National Security Adviser Michael Flynn Resigns amid Russian Controversy

[joepistole]

Then you have no good excuse for this:

No good excuse? You are not making sense comrade.

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 work against policy.

Well, that's not really true is it?

The acts in question occurred before Flynn was sworn into the Trump administration. That's kind of the whole point behind the Logan Act...remember? But that doesn't mean he wasn't sworn to protect the Constitution and uphold the law. Flynn is a retired member of the US military. He took an oath office when he entered military service. He swore to uphold the Constitution as all military members do. That oath doesn't go away on retirement or separation from the service.

Just because Flynn wasn't "in power" it doesn't mean he had no ability to work against US policy. Again, that's kinda the whole point behind the Logan Act. That's why the law was created. Someone did it. That's why congressional Republicans updated the law in 1994.

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

LOL.....

Denial isn't a river in Egypt comrade.

And you're dangerously close to arguing that undoing Obama's policies is treason -- yang know, cause Obama is still our King, lol!

That's not honest, is it? No one has argued the "undoing of Obama's policies" is treason. You used another fallacy as you are wont to do: a straw man to be more specific.

For your edification:

What has been argued is that Flynn betrayed the trust which had been invested in him. The Trump administration admitted as much in its press conference this morning.

No this isn't about left wingers gone wild as you wish it to be. This is about betrayal and the admission of betrayal. Flynn has admitted he betrayed the nation by lying to his superiors. And in lying, Flynn compromised himself. That's not a matter of speculation. That's a matter of fact. The principals have admitted as much. Flynn has admitted it. Trump has admitted it through his spokespeople.

Now you may not like it, and it's obvious you don't. But that doesn't make these developments any less real or any less important.

 

[Russ_Watters]

...

Before we continue, please acknowledge that you are arguing on your own behalf and you retract any claim that any 3rd party reputable sources are claiming Flynn committed treason. I'm not going to argue by proxy with some random dood who wrote a letter to a newspaper!

 

[joepistole]

Before we continue, please acknowledge that you are arguing on your own behalf and you retract any claim that any 3rd party reputable sources are claiming Flynn committed treason. I'm not going to argue by proxy with some random dood who wrote a letter to a newspaper!

LOL...

Another obfuscation, why am I not surprised comrade?

 

[Russ_Watters]

LOL...

Another obfuscation, why am I not surprised comrade?

Concession accepted. Good luck with your therapy.

 

[billvon]

Before we continue, please acknowledge that you are arguing on your own behalf and you retract any claim that any 3rd party reputable sources are claiming Flynn committed treason.

Except for former assistant secretary of state John Shattuck, who would certainly fit the description of "reputable."

Will any such attempt to prove the above be successful? Unlikely.

 

[Kittamaru]

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.

So the fact that our own intelligence officers have stated, quite plainly, that Michael Flynn communicated with Russia regarding the sanctions is somehow irrelevant? They wiretapped his phonecall... if you are asking them to release it, go file a "Freedom of Information Request"...

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.

Hardly - facts are facts, no matter how someone may want to spin them. In this case - Flynn was recorded having a discussion that he shouldn't have had.

Certainly not. Again: your accusation, so your responsibility to provide the connection between the acts and the crime/definition.

Simple - he was wiretapped having the discussion. Now, answer the question.

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.

Give it time, and an unbiased, full-disclosure investigation, and I can say with ~ 95% certainty that he will be arrested. Whether or not they tack on treason or go with lesser charges (since Treason is, technically, a capital offense) is yet to be seen... but the fact remains that, by the definition, what he did is treason.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Except for former assistant secretary of state John Shattuck, who would certainly fit the description of "reputable."

[Edit]
There is no accusation of treason in what you quoted.

 

[Russ_Watters]

So the fact that our own intelligence officers have stated, quite plainly, that Michael Flynn communicated with Russia regarding the sanctions is somehow irrelevant?

No, it isn't - and I never claimed that. Don't put words in my mouth I didn't say. You might need to infractionate yourself for it.

Simple - he was wiretapped having the discussion.

About what? Baseball? The content matters. I'm sure you have something you are assuming: make your claim (and support it).

if you are asking them to release it, go file a "Freedom of Information Request".

*You* are the one claiming to know the content of the call was treasonous, Kitt - why would *I* do that? Are you now admitting that you don't know and are only speculating?

Now, answer the question.

What question?

Give it time, and an unbiased, full-disclosure investigation, and I can say with ~ 95% certainty that he will be arrested.

So what you have is confident idle speculation/fantasy. I can live with that for now. Just don't confuse your fantasy with proven reality.

...but the fact remains that, by definition, what he did was treason.

No, that's your opinion. An opinion not currently shared by anyone of repute. Quite a category you willingly put yourself in!

Not that I have high hopes, but a moderator on a science forum should know the difference between fact and opinion - idle speculation based opinion at that!

 

[Randwolf]

Before we continue, please acknowledge that you are arguing on your own behalf and you retract any claim that any 3rd party reputable sources are claiming Flynn committed treason. I'm not going to argue by proxy with some random dood who wrote a letter to a newspaper!

‘That’s the definition of treason’: Democratic lawmaker levels serious charge against Trump administration
Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) used the word “treason” when describing Gen. Michael Flynn’s actions. However, his concern is not Flynn but the role the president played in these series of Russian scandals.
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/th...-serious-charge-against-trump-administration/​

Keith Olbermann: Michael Flynn Should Be Fired -- And Arrested For Treason
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.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...uld_be_fired_--_and_arrested_for_treason.html​

Let me guess - Democrats and Media people aren't "reputable", right?

 

[Russ_Watters]

‘That’s the definition of treason’: Democratic lawmaker levels serious charge against Trump administration
Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) used the word “treason” when describing Gen. Michael Flynn’s actions. However, his concern is not Flynn but the role the president played in these series of Russian scandals.
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/th...-serious-charge-against-trump-administration/​

Quote the actual statement. It doesn't say what the headline of that non-reputable news source implies.

Let me guess - [snip] Media people aren't "reputable", right?

The liberal answer to Rush Limbaugh isn't, no. Have any mainstream analysis?

 

[joepistole]

Concession accepted. Good luck with your therapy.

LOL...

What concession? You are so damn desperate you'll take anything as a concession. More than that, you will invent a concession when none exists as you have done here.

Don't runaway, admit the truth comrade. The fact is you can't admit the truth. All you can do is what you have done. You have been dishonest. You have denied truths. You have employed a host of fallacies, and all you can do now is beat on your chest and runaway. So be it. But you need to be honest comrade. Unfortunately, honesty is becoming a scarce commodity with folks of your particular ilk.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Fact is Flynn is out of the administration.
Fact is allegations of treason are flying in all circles of influence.
Fact is that the extent of the administrations alleged treason is yet to become known.
Fact is a USA National Security adviser has been caught leaking like a sieve in a POTUS administration plagued by leaks.
Fact is we do not know what else Flynn has been telling the Russians.

Reputable sources or not the fact remains that Flynn is no longer a security threat. ( beyond what he already knows and as already shared with Putin)

 

[Russ_Watters]

Fact is allegations of treason are flying in all circles of influence.

Is that a fact? Cite an example of such an allegation from a relelevant/reputable "circle of influence".

 

[Quantum Quack]

Is that a fact? Cite an example of such an allegation from a relelevant/reputable "circle(s) of influence".

You're kidding yes... on the web there are no reputable sources.. surely you know this?
Better still it may be worth asking YOU what sources would be considered as reputable?
Video evidence comes in closest as far as I can tell... other than that... well... take your chances.

Is that a fact? Cite an example of such an allegation from a relelevant/reputable "circle(s) of influence".

Most of the political world is either talking about it or thinking about it... I am not sure how to link to Chancellor Merkel's head yet.... but I am working on it...

 

[joepistole]

The deeply disturbing issue here is that if Flynn would still be Trump's national security adviser were not for the leak of this information. Everyone should find that deeply disturbing.

 

[Quantum Quack]

worth a watch.... Senator McCain

 

[joepistole]

worth a watch.... Senator McCain

Now the battle is for an independent investigation. Republican leaders don't want an independent investigation as they would have less control over what is released to the public. Republican leadership has begrudgingly yielded to calls for an investigation, but they don't want an independent investigation.

 

[Tiassa]

Not that I have high hopes, but a moderator on a science forum should know the difference between fact and opinion - idle speculation based opinion at that!

Just out of curiosity, do you have an actual argument, or are you just trolling around for the hell of it?

 

[billvon]

You're kidding yes... on the web there are no reputable sources.. surely you know this?
Better still it may be worth asking YOU what sources would be considered as reputable?

Any that agree with him.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Just out of curiosity, do you have an actual argument, or are you just trolling around for the hell of it?

I have made a bunch of arguments and pointed out various flaws in those of others. Do you have a reply to any of them or are you just "trolling around"?