, but it doesn't look that way, it looks as though that at least Trump, if not Pence and Preibus, was either in on it, , i.e. sanctioned it, or he was in on the cover-up.

[Raphael]

Just putting 2 and 2 together seer. Obama put sanctions on Russia Dec. 28th, Putin threatens retaliation, and then Flynn calls Russian Ambassador Kislyak to talk sanctions the very next day on Dec. 29th. Putin then changes his mind, decides not to retaliate by ousting U.S. ambassadors from Russia, and instead he invites them and their families to a christmas party at the Kremlin. Then Flynn lies about it, says he never talked sanctions. Trump is told by the Justice Dept. that Flynn is lying about his communique, yet he does absolutely nothing about it until it becomes public 3 weeks later, his reason then for firing him being a loss of trust. But he knew 3 weeks ago that Flynn lied to him and apparently had complete trust in him still. Trump is asked by the media about being informed by the Justice Dept back in January and claims he hasn't heard anything about it. Why was Pence left out of the loop, why was Preibus left out of the loop, Trump, despite his denial, knew that Flynn had lied, yet Pence and Preibus weren't informed and were allowed to go out and repeat Flynns lie to the press. These aren't unfounded accusations seer, these are all documented facts. Is it possible that Flynn just went rogue, sure its possible, but it doesn't look that way, it looks as though that at least Trump, if not Pence and Preibus, was either in on it, , i.e. sanctioned it, or he was in on the cover-up.

More assertions without any links to evidence to back them up.

Again, not commenting on whether or not the assertions are correct or not, not a single post of yours in this thread has been backup up with evidence provided by you.

[One Bad Pig]

So you're saying, yes, you do want the US to be ruled by a police state?

As long as it's a liberal police state, yes, JimL would be perfectly fine with that. Haven't you been paying attention?