National Security Adviser Michael Flynn Resigns amid Russian Controversy

K

Kittamaru

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums.
Valued Senior Member
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/13/politics/michael-flynn-white-house-national-security-adviser/
Washington (CNN)Embattled White House national security adviser Michael Flynn resigned Monday night, an abrupt end to a brief tenure.

His departure came just after reports surfaced that the Justice Department warned the Trump administration last month that Flynn misled administration officials regarding his communications with the Russian ambassador to the United States and was potentially vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians.
"I inadvertently briefed the Vice President-elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian ambassador. I have sincerely apologized to the President and the Vice President, and they have accepted my apology," Flynn wrote, according to a copy of his resignation letter obtained by CNN.
Click to expand...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/...-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn.html
Michael T. Flynn, the national security adviser, resigned on Monday night after it was revealed that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence and other top White House officials about his conversations with the Russian ambassador to the United States.

Mr. Flynn, who served in the job for less than a month, said he had given “incomplete information” regarding a telephone call he had with the ambassador in late December about American sanctions against Russia, weeks before President Trump’s inauguration. Mr. Flynn previously had denied that he had any substantive conversations with Ambassador Sergey I. Kislyak, and Mr. Pence repeated that claim in television interviews as recently as this month.

But on Monday, a former administration official said the Justice Department warned the White House last month that Mr. Flynn had not been fully forthright about his conversations with the ambassador. As a result, the Justice Department feared that Mr. Flynn could be vulnerable to blackmail by Moscow.

In his resignation letter, which the White House emailed to reporters, Mr. Flynn said he had held numerous calls with foreign officials during the transition. “Unfortunately, because of the fast pace of events, I inadvertently briefed the vice president-elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian ambassador,” he wrote. “I have sincerely apologized to the president and the vice president, and they have accepted my apology.”
Click to expand...

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/02/resignation-white-house
SOME resignations from high office are like the cauterising of a wound: brutal but decisive. Others resemble a battlefield amputation: a painful loss which cannot dispel the sinister whiff of some deeper infection. As Washington, DC absorbs the news, just before midnight on February 13th, that Michael Flynn has quit as National Security Adviser to President Donald Trump after less than a month in office, an ominous note lingers in the air. There is something unhealthy about the way this new government operates.

Mr Flynn, a retired three-star general and former chief of a Pentagon spy agency, had to quit after admitting that he had misled Vice-President Mike Pence about his contacts with a Russian envoy after the November presidential election but before the inauguration in January, when Mr Flynn was still a private citizen. That inaccurate briefing had left Mr Pence to head out onto television and unwittingly spread false information as he defended the man who on January 20th became head of the National Security Council. In his half-contrite, half-defiant resignation letter, Mr Flynn wrote of having sincerely apologised to both Mr Pence and Mr Trump for “inadvertently” misleading them with “incomplete information”.
Click to expand...

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...
 
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?
 
Kittamaru said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
ElectricFetus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
joepistole said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not if they impeach him that is.
 
Kittamaru said:
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...?
Click to expand...
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:
Russ_Watters said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Russ_Watters said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. :)

There is a certain irony in Trump firing one of his subordinates for lying when Trump lies so frequently.
 
Last edited:
Russ_Watters said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
Click to expand...

I would contend that offering to provide relief from economic sanctions in exchange for currently unknown favors would qualify...
 
Russ_Watters said:
He's not being accuesed of treason (except by you, here) . . .
Click to expand...
=====================
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.
===============
 
Kittamaru said:
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?
Click to expand...
That's a dishonest question and non-responsive: if you have a (reputable) source claiming treason, post it.
 
Russ_Watters said:
That's a dishonest question and non-responsive: if you have a (reputable) source claiming treason, post it.
Click to expand...

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)
 
Russ_Watters said:
OK, I neglected to include the qualifier "reputable". The liberal version of Rush Limbaugh is not.
Click to expand...

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/

Former Assistant Secretary of State and international human rights expert John Shattuck said this week that President-elect Donald Trump must welcome a thorough investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election because the questions it raises leave him vulnerable to charges of treason.

“A specter of treason hovers over Donald Trump,” Shattuck wrote in the Boston Globe. “He has brought it on himself by dismissing a bipartisan call for an investigation of Russia’s hacking of the Democratic National Committee as a ‘ridiculous’ political attack on the legitimacy of his election as president.”

With evidence piling up that forces within Russia worked to tip the election in Trump’s favor, Shattuck said that it’s unwise for Trump to bat aside the accusations as if they’re unimportant.

Shattuck — who was appointed by Pres. Bill Clinton and currently serves as a professor of diplomacy at the Fletcher Center of Law and Diplomacy and as a senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy — quoted the director of U.S. Cyber Command Admiral Mike Rogers.

“This was not something that was done casually, this was not something that was done by chance,” Rogers said. “This was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily. This was a conscious effort by a nation state to attempt to achieve a specific effect.”
Click to expand...

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...
 
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:
Kittamaru said:
Okay Russ, time for you to be honest...

In your opinion, is colluding with a HOSTILE FOREIGN GOVERNMENT an act of treason?
Click to expand...
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.
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)
Click to expand...
Certainly not. Again: your accusation, so your responsibility to provide the connection between the acts and the crime/definition.
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...
Click to expand...
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.
 
joepistole said:
Back in my counterintelligence days, sedition was defined as an American citizen working with a foreign power to the detriment of American policy.
Click to expand...
Then you have no good excuse for this:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top