National Security Adviser Michael Flynn Resigns amid Russian Controversy

Schedule inconvenience does not explain the posts you made that had no valid point and adding an excuse for not providing any valid sources/arguments moving forward just further reinforces your lack of valid point. Why are you hitting yourself?

Try this hypothetical instead:

As I said - I doubt you would accept anything as reputable, so given that, I see little reason to continue. I'll simply take a guilty pleasure in watching the administration continue to implode (given we now have three people who have resigned amid Russian scandals)
 
So now that we're all in agreement that there are no legitimate allegations of treason here, let's talk about the actual crime:

Who is "we" kemosabe? You are making shit up again as you are wont to do. I gave you the Webster's dictionary definition of the word treason. I gave you the evidence showing you why the word is applicable here and to Flynn.

So for you to repeatedly ignore the facts and pretend they don't exist and to pretend that there is some kind of agreement with you is just outright dishonest.

No, sillyjoe, the Sedition Act was repealed almost a hundred years ago and based on current caselaw would probably have been found unConstitutional anyway! And unless you are 120 years old, you couldn't possibly have been a counterintelligence officer when it was in force (though that would explain a lot!)! Sillyjoe be so silly!

Well first, I didn't write what you are now attributing to me, I referenced it. There is a difference. I didn't say anything about sedition or reference the Sedition Act. Furthermore, it isn't even relevant. Sedition is a crime in The United States. I suggest checkout:
18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115

Sedition is a crime in this country Silly Russ. :) You don't know that sedition is a crime and yet you feel entitled to determine what is constitutional and what isn't...seriously?

Yes, seriousjoe, that's the one!

The Logan Act is an interesting 218 year old anachronism. At face value it seems Flynn violated it. But no one has ever been prosecuted for it, not even the guy it was named-after, who continued violating the act after it was passed in response to previous actions by him. The wiki article lists about a dozen likely violations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

So why weren't they prosecuted? Probably because the Logan Act is logically null. See, a private citizen or non-empowered Congressman doesn't have any actual power so they don't have any actual ability to negotiate deals behind the government's back. Since they aren't actually in a position to offer a foreign government anything, they can't actually do any "negotiating". So a charge that they were interfering with government negotiations is logically null. So no harm, no foul, no prosecution, ever. Logical nothingburger.

So because no one has been convicted of violating a law, the law is effectively nullified? And you think that makes sense...seriously? If that were so, why have a legislative body since all the laws they create would not be valid because no one has been convicted of violating them before?

No your assertion doesn't make even the least bit of sense. As previously pointed out to you the Logan Act was updated in 1994 by a Republican congress. So they obviously didn't share your crazy notions about the Logan Act and its relevance.

Russ you have been dishonest, you have misrepresented material, you referenced irrelevant material, and you didn't know your facts, e.g. sedition is against the law. In short you have been intellectually dishonest. You should be asking yourself why is it you feel the need to be intellectually dishonest.

Unfortunately for you this isn't a "nothing burger". It's pretty clear Flynn has violated the trust which was invested in him as an officer and a citizen of this country. If what the Trump administration has said is true, he violated their trust as well. He compromised himself.

Once again for your edification (some people are slow learners):
Definition of treason
  1. 1: the betrayal of a trust : treachery
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason

Flynn betrayed the trust he was given. He is therefore guilty of treason but not in a legal sense as he has not been convicted, but that may be coming in the not too distant future. Treason is an apt word to describe what Flynn has done.

It was reported this evening that the trump campaign had several contacts with high level Russian officials during the campaign.

"Intercepted phone calls show members of President Donald Trump's campaign had multiple communications with senior Russian intelligence officials before the US election, The New York Times reported on Tuesday night.

Citing US law-enforcement and intelligence agencies, The Times said the contact between Trump associates and Russian intelligence officials was discovered during a concurrent FBI investigation into election-related cyberattacks by Russia that targeted Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee."

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-campaign-contacts-russian-intelligence-election-2017-2

Unfortunately for you Russ, this isn't a nothing burger a la Hillary's emails, this is serious stuff and it's not going away any time soon. There is now bipartisan support for an investigation. Republican leaders don't want an independent investigation as they would lose to ability to control the investigation. But they have endorsed an investigation.
 
Who is "we"...
We is you stillnosourceprovidedforyourclaimjoe. You didn't forget your claim, did you?:
A number of congressmen have also accused Flynn of treason.
Do you want to retract your concession and reinstate this claim? If so, cite your sources -- and that's plural. Usually I ask for one, but your claim is plural so you need at least two separate sources.
Well first, I didn't write what you are now attributing to me, I referenced it.
Well that's funny, there weren't any quote marks around it to let me know it was a quote! How was I supposed to know you were just stupidly repeating the stupid claim and not making the stupid claim yourself? It fit! Either way, writing it yourself or quoting it, you own it. And you seem to be simultaneously rejecting your own claim and doubling-down on it:
There is a difference. I didn't say anything about sedition or reference the Sedition Act.
Wait, so you quoted it but didn't intend to claim it? So you quoted that because....trolling?
Furthermore, it isn't even relevant. Sedition is a crime in The United States. I suggest checkout:
18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
That isn't the "Sedition Act", which you "referenced" before. So the question is -- do you know it and are trolling or are you just that weak on reality? But hey, by all means, make an argument that he violated that act, lol!
 
Last edited:
"Got any gossip about Flynn?"
"Yeah. He committed treason"
"Got any reputable sources?"
"Eh no.. no such thing"
"So you are claiming he has been treasonous with out any reputable sources?"
"No I am saying there is no such thing as reputable gossip"

And Russ will think I am referring to him Hee Hee

Edit: I am kinda pleased with myself. Wrote all the above on my mobile keypad...
 
Last edited:
We is you stillnosourceprovidedforyourclaimjoe. You didn't forget your claim, did you?

Do you want to retract your concession and reinstate this claim? If so, cite your sources -- and that's plural. Usually I ask for one, but your claim is plural so you need at least two separate sources.

Well that's funny, there weren't any quote marks around it to let me know it was a quote! How was I supposed to know you were just stupidly repeating the stupid claim and not making it yourself? It fit!

So you quoted that because....trolling?

That isn't the "Sedition Act". So the question is -- do you know it and are trolling or are you just that weak on reality?

And your dishonesty continues. You need to ask yourself why it is your are so compelled to be so dishonest.
 
"Got any gossip about Flynn?"
"Yeah. He committed treason"
"Got any reputable sources?"
"Eh no.. no such thing"
"So you are claiming he has been treasonous with out any reputable sources?"
"No I am saying there is no such thing as reputable gossip"

And Russ will think I am referring to him Hee Hee
Not accurate, given my detailed response in post 59. Given that you punted on it instead of trying to argue against it, I'm reasonably certain you are aware that I'm the only one putting forth any real effort here.
 
And your dishonesty continues. You need to ask yourself why it is your are so compelled to be so dishonest.
Non-responsive: concession accepted (reinstated).

I can feel your anger caressing me like a warm blanket on a cold winter's night. Your anger brings me joy.
 
Please excuse me Judge Russ. Uhm your honor. Perhaps a sign that your court is in session and "that everything you say will be held against you" is displayed in a meaningful place. Your honor. :)
 
Please excuse me Judge Russ. Uhm your honor. Perhaps a sign that your court is in session and "that everything you say will be held against you" is displayed in a meaningful place. Your honor. :)
Yeah, maybe I'll add it to my sig that I won't let people off the hook for their crimes until they jump the shark or I get bored or busy with something else.

But it would be so much simpler and more pleasant for everyone if people would just be reasonable....I mean -- pleasant for everyone else. I rather enjoy you guys being unreasonable! I can feel their anger radiating like the sun on a warm spring day.
 
Non-responsive: concession accepted (reinstated).

I can feel your anger caressing me like a warm blanket on a cold winter's night. Your anger brings me joy.
You didn't like the response, that doesn't mean I wasn't responsive comrade. As for your delusions you can caress what ever delusion you want comrade. It matters little to me.

The fact is you have been consistently dishonest comrade and apparently you to take pride in that dishonesty. Okay, to each his own. You fit right in with the Trump crowd. :)
 
Flynn conspired to interfere with sanctions placed by the POTUS of the day. Guilty! Guilty! GUILLLLTY! OF TREASON
.
.
.
.
Imo
 
The sad thing is... no doubt there is a hell of a lot more yet to come. Unprecedented events yet to be revealed.
And no I can not provide a reliable source link.
 
The sad thing is... no doubt there is a hell of a lot more yet to come. Unprecedented events yet to be revealed
Paddy Power is putting the odds of a Trump impeachment this year at 4 to 1. Those are pretty good odds.

If it is discovered that Trump and his staffers conspired with Russia against Clinton, well, it's all over for Trump and there are indications they did. Most notably, Trump cited Russian propaganda (i.e. hacked materials which had been altered by Russia) published in the Russian Times.

"It's unclear how Trump obtained the same misinformation that appeared in Sputnik. Eichenwald asks: "Who in the Trump campaign was feeding him falsehoods straight from the Kremlin?" - NPR

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/11/49752...ussian-propaganda-to-slam-clinton-on-benghazi

No this isn't going away, any time soon.
 
Last edited:
The liberal answer to Rush Limbaugh isn't, no. -
There is no such thing. Olbermann (like all major media liberals) adheres to facts, and corrects errors, key and fundamental differences between him and Limbaugh.

The other major difference is, of course, that Olbermann got fired for his opinions, despite their grounding in fact. Which illustrates the nature of the US media.

Meanwhile, the apparent role of the Logan Act was to bring about Flynn's resignation without dragging more serious charges into public, where they would have to be accounted for as more than gossip - a very large can of worms.
Flynn in office is obviously in line for FBI and other grim agency investigations, with subpoenas to make potentially public whatever material they have clandestinely accumulated - so he's expected to step aside and lay low for the duration, forestalling that.
 
Just got through the nightly TV news and it don't look good...
Is there any one in the Trump administration that is not being investigated for breaches of executive integrity ?
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ational-security-adviser-latest-a7580401.html

The White House has admitted Donald Trump was told several weeks ago that national security adviser had not told the truth about a telephone call with a Russian diplomat - and chose not to fire him immediately.

Michael Flynn handed in his resignation amid mounting controversy over his interaction with Russian officials, and a false assurance he gave that he had not discussed the issue of sanctions. Senior officials in Mr Trump’s team were told a month ago by the acting US attorney general they feared the falsehoods made him vulnerable to potential blackmail from Moscow.

Vice President Mike Pence was also reportedly told about Mr Flynn's interactions with Russia, 11 days after Mr Trump found out.


On Tuesday, White House spokesman, Sean Spicer, said Mr Flynn was not ousted from his post because of legal issues, but because the trust between him and Mr Trump had eroded.

“We had been reviewing this for weeks. It got to trust issues,” Mr Spicer told reporters. “It got to the point where Mr Flynn had to leave.”

The White House has been bombarded with questions about what Mr Trump knew about Mr Flynn’s interactions with Russia. Indeed, senior Democrats have called for an independent investigation into possible links between not just Mr Flynn and Russia, but other senior members of the Trump team.

So... Trump knew for weeks, according to Sean Spicer...

Mr Flynn had originally denied discussing sanctions, and senior officials including Mike Pence. But when it emerged that US intelligence officials had been monitoring the call to the Russian Ambassador to Washington, Mr Flynn had to reverse course.

The call was monitored...

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a longtime Russia critic, said Congress needed to know what Mr Flynn discussed with the ambassador and why.

“The idea that he did this on his own without any direction is a good question to ask,” Mr Graham said, according to the Associated Press.

House Speaker Paul Ryan said Trump made the right decision in asking Mr Flynn to step down.

“You cannot have the national security adviser misleading the vice president and others,” Mr Ryan said.

Mr Trump, who has been conspicuously quiet about Mr Flynn’s standing for several days, said on twitter that the real “story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington?”

Some Republicans are asking how much of this was Flynn's doing, and how much was "prompted" by Trump...

*shakes head* This is laughably embarrassing...

And now...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-football-nuclear-missile-house-a7580541.html
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has demanded proof of security protocols and how they are kept in place by 28 February

After it was revealed that the President discussed North Korea’s ballistic missile test over dinner with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and other guests in what committee chairman Jason Chaffetz described as a "public space", the committee has asked the President's team to provide proof of his security protocols at his estate and how they were maintained.

In a letter to chief of staff Reince Priebus, the President was also asked to explain why he reviewed White House documents at the dinner table, whether these documents were classified and if the other guests at the dinner had been vetted.

Tragic... just tragic. I think it is telling, at this point, that it seems that what our leaders know, Russian knows...
 
Back
Top