Flynn Resigns Amid Russia Controversy

[PKT_VOL]

Are our intelligence communities spying on the President's phone calls and releasing the contents to the press to embarrass him?

Something very bad is going on.

That was the WH not the IC.

 

[LouderVol]

Crimea historically was theirs, and they were afraid they were going to lose it due to a NATO-backed coup. It was part of Ukraine officially but the Russians have their Black Sea Fleet there and other military installations. The United States would have done the exact same thing in that situation.

The United States can't really lecture Putin and Russia about much of anything, particularly after what we did in Iraq. That was a military adventure that the United States would have absolutely had a conniption fit about if Russia, China, or another adversary did something similar.

No, historically Crimea was its own entity. then it belonged to Ukraine, then it belonged to the Russians around WWI, which they held until the wall fell. 80 years, give or take. hardly historically theirs. Russia had also signed treaties saying they would support the independence and borders of Ukraine when they agreed to no nukes in Ukraine. they even have/had their own ethnic group, the Tartars.

 

[volinbham]

The President of the United States called the IC un-American and equated them to Nazis all because he refused to believe that Russia hacked the DNC.


So I guess this is your thought process.

IC leaking Trump's clandestine Russia contacts = Very Bad

GRU stealing DNC emails and leaking them via Wikileaks = Very Good

The intelligence services aren't the problem. The President of the United States surrounding himself with people who are financially and ideology connected to a foreign government is.

Actually his comments were about leaking - not just their investigation into Russian hacking.

I don't condone his comments but we do know the intel community did leak information about phone intercepts of a US citizen (Flynn) to the press and may well have leaked intel to the press about the Russian hacking investigation (which generated the initial references to Nazi tactics).

These are two separate issues. If Trump has links to Russia that's a problem but it is yet to be established.

We do know that the intel community is in fact leaking info about Trump's team and that is something everyone should be concerned about. The intel services taking down an elected administration via leaks and what appears to be payback is a BFD. Interesting how Chuck Schumer predicted this would happen.

 

[theFallGuy]

General Michael Flynn's Firing Could Be Wake Up Call for Trump | National Review

 

[hohenfelsvol]

The best perspective is the one with the best information. The guy on land don't know the boat has a hole in it.

Or the island is infested with snakes

 

[05_never_again]

No, historically Crimea was its own entity. then it belonged to Ukraine, then it belonged to the Russians around WWI, which they held until the wall fell. 80 years, give or take. hardly historically theirs. Russia had also signed treaties saying they would support the independence and borders of Ukraine when they agreed to no nukes in Ukraine. they even have/had their own ethnic group, the Tartars.

It was a property of the old Russian Empire from 1783 to 1917, then the Soviets had it from 1917 until the Wall fell. After the Wall fell, they still had a big naval fleet stationed at Sevastapol even though officially it was part of Ukraine. Then in 2014 they took it back by force because they were afraid of losing their warm water port via a NATO-backed coup.

I'm not saying what they did was OK. They behaved as any regional/global power would behave in the same situation, including the United States. Our contemporary history is replete with all sorts of questionable interventions. We don't have to approve of what Putin is doing, but to sit here and act like what he's doing is beyond the pale and something the United States would never do is beyond hypocritical.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Trump seems much more concerned about the leaks and the media's response to Flynn's resignation than he is by the fact that his National Security Adviser (supposedly) went rogue and discussed US imposed sanctions with a foreign government and subsequently lied to his Vice President about it. It is enough to lead a reasonable person to believe that Flynn had the full endorsement of Trump when discussing the sanctions with Sergey Kislyak and was well aware that Pence's denials on "Face the Nation" in January were false but did nothing to correct the record.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Trump seems much more concerned about the leaks and the media's response to Flynn's resignation than he is by the fact that his National Security Adviser (supposedly) went rogue and discussed US imposed sanctions with a foreign government and subsequently lied to his Vice President about it. It is enough to lead a reasonable person to believe that Flynn had the full endorsement of Trump when discussing the sanctions with Sergey Kislyak and was well aware that Pence's denials on "Face the Nation" in January were false but did nothing to correct the record.

Was Flynn's call against the law? Was it inappropriate? If so, by what definition and standard?

I'm asking you specifically to tell me exactly what Trump should be concerned with per the call, except for lying about it, which got Flynn fired.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Was Flynn's call against the law? Was it inappropriate? If so, by what definition and standard?

I'm asking you specifically to tell me exactly what Trump should be concerned with per the call, except for lying about it, which got Flynn fired.

It certainly was inappropriate and he knew so or there wouldn't have been lies in the first place, would there? I mean, most people don't lie unless they think they have something to hide.

 

[BowlBrother85]

...and of course there was nothing wrong with the call itself. An incoming National Security Adviser should speak with Ambassadors of foreign governments but to undermine the recently imposed sanctions of the current President? That was inappropriate. We have one President at a time... and hell, he just had to wait 3 weeks.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Was Flynn's call against the law? Was it inappropriate? If so, by what definition and standard?

I'm asking you specifically to tell me exactly what Trump should be concerned with per the call, except for lying about it, which got Flynn fired.

It certainly was inappropriate and he knew so or there wouldn't have been lies in the first place, would there? I mean, most people don't lie unless they think they have something to hide.

Sorry. I don't see where you answered the questions. You seem to have attributed guilt and motives, but you never seemed to have answered my questions.

And in the spirit of answering yours, I can say that Flynn very well may have lied because his calls were completely appropriate, but knew the optics would be bad in light of the media's Trumped-Up Russia paranoia.

And, as inferred, Trump may not be paying much more attention to that side of it because, well... You know... He fired Flynn.

But again... I'll ask you to answer my questions, bolded, font size increased, and colored red for your convenience.

I mean... It's a little cart-before-the-horse for you to be accusing Trump of not taking something serious before actually--you know--establishing how serious it should be taken.

Right?

 

[Orange_Crush]

...and of course there was nothing wrong with the call itself. An incoming National Security Adviser should speak with Ambassadors of foreign governments but to undermine the recently imposed sanctions of the current President? That was inappropriate. We have one President at a time... and hell, he just had to wait 3 weeks.

Inappropriate by what standard? The fact that you don't like it? Is it law? Is there strong precedence against it?

Again... I'm asking what standard you're using? You are saying that Flynn lied because he didn't want to offend your personal sensibilities per proper protocol?

 

[BowlBrother85]

Inappropriate by what standard? The fact that you don't like it? Is it law? Is there strong precedence against it?

Again... I'm asking what standard you're using? You are saying that Flynn lied because he didn't want to offend your personal sensibilities per proper protocol?

Not everything that is inappropriate is necessarily against the law (unless of course you count the 200 year old and as of yet unenforced Logan Act, in which case it was against the law) and yes, there is strong precedent against undermining a current President while in transition - see Nixon discussing Vietnam.

 

[Septic]

Trump seems much more concerned about the leaks and the media's response to Flynn's resignation than he is by the fact that his National Security Adviser (supposedly) went rogue and discussed US imposed sanctions with a foreign government and subsequently lied to his Vice President about it. It is enough to lead a reasonable person to believe that Flynn had the full endorsement of Trump when discussing the sanctions with Sergey Kislyak and was well aware that Pence's denials on "Face the Nation" in January were false but did nothing to correct the record.

LOL, ain't that some $hit? Karma is a bit*h huh?

 

[FLVOL_79]

Trump learned a valuable lesson with Flynn.




Never reach across the isle and bring in a Democrat. Think of taking over the presidency like the Orkin man bug bombing your house. You have to clear out every roach that infests your new home and never allow the old ones to sneak back in.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Not everything that is inappropriate is necessarily against the law (unless of course you count the 200 year old and as of yet unenforced Logan Act, in which case it was against the law) and yes, there is strong precedent against undermining a current President while in transition - see Nixon discussing Vietnam.

I'm asking again... By what exact standard is it inappropriate? You are claiming that Trump seems so much more concerned about the leaks because he's not acting all up in arms about the call, so he must have known about the calls.

Well... You still haven't established what standard guarantees that he should be more concerned about the call than the leaks, right?

He should be more concerned about the call than the leaks because of... your opinion? What is it?

You seem to be having some difficulty making the case you thought you had made. Go ahead and make it. You just have to add the middle part. You know... The actual important part.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Trump learned a valuable lesson with Flynn.




Never reach across the isle and bring in a Democrat. Think of taking over the presidency like the Orkin man bug bombing your house. You have to clear out every roach that infests your new home and never allow the old ones to sneak back in.

I don't think he learned s***. If not for the leaks, Flynn would still have a job... Trump's moral compass is bent to hell.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I don't think he learned s***. If not for the leaks, Flynn would still have a job... Trump's moral compass is bent to hell.

That bolded part... It entails a standard... You need to provide it. What, exactly and explicitly, made the calls inappropriate?

 

[LouderVol]

It was a property of the old Russian Empire from 1783 to 1917, then the Soviets had it from 1917 until the Wall fell. After the Wall fell, they still had a big naval fleet stationed at Sevastapol even though officially it was part of Ukraine. Then in 2014 they took it back by force because they were afraid of losing their warm water port via a NATO-backed coup.

I'm not saying what they did was OK. They behaved as any regional/global power would behave in the same situation, including the United States. Our contemporary history is replete with all sorts of questionable interventions. We don't have to approve of what Putin is doing, but to sit here and act like what he's doing is beyond the pale and something the United States would never do is beyond hypocritical.

a property that had several uprisings and wars against the Russians. again just look at how the Soviets treated the locals. it was always an occupied territory. its like saying Taiwan is part of China, or maybe Tibet.

sure punitive actions we do all the time. occupy and claim territory? if anything we do it and free people. Cuba and the Philippines come to mind. Japan, South Korea, Kuwait. Even Iraq and Afghanistan we aren't the shot callers. Chechnya would be a little more apt of a comparison. Crimea was definitely a step above anything we have done recently or just about ever.

 

[Septic]

That bolded part... It entails a standard... You need to provide it. What, exactly and explicitly, made the calls inappropriate?

Well, if they were 'appropriate' - he wouldn't have had anything to lie about or at least wouldn't have felt the need to.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I'm asking again... By what exact standard is it inappropriate? You are claiming that Trump seems so much more concerned about the leaks because he's not acting all up in arms about the call, so he must have known about the calls.

Well... You still haven't established what standard guarantees that he should be more concerned about the call than the leaks, right?

He should be more concerned about the call than the leaks because of... your opinion? What is it?

You seem to be having some difficulty making the case you thought you had made. Go ahead and make it. You just have to add the middle part. You know... The actual important part.

The standard established by The Logan Act. It has never been enforced largely because it shouldn't be hard to abide by. Again, if Flynn wanted to tell Kislyak to forget about Obama's sanctions - that's fine but it should have waited until Jan. 20th.

That Trump knew about the content of Flynn's call with Kislyak on Dec. 29th is just speculation on my part but we do know from the leaks that Trump had been advised that Flynn and Kislyak discussed sanctions BEFORE Mike Pence went on 'Face the Nation' and denied that the topic had come up. Trump basically let his VP give misinformation and did nothing to correct the record... and so we got leaks.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Well, if they were 'appropriate' - he wouldn't have had anything to lie about or at least wouldn't have felt the need to.

Go back up and read.

 

[05_never_again]

a property that had several uprisings and wars against the Russians. again just look at how the Soviets treated the locals. it was always an occupied territory. its like saying Taiwan is part of China, or maybe Tibet.

sure punitive actions we do all the time. occupy and claim territory? if anything we do it and free people. Cuba and the Philippines come to mind. Japan, South Korea, Kuwait. Even Iraq and Afghanistan we aren't the shot callers. Chechnya would be a little more apt of a comparison. Crimea was definitely a step above anything we have done recently or just about ever.

We have a long history of invading territories and occupying them for a period of time and/or installing governments that are friendly to the United States before leaving, or supporting internal efforts to overthrow governments we don't like. Iran, Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, Iraq...the list goes on and on. Crimea is a step below several of those I just mentioned.

 

[Orange_Crush]

The standard established by The Logan Act. It has never been enforced largely because it shouldn't be hard to abide by. Again, if Flynn wanted to tell Kislyak to forget about Obama's sanctions - that's fine but it should have waited until Jan. 20th.

That Trump knew about the content of Flynn's call with Kislyak on Dec. 29th is just speculation on my part but we do know from the leaks that Trump had been advised that Flynn and Kislyak discussed sanctions BEFORE Mike Pence went on 'Face the Nation' and denied that the topic had come up. Trump basically let his VP give misinformation and did nothing to correct the record... and so we got leaks.

Ha!

A "dead letter" law. Awesome. So, you're saying that Flynn lied in order to escape the razor of a dead letter law that has never seen a conviction, and Constitutional scholars say was all but forgotten on the books.

And, further... Trump should be more concerned with Flynn abiding this dead letter law than the fact that the IC just end-arounded due process to shrink his cabinet.

Get out of here.

 

[LouderVol]

We have a long history of invading territories and occupying them for a period of time and/or installing governments that are friendly to the United States before leaving, or supporting internal efforts to overthrow governments we don't like. Iran, Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, Iraq...the list goes on and on. Crimea is a step below several of those I just mentioned.

installing friendly leaders is worse than occupation and annexation? i already said that yes we interfere all the dang time, but we don't straight up take over places.