National Security Adviser Michael Flynn Resigns amid Russian Controversy

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Kittamaru, Feb 14, 2017.

  1. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/13/politics/michael-flynn-white-house-national-security-adviser/
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/...-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn.html
    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/02/resignation-white-house
    So... he gets caught lying, committing treasonous acts, and bargaining (without authority) with a hostile foreign government... and he gets to resign and expects to just walk away without consequence...?

    Also, he is very specific that he misinformed the VICE President... the implication there would seem to be that President Trump was aware of all this, which would make him an accomplish to Treason...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. geordief Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,135
    Might this partly explain the animosity towards Clinton and her supposed emails deserving of "locking up" ? A guilty conscience?

    How long had this correspondence with Russian actors been ongoing?

    Does the CIA hold all the cards and is that why Clumsy Donald made them his first port of call after the inauguration?
     
    joepistole likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,888
    It's an important point because the Vice President went to bat for him on national television, and without that specific apology from Flynn had exposure for lying to the nation.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    While it is nice to know that the national security advisory lasted all of 3 weeks because of connections to russia, alot ALOT MORE is needed to "stump trump" and with a republican congress he could give Putin a blowjob on video and it would still not be enough to impeach, unless trump does something outside of republican ideology, then they might be willing to impeach him and replace him with his true republican vice president. So far though trump has demonstrated himself to be a very loyal dog though.
     
  8. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Trump's loyalty only lasts along as it advantages Trump. If Republicans become critical of Trump, Trump could create his own party. I'm sure that fact is not lost on the Republican leadership. I don't know where this is going. The few semi-responsible Republicans in congress (e.g. McCain, Graham, et al.) need to decide how much they value their party versus how much they value their country.
     
  9. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Not if they impeach him that is.
     
  10. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    That may happen at some point.
     
  11. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    He's not being accuesed of treason (except by you, here), he's being accused of violating an obscure and likely unConstitutional law that has only been invoked once (unsuccessfully) over two hundred years ago.

    He could have fought this if he/Trump wanted to, but it isn't worth the hassle for Trump, over someone he may no longer trust, so better to get him to resign.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2017
  12. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Well it's more than just Kittamaru who have accused Flynn of treason. A number of congressmen have also accused Flynn of treason. Facts matter Russ.

    He has also been accused of violating the Logan Act which forbids private citizens negotiating with foreign powers with which the US has a dispute. The law was created by our infant nation and it was updated by a Republican congress as recently as 1994. I think that tells you congress believes the law is important and still relevant.

    The fact is there is no reason to believe the law is unconstitutional. The law is no more obscure than any other law. The law has never been invoked: probably because most American civilians don't attempt to negotiate a deal against the interests of the American people with hostile foreign powers.

    Yes, Trump could have kept Flynn on board. But he didn't. The facts are clear. Trump could have stayed loyal to Flynn and in the process dug a deeper hole for himself. But he didn't. He tossed Flynn to the wolves without a second thought when it became convenient to do so. The Trump administration has known about this for over a month now. Only after this became public did Trump act on it.

    Yes, it's probably a good thing to dump an adviser who has lied to you about something important. We don't know if Flynn lied to Trump. We don't know that he lied to Pence. For all we know, Trump Flynn could have been acting under Trump's direction when he discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador. Today the White House denied instructing Flynn to talk to the Russian ambassador about sanctions. Now whether that is true or not we don't know. Flynn could be Trump's first Scooter Libby.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    There is a certain irony in Trump firing one of his subordinates for lying when Trump lies so frequently.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2017
    douwd20 likes this.
  13. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    I wonder who will be trumps Oliver North?
     
  14. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    So... in your opinion, colluding with a hostile foreign government, knowingly and willfully offering to undo the actions of the sitting president (when one does not technically have the power to do so), and possibly/potentially passing along information we would not want divulged to said foreign power is NOT treason?

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381
    I would contend that offering to provide relief from economic sanctions in exchange for currently unknown favors would qualify...
     
  15. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Source?
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,640
    =====================
    Keith Olbermann: Michael Flynn Should Be Fired -- And Arrested For Treason
    Posted By Tim Hains
    RCP
    On Date February 13, 2017

    In this episode of 'The Resistance,' host Keith Olbermann calls for the arrest of National Security Adviser Mike Flynn, who is accused of having a conversation about American sanctions with the Russian ambassador after the 2016 election but before the inauguration.

    "In a series of events that seemed last week like mere individual explosions in the midst of the evil Trumpian blitzkrieg, the outline of what has reportedly be done by Michael Flynn -- who is at this moment still the man charged with advising the erratic, reckless, and seemingly mentally unstable president on all national security issues -- became substantially more clear," he said.

    Olbermann shows images of Flynn in Russia seated at a table with Vladimir Putin at a banquet honoring RT --Russia's english-language propaganda station-- "by whom Flynn has been paid."

    "Trump's awareness of this crime, and his coverup of it, elevates him to the status of unindicted co-conspirator," he added.
    ===============
     
  17. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    That's a dishonest question and non-responsive: if you have a (reputable) source claiming treason, post it.
     
  18. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    OK, I neglected to include the qualifier "reputable". The liberal version of Rush Limbaugh is not.
     
  19. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Okay Russ, time for you to be honest...

    In your opinion, is colluding with a HOSTILE FOREIGN GOVERNMENT an act of treason?

    In your opinion, is what Flynn did an act of colluding with a hostile foreign government (offering to release/reduce sanctions, etc before he was ever a representative of the US Government)
     
  20. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/23/politics/flynn-russia-calls-investigation/

    They may not use the word Treason, but damn if the description doesn't fit...

    While we're on the topic:

    http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/the...ump-may-be-guilty-of-treason-says-law-expert/

    Given Rogers qualifications... I think he is reasonably qualified in this respect... or, do you also dismiss a former Assistant Secretary of State

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shattuck
    Shattuck received a BA from Yale College in 1965, a MA in 1967 from Clare College, Cambridge University, with First Class Honors in International Law, and a JD degree in 1970 from Yale Law School.[3]

    Among other prestigious holdings...
     
    joepistole likes this.
  21. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    For the past few days we have been hearing the reports of President Donald Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Flynn, having discussions with the Russians about how the Trump administration would remove sanctions on Russia — on the very same day that President Barack Obama placed more sanctions on Russia over their computer hacking during our election.

    Back in my counterintelligence days, sedition was defined as an American citizen working with a foreign power to the detriment of American policy. Flynn’s actions seem to fit the sedition act perfectly. I would like to see the law that Flynn swore to uphold actually applied. He should be arrested and placed on trial for sedition.

    http://www.denverpost.com/2017/02/13/did-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn-commit-sedition/

    Definition of treason
    1. 1: the betrayal of a trust : treachery

    2. 2: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason
    The Trump administration fired Flynn under the assertion he betrayed their trust and was therefore untrustworthy. The definition fits.

    There are many questions which need to be answered, and chief among them is why did it take Trump so long to do something about it? Why did Trump allow Flynn to have access to the nation's most classified information knowing he had been compromised? This is nothing compared to Hillary's email. In Flynn we have a case of real betrayal.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2017
  22. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Ugh: Yes. What you haven't done is show/explain that he has committed any of those acts. I could just as easily post the definition pedophilia and accuse you of it then demand you agree with the definition and therefore my accusation. Logic doesn't work that way.

    Look, I get that you guys are still in Anger Therapy mode and have trouble seeing past your blinding rage, but this is not that complicated. I get that it might be futile to reason with you though.
    Certainly not. Again: your accusation, so your responsibility to provide the connection between the acts and the crime/definition.
    Again, that is exactly the problem I pointed out: the word isn't in there and I submit that if it fit it would be. So you are arguing against your point by demonstrating that reputable sources are not claiming treason.
     
  23. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Then you have no good excuse for this:
    1. The acts in question happened before he got in the office (swore the oath).
    2. Because he was not in power, he had no ability to change policy...and once he was, doing so is part of his job.

    You guys are using chasing-your-tail logic (trying to close an inherently broken circle) to try to make an impossible connection.

    And you're dangerously close to arguing that undoing Obama's policies is treason -- ya know, cause Obama is still our King, lol!
    [Edit] I see now that you improperly quoted the link and those weren't your words. But I'll leave it: what you quoted is some random dood's letter to a newspaper. That's pathetic, joe.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2017

Share This Page