Flynn Resigns Amid Russia Controversy

#176
#176
volinbham said:
Sworn testimony shows that Republican funding cuts were not an issue with more help for Benghazi. Try again.

On #3 the point is that long after she knew the video story was bogus, HC was still using it as the explanation for Benghazi.
Click to expand...

So funding gets cut for security of our embassies by a republican controlled house and one gets attacked so the republicans try to blame HC for not providing the compound with more security and spend a lot of resources investigating her only to find that Benghazi was not a safe place to be on the anniversary of 9-11 and even the Brits knew that and pulled out. What would have been the best course of action for HC to take given the limited intelligence coming from the ground during the attack? She could have sent in more troops but didn't is the extent of any perceived coverup.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#177
#177
volinbham said:
Sworn testimony shows that Republican funding cuts were not an issue with more help for Benghazi. Try again.

On #3 the point is that long after she knew the video story was bogus, HC was still using it as the explanation for Benghazi.
Click to expand...

Mick said:
So funding gets cut for security of our embassies by a republican controlled house and one gets attacked so the republicans try to blame HC for not providing the compound with more security and spend a lot of resources investigating her only to find that Benghazi was not a safe place to be on the anniversary of 9-11 and even the Brits knew that and pulled out. What would have been the best course of action for HC to take given the limited intelligence coming from the ground during the attack? She could have sent in more troops but didn't is the extent of any perceived coverup.
Click to expand...

I don't think he literally meant to try the exact same thing again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#179
#179
I'm having trouble understanding the parallel to Benghazi.

On the face of the situations, they are entirely different.

If its an effort to invoke Dem complaining about the number of investigations into Benghazi as some sort of reason not to investigate Flynn-Trump-Russia, that seems weak to me since the point of the criticism of all the Benghazi investigations were that there were seven of them -- seven -- over a period of years.

Certainly, if the GOP leadership in the Senate has reason to be concerned that Flynn contacted Russia at Trump's behest to let them know that no sanctions would be imposed, and that this was done as a favor for the Russians by Trump; or that Trump knew of it but took no action until absolutely forced to, and in fact lied on AF1 when he said he knew nothing about it, I would think that folks would get out of the way and let the chips fall where they may.

You know, one point made about this at the time often gets overlooked. For decades, the diplomatic dance has always been in such circumstances we kick out one diplomat and they kick out one diplomat as tit for tat.

Obama kicked out 35 Russian diplomats as a sanction.

Flynn called them FIVE TIMES. Russia then kicked out NO ONE. No retaliation to the Obama sanctions whatsoever.

Coincidence?

giphy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#180
#180
Mick said:
So funding gets cut for security of our embassies by a republican controlled house and one gets attacked so the republicans try to blame HC for not providing the compound with more security and spend a lot of resources investigating her only to find that Benghazi was not a safe place to be on the anniversary of 9-11 and even the Brits knew that and pulled out. What would have been the best course of action for HC to take given the limited intelligence coming from the ground during the attack? She could have sent in more troops but didn't is the extent of any perceived coverup.
Click to expand...

1. The funding cuts you speak of had nothing to do with denying requests providing additional security at the embassy or annex. State Dept officials specifically testified under oath to that. It's a red herring - it didn't happen.

2. My point on more resources is that all that should have been done prior to 9/11/12. Stevens repeatedly sought more resources. State refused and Clinton claims she never knew he even asked. (hard to believe IMHO). The signs all pointed to problems about to occur and State under Clinton did nothing. At the time of the attack I'm not sure what would have been possible but it would be nice if HC would give an accounting of what she did during those 8 hours. She bragged about getting the 3am phone call - well, she got one and we have no idea what she did as a result.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#181
#181
lawgator1 said:
I'm having trouble understanding the parallel to Benghazi.

On the face of the situations, they are entirely different.

If its an effort to invoke Dem complaining about the number of investigations into Benghazi as some sort of reason not to investigate Flynn-Trump-Russia, that seems weak to me since the point of the criticism of all the Benghazi investigations were that there were seven of them -- seven -- over a period of years.

Certainly, if the GOP leadership in the Senate has reason to be concerned that Flynn contacted Russia at Trump's behest to let them know that no sanctions would be imposed, and that this was done as a favor for the Russians by Trump; or that Trump knew of it but took no action until absolutely forced to, and in fact lied on AF1 when he said he knew nothing about it, I would think that folks would get out of the way and let the chips fall where they may.

You know, one point made about this at the time often gets overlooked. For decades, the diplomatic dance has always been in such circumstances we kick out one diplomat and they kick out one diplomat as tit for tat.

Obama kicked out 35 Russian diplomats as a sanction.

Flynn called them FIVE TIMES. Russia then kicked out NO ONE. No retaliation to the Obama sanctions whatsoever.

Coincidence?

giphy.gif
Click to expand...

the parallel is that you complained bitterly about any attempts by Rs to suggest Benghazi had political motivations but don't say a peep when Dems immediately scream this is impeachment worthy stuff meriting immediate and thorough investigations.

I think we need to know more obviously but if you are anti-grandstanding from one party you should be for the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#182
#182
Mick said:
Still just trying to see what others think was covered up. Was she trying to cover up that she is a heartless B***h?
Click to expand...

reckless with American lives.

Also there was the "alleged" selling of arms to terrorists reportedly going on thru this embassy with the point man being the one civilian left behind.
 
#183
#183
lawgator1 said:
I'm having trouble understanding the parallel to Benghazi.

On the face of the situations, they are entirely different.

If its an effort to invoke Dem complaining about the number of investigations into Benghazi as some sort of reason not to investigate Flynn-Trump-Russia, that seems weak to me since the point of the criticism of all the Benghazi investigations were that there were seven of them -- seven -- over a period of years.

Certainly, if the GOP leadership in the Senate has reason to be concerned that Flynn contacted Russia at Trump's behest to let them know that no sanctions would be imposed, and that this was done as a favor for the Russians by Trump; or that Trump knew of it but took no action until absolutely forced to, and in fact lied on AF1 when he said he knew nothing about it, I would think that folks would get out of the way and let the chips fall where they may.

You know, one point made about this at the time often gets overlooked. For decades, the diplomatic dance has always been in such circumstances we kick out one diplomat and they kick out one diplomat as tit for tat.

Obama kicked out 35 Russian diplomats as a sanction.

Flynn called them FIVE TIMES. Russia then kicked out NO ONE. No retaliation to the Obama sanctions whatsoever.

Coincidence?
Click to expand...

There's not really a parallel.

With Benghazi Americans including an ambassador died and the administration lied to cover up supplying arms to Syrian rebels illegally. Nobody got punished and and only a couple senior military officers lost their jobs when they disagreed with the administration.

With the Flynn situation, most likely the Trump administration had Flynn make the calls to try and dissuade the Russians from escalating the situation over Obama's sanctions. Can't really blame them for not wanting increased tensions or a diplomatic crisis on day one. However there was lies told and a man was forced to resign.

Biggest differences I guess is the Flynn didn't commit a crime. There wasn't anything illegal that went on unless you consider the NSA releasing recorded phone records of a US citizen to the DOJ without a warrant a crime.
 
#184
#184
volinbham said:
the parallel is that you complained bitterly about any attempts by Rs to suggest Benghazi had political motivations but don't say a peep when Dems immediately scream this is impeachment worthy stuff meriting immediate and thorough investigations.

I think we need to know more obviously but if you are anti-grandstanding from one party you should be for the other.
Click to expand...


I'm not seeing what you are seeing.

Flynn may have done this on his own. Ok.

But then it gets relayed to the WH general counsel that it happened.

So even if Trump did not promote it happening, and even if Flynn did not personally tell Trump he'd done it, the issue is did Trump find out and not do anything about it?

That doesn't seem like speculation. Spicer today said they were looking into this for the past few weeks. Which is difficult to jibe with Trump saying just a few days ago that he knew nothing about it.

Let's start with Flynn, find out what the conversations were, and go from there.

If we need to then bring in WH counsel that told Trump about it, and Trump is caught in a blatant lie, so be it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#190
#190
lawgator1 said:
I'm not seeing what you are seeing.

Flynn may have done this on his own. Ok.

But then it gets relayed to the WH general counsel that it happened.

So even if Trump did not promote it happening, and even if Flynn did not personally tell Trump he'd done it, the issue is did Trump find out and not do anything about it?

That doesn't seem like speculation. Spicer today said they were looking into this for the past few weeks. Which is difficult to jibe with Trump saying just a few days ago that he knew nothing about it.

Let's start with Flynn, find out what the conversations were, and go from there.

If we need to then bring in WH counsel that told Trump about it, and Trump is caught in a blatant lie, so be it.
Click to expand...

A couple pages back you were talking impeachment and that intel agencies are leaking because Trump is so dangerous they have no choice.

Get a grip man. Appears no laws were broken.
 
#192
#192
volinbham said:
Classless but not unexpected.
Click to expand...

Given trumps propensity to sniff putin's jock at every turn, I'd say it's a question worth asking.

He did after all downplay russia's thuggery while implicating the US as "not so nice, either".

What kind of President backhands his own country?

trumps not a patriot, he's a fraud.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#194
#194
Septic said:
Given Obama's propensity to sniff Muslims of Brotherhood's jocks at every turn, I'd say it's a question worth asking.

He did after all downplay Muslims beheading/thuggery while implicating the US as "not so nice, either".

What kind of President backhands his own country?

Obama was not a patriot, he was/is a fraud.
Click to expand...

Fyp
 
#196
#196
LouderVol said:
reckless with American lives.

Also there was the "alleged" selling of arms to terrorists reportedly going on thru this embassy with the point man being the one civilian left behind.
Click to expand...

See I'm more willing to believe that but if that was the case the perceived coverup was to protect the government and not herself and you can be sure the House and Senate through their investigations would reveal that but didn't. So just who is covering up Benghazi? I am also more inclined to believe that Benghazi was a "black site" which has to be covered up than HC has some sinister motives for not giving them more security.
 
#197
#197
Septic said:
Given trumps propensity to sniff putin's jock at every turn, I'd say it's a question worth asking.

He did after all downplay russia's thuggery while implicating the US as "not so nice, either".

What kind of President backhands his own country?

trumps not a patriot, he's a fraud.
Click to expand...

What actions exactly has Trump taken in favor of Russia that qualifies and "sniffing Putin's jock"?
 
#199
#199
lawgator1 said:
I'm not seeing what you are seeing.

Flynn may have done this on his own. Ok.

But then it gets relayed to the WH general counsel that it happened.

So even if Trump did not promote it happening, and even if Flynn did not personally tell Trump he'd done it, the issue is did Trump find out and not do anything about it?

That doesn't seem like speculation. Spicer today said they were looking into this for the past few weeks. Which is difficult to jibe with Trump saying just a few days ago that he knew nothing about it.

Let's start with Flynn, find out what the conversations were, and go from there.

If we need to then bring in WH counsel that told Trump about it, and Trump is caught in a blatant lie, so be it.
Click to expand...

What should he have done? Flynn, of all people, knows more about the foreign policy game than anyone up there...

You can't dictate to other powers....there has to be concessions, as well, to make FP work...
 
#200
#200
volinbham said:
A couple pages back you were talking impeachment and that intel agencies are leaking because Trump is so dangerous they have no choice.

Get a grip man. Appears no laws were broken.
Click to expand...


I said "if" x y z then impeach. Not just frothing at the mouth, screech it at everything like the GOP did with Obama
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top