Flynn Resigns Amid Russia Controversy

#351
#351
Orange_Crush said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that Flynn lied because he knew that undermining a current President's sanctions was wrong and Trump allowed this lie to be repeated (perhaps unknowingly) by his VP elect. That is undeniable. We know from the leaks that Trump was well aware that Flynn had discussed sanctions with Kislyak before Pence denied it on Face the Nation Jan. 15th and he never corrected the record. It's not an 'erosion of trust' that bothers Trump... it's that the truth was leaked. Very Nixonian, indeed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#352
#352
BowlBrother85 said:
I'm saying that Flynn lied because he knew that undermining a current President's sanctions was wrong and Trump allowed this lie to be repeated (perhaps unknowingly) by his VP elect. That is undeniable. We know from the leaks that Trump was well aware that Flynn had discussed sanctions with Kislyak before Pence denied it on Face the Nation Jan. 15th and he never corrected the record. It's not an 'erosion of trust' that bothers Trump... it's that the truth was leaked. Very Nixonian, indeed.
Click to expand...

Exactly what do you want Trump to do? He fired Flynn. Now he's taking aim at the leaks, as he should.

So... Again... What should Trump do to Flynn? Burn his house down? Kill his wife and kids? Key his Audi? Do a Two in his spare bathroom and not flush?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#353
#353
Orange_Crush said:
Exactly what do you want Trump to do? He fired Flynn. Now he's taking aim at the leaks, as he should.

So... Again... What should Trump do to Flynn? Burn his house down? Kill his wife and kids? Key his Audi? Do a Two in his spare bathroom and not flush?
Click to expand...

I'd go with dropping a deuce
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#354
#354
LouderVol said:
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.
Click to expand...

Depends on the specific circumstance. It can be, especially in a case like Iran where a democratically elected government was overthrown and replaced with the Shah who plundered the country and ran it as a strongman. Or when we overthrew Allende, another democratically elected guy, in Chile and replaced him with Pinochet, another strongman who tortured/executed thousands over about a 15 year period. But they were friendly to the United States, which is all that mattered to us. It is happening in Iraq right now, where we invaded, occupied the country for 8 years, and the government we helped create and bring to power is cracking down hard on the Sunni minority as retribution for Saddam (a Sunni) cracking down on the Shia majority for years.

Typically "good people" don't come to power when we get involved. I don't see how this is much more benign than simply taking over places.
 
#355
#355
BowlBrother85 said:
I'm saying that Flynn lied because he knew that undermining a current President's sanctions was wrong and Trump allowed this lie to be repeated (perhaps unknowingly) by his VP elect. That is undeniable. We know from the leaks that Trump was well aware that Flynn had discussed sanctions with Kislyak before Pence denied it on Face the Nation Jan. 15th and he never corrected the record. It's not an 'erosion of trust' that bothers Trump... it's that the truth was leaked. Very Nixonian, indeed.
Click to expand...

Do the leaks from the intel agencies concern you? Seems they had a beef with Flynn and/or Trump and used classified info to attack. Flynn appears to be clear on the Logan Act but the leaks are criminal.
 
#356
#356
LouderVol said:
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.
Click to expand...

Russia has always seen Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland and Ukraine the same way as China see Taiwan. As breakaway provinces
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#358
#358
I love this new defense:

What Flynn did is not technically illegal. And it's not even wrong.

If so, why did Trump fire him? Just because he had become an albatross around his neck? A liability?

Looking back, Trump sure is willing to dump anyone that makes him look bad.

Scapegoat?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#359
#359
lawgator1 said:
I love this new defense:

What Flynn did is not technically illegal. And it's not even wrong.

If so, why did Trump fire him? Just because he had become an albatross around his neck? A liability?

Looking back, Trump sure is willing to dump anyone that makes him look bad.

Scapegoat?
Click to expand...

Probably the fact that the lie was worse than the act.
 
#360
#360
volinbham said:
Do the leaks from the intel agencies concern you? Seems they had a beef with Flynn and/or Trump and used classified info to attack. Flynn appears to be clear on the Logan Act but the leaks are criminal.
Click to expand...

I will circle back to Nixon again (I just like doing that)... I'm sure that Mark Felt was breaking the law when he spilled his guts to Woodward and Bernstein but we should all be grateful that he did it. These leaks bother me about as much as the Podesta leaked e-mails bothered Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#361
#361
BowlBrother85 said:
I will circle back to Nixon again (I just like doing that)... I'm sure that Mark Felt was breaking the law when he spilled his guts to Woodward and Bernstein but we should all be grateful that he did it. These leaks bother me about as much as the Podesta leaked e-mails bothered Trump.
Click to expand...

What he leaked to W&B wasn't classified information obtained through a FISA warrant.
 
#362
#362
05_never_again said:
Depends on the specific circumstance. It can be, especially in a case like Iran where a democratically elected government was overthrown and replaced with the Shah who plundered the country and ran it as a strongman. Or when we overthrew Allende, another democratically elected guy, in Chile and replaced him with Pinochet, another strongman who tortured/executed thousands over about a 15 year period. But they were friendly to the United States, which is all that mattered to us. It is happening in Iraq right now, where we invaded, occupied the country for 8 years, and the government we helped create and bring to power is cracking down hard on the Sunni minority as retribution for Saddam (a Sunni) cracking down on the Shia majority for years.

Typically "good people" don't come to power when we get involved. I don't see how this is much more benign than simply taking over places.
Click to expand...

i guess it depends on what Russia, or whoever, does with it. i can see your point that either way we are responsible for the atrocities but it still seems worse to me if we came in and started oppressing people vs letting them do it to themselves. and we do get it right every once and a while. Japan, South Korea, Germany ended up ahead of the curve after our occupation. some areas like the Balkans are constant questions marks, but generally a bad peace is better than a good war. in most of the cases you listed we at worst replaced one tyrant with another. and in some cases we weren't responsible for who got in charge, assuming there were real democracies put in place. a key function of democracy is that the people have a right to be wrong.
 
#364
#364
lawgator1 said:
I love this new defense:

What Flynn did is not technically illegal. And it's not even wrong.

If so, why did Trump fire him? Just because he had become an albatross around his neck? A liability?

Looking back, Trump sure is willing to dump anyone that makes him look bad.

Scapegoat?
Click to expand...

Bruce Pearl. lying and getting caught lying is generally a bad thing. especially when it makes your boss look bad. i know its completely different than the way Hilary was always handled but it shouldn't be that confusing.

of course in Hilary's cases she was breaking the law and in the wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#365
#365
LouderVol said:
i guess it depends on what Russia, or whoever, does with it. i can see your point that either way we are responsible for the atrocities but it still seems worse to me if we came in and started oppressing people vs letting them do it to themselves. and we do get it right every once and a while. Japan, South Korea, Germany ended up ahead of the curve after our occupation. some areas like the Balkans are constant questions marks, but generally a bad peace is better than a good war. in most of the cases you listed we at worst replaced one tyrant with another. and in some cases we weren't responsible for who got in charge, assuming there were real democracies put in place. a key function of democracy is that the people have a right to be wrong.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call Mosaddegh and Allende tyrants. They were just socialists/protectionists who were leading efforts to nationalize their economies and keep out foreigners. We didn't like that (we wanted our corporations to be able to operate there), so we overthrew them both and installed someone who would do as we said, even if they were bad guys.

In other cases, yes, a tyrant was overthrown, but it wasn't because they were a tyrant. It's because they weren't friendly to the United States. We've supported tyrants during their worst atrocities if they served our interests and then overthrown them later once they did not (Saddam is Exhibit A of this).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#367
#367
Also, to some of you that are defending Trump over this... it was just two weeks ago (Feb 1st) that he trotted out Michael Flynn to declare that "Iran was officially on notice". So, he allowed Flynn to publicly speak in an official capacity on behalf of US foreign policy long after he had been made aware that Flynn had lied to Mike Pence. Much of this makes no sense at all. There was no 'erosion of trust' in Michael Flynn. That was total BS. The only thing that changed were the leaks.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#368
#368
05_never_again said:
I wouldn't call Mosaddegh and Allende tyrants. They were just socialists/protectionists who were leading efforts to nationalize their economies and keep out foreigners. We didn't like that (we wanted our corporations to be able to operate there), so we overthrew them both and installed someone who would do as we said, even if they were bad guys.

In other cases, yes, a tyrant was overthrown, but it wasn't because they were a tyrant. It's because they weren't friendly to the United States. We've supported tyrants during their worst atrocities if they served our interests and then overthrown them later once they did not (Saddam is Exhibit A of this).
Click to expand...

interesting cases each of them.

In Iran yeah he was a good guy and did a lot to further that nation. I knew he kicked out the British as they had a lot of control through the oil industry but I just wonder about that. what was the deal there? straight up kicking them out is a big move before the end of the deal. (what I read it was supposed to go until 1993). slippery slope there. that being said yeah he shouldn't have been removed. but he also wasn't a saint. some of his early elections nationally stopped counting votes once he hit a quorum without waiting on a majority vote. again not a reason to remove someone but calling him a fair elected leader is a bit much.

Allende was another with a lot of back ground noise and politically hackery all around, even without our coup. while I can generally support the idea of a country being in control of its own resources I don't like the idea of being able to systematically take over a contract. so again he may have been good for the country but there are plenty of "buts" stacked up too.

in both cases if their isn't "fertile" ground for the CIA to plant their seeds and fund you wouldn't see the coups. and if one side was so popular you would see that replaced guys party strike back. most of the time once the head guy is gone you see that side disappear pretty quick. idk, maybe the CIA was really that good but I somehow doubt we were able to change the outlook of the majority of a country.

obviously I wasn't in charge and if I was I would have done things differently, but as I am usually trying to point out to Ras and Pacer there is generally back ground legitimate reasons for some of these with the locals working with/seeking out the CIA.
 
#369
#369
LouderVol said:
interesting cases each of them.

In Iran yeah he was a good guy and did a lot to further that nation. I knew he kicked out the British as they had a lot of control through the oil industry but I just wonder about that. what was the deal there? straight up kicking them out is a big move before the end of the deal. (what I read it was supposed to go until 1993). slippery slope there. that being said yeah he shouldn't have been removed. but he also wasn't a saint. some of his early elections nationally stopped counting votes once he hit a quorum without waiting on a majority vote. again not a reason to remove someone but calling him a fair elected leader is a bit much.

Allende was another with a lot of back ground noise and politically hackery all around, even without our coup. while I can generally support the idea of a country being in control of its own resources I don't like the idea of being able to systematically take over a contract. so again he may have been good for the country but there are plenty of "buts" stacked up too.

in both cases if their isn't "fertile" ground for the CIA to plant their seeds and fund you wouldn't see the coups. and if one side was so popular you would see that replaced guys party strike back. most of the time once the head guy is gone you see that side disappear pretty quick. idk, maybe the CIA was really that good but I somehow doubt we were able to change the outlook of the majority of a country.

obviously I wasn't in charge and if I was I would have done things differently, but as I am usually trying to point out to Ras and Pacer there is generally back ground legitimate reasons for some of these with the locals working with/seeking out the CIA.
Click to expand...

They were corrupt, sure (when you're a socialist that comes with the territory). But that is hardly grounds for orchestrating a coup.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#370
#370
volinbham said:
Do the leaks from the intel agencies concern you? Seems they had a beef with Flynn and/or Trump and used classified info to attack. Flynn appears to be clear on the Logan Act but the leaks are criminal.
Click to expand...

Does Donald disrespecting the IC bother you? He made his bed, let him lay in it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#374
#374
05_never_again said:
I wouldn't call Mosaddegh and Allende tyrants. They were just socialists/protectionists who were leading efforts to nationalize their economies and keep out foreigners. We didn't like that (we wanted our corporations to be able to operate there), so we overthrew them both and installed someone who would do as we said, even if they were bad guys.

In other cases, yes, a tyrant was overthrown, but it wasn't because they were a tyrant. It's because they weren't friendly to the United States. We've supported tyrants during their worst atrocities if they served our interests and then overthrown them later once they did not (Saddam is Exhibit A of this).
Click to expand...

I think something that gets left out is that the powers of the world(throughout history) write the script that puts them in the moral right, regardless of truth....Winners write the history.

The geopolitical game is not won by being Mr. Rogers...both are equally guilty. Neither one more than the other...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top