Trump's Team
- Thread starter theiioftx
- Start date
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Please tell me you realize that he's not being fired for simply talking to Russia, right? Everyone says he was well within his role talking to Russia. It's the topic of conversation that was potentially illegal but unenforceable and that Flynn was worried enough about it to lie to Pence.
You also must have missed the fairly significant news coverage from all media on Benghazi, including broadcasting the hearings live.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
First of all, her position was not a legal opinion but a political one. She failed in her job, and violated her oath of office. I will agree that rolling that EO out while this Obama holdover was acting AG was a tactical mistake by Trump (& his people) but they were correct on the law. And it's not a close call. Will you come back and face the music once all of this legal dust is settled?
Second, the issue with investigating what actually happened with Flynn (something I admit I am curious about as well) is that the people who supplied the intel will not release that information claiming nat sec. Chaffetz, of course, already knows he cannot force release of it. But, if they do try, I hope the leakers are identified. Flynn did not commit a felony -- at least no more then Jimmy Carter (post-presidency), Nancy Pelosi, Jesse Jackson or Ted Kennedy (along with treason) did. But the leaker(s) did commit a felony. Let them fry for it, or run and join Snowden in Russia.
texas_ex2000
2,500+ Posts
I'm very happy to see Flynn go. National Security Advisor is just not the job for him. You cannot lie to the Vice President. Harwood would be a major upgrade there.
That said, there's a lot to defend actually. The media is going apesh!t because he, Trump's national security advisor, had a phone conversation with the Russian Ambassador a few days before Trump took office and talked about...foreign policy.
The horror folks...the horror.
How many times do members of Congress of both parties travel all over the World on junkets to discuss foreign policy? All the time. But a phone conversation? Between a diplomat and a national security advisor? Talking about foreign policy?
HOLY F'IN SH!T
Forget pitch forks...WHERE'S MY FREAKING TRIDENT?
Last edited:
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
You mean all of those Republican appointed judges that have ruled against the order? She was actually the one that honored not only her oath of office but [mother of all ironies alert] what she told Jefferson Beauregard Sessions in HER Senate confirmation hearing...
--------------------
The prescient clip begins with Senator Jeff Sessions - President Donald Trump's pick for attorney general - saying: "You're going to have to watch out, because people will be asking you to do things that you just need to say no..."
He goes on to ask: "Do you think the attorney general has a responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that's improper...?"
Ms Yates replied: "I believe the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the president."
[/mother of all ironies alert]
Brad Austin
2,500+ Posts
I believe the overblown Flynn hysteria and unrelenting push for investigations is gonna backfire on Dems and the intelligence community.
It's pretty clear Flynn didn't commit a crime by talking foreign policy with a foreign official. He'd been doing it with countless others which is his job even before the administration took office.
Unless they have recordings of him making clear promises the sanctions will be lifted by DT, he's fine. In Flynn's last interview that doesn't sound like the case. He said the conversation surrounded the 35 Russians affected by the sanctions and told the official to allow time for the new administration to review the details. He strongly stated the only crime that took place here was the leaks.
It sounds to me when Flynn testifies and if the transcripts are viewed by the Intelligence Committee, no criminal charges will arise.
Flynn will get investigated and should get by with nothing more than public smear, and Trump certainly won't get nailed for any legal wrongdoing.
However this is just one of a series of leaks concerning classified interactions. These leaks will also be strongly investigated. Which until now nobody was bothered by them but DT and his circle. But Rep Senators are claiming they want a full investigation on the leaks. If any individual sources are uncovered, they'll be charged with a serious crime.
So Flynn likely gets cleared without being charged, Trump will be fine, but future leakers may get an example of the severe punishment if caught leaking classified interactions.
Most likely will be another net positive for DT when the dust settles. If all it took was sacrificing Flynn's contributions to spotlight and cure his leak problem, well worth it.
It's pretty clear Flynn didn't commit a crime by talking foreign policy with a foreign official. He'd been doing it with countless others which is his job even before the administration took office.
Unless they have recordings of him making clear promises the sanctions will be lifted by DT, he's fine. In Flynn's last interview that doesn't sound like the case. He said the conversation surrounded the 35 Russians affected by the sanctions and told the official to allow time for the new administration to review the details. He strongly stated the only crime that took place here was the leaks.
It sounds to me when Flynn testifies and if the transcripts are viewed by the Intelligence Committee, no criminal charges will arise.
Flynn will get investigated and should get by with nothing more than public smear, and Trump certainly won't get nailed for any legal wrongdoing.
However this is just one of a series of leaks concerning classified interactions. These leaks will also be strongly investigated. Which until now nobody was bothered by them but DT and his circle. But Rep Senators are claiming they want a full investigation on the leaks. If any individual sources are uncovered, they'll be charged with a serious crime.
So Flynn likely gets cleared without being charged, Trump will be fine, but future leakers may get an example of the severe punishment if caught leaking classified interactions.
Most likely will be another net positive for DT when the dust settles. If all it took was sacrificing Flynn's contributions to spotlight and cure his leak problem, well worth it.
Last edited:
texas_ex2000
2,500+ Posts
Leaked COMMINT on the Russian Ambassador is also the real story.
That compartment is teeny tiny.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
I am not sure who you mean
The Boston judge reversed himself, after full briefings.
The Washington judge's name was put forth by Patty "Looneytoons" Murray. And even he has not had full briefings yet, nor any evidentiary hearing at all. No one knows for sure what he would do at that point, not even him (hopefully).
1 of 3 on the 9C panel was an R-appointee, but that opinion was per curiam. But look, you want to hitch your wagon to the 9th C, by all means go ahead. It means you lose more than 3 out of every 4 appeals. I think we may see a steady stream of this for the next 4-8 years. Libs will use courts favorable to them to stop Trump (since they cannot accomplish this politically). And the SCOTUS will reverse them. It will become rinse and repeat. You may not know this, but Obama was reversed more times by a unanimous SCOTUS than any president in history. This necessarily means he was reversed by his own appointees. The take from this is that when you box them in a corner with a strong record, they will do the right thing (even if they dont want to).
As I have written about quite a bit about above, this EO will be re-formulated and re-executed (I think). As long as I am right about this then it will moot this current case. The record will then be perfected by the Govt. And then the Distr Ct and 9th Cir can do whatever they want. It will not matter at that point. So long as they do what I am suggesting here, the SCOTUS will rule unanimously in favor of the Govt (either 8-0 or 9-0) if it gets that far.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
In support of the idea in the post above, here is some audio, released by the NYT, of John Kerry meeting with different Syrian factions. Some of the things contained in those tapes are pretty amazing -- https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/30/world/middleeast/john-kerry-syria-audio.html?_r=1
The short version of all this is that it was Obama made it US policy to support ISIS. Some Rs were on board too, like McCain and Graham.
The short version of all this is that it was Obama made it US policy to support ISIS. Some Rs were on board too, like McCain and Graham.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Here is a couple stories about the Flynn thing
America's spies anonymously took down Michael Flynn. That is deeply worrying.
http://theweek.com/articles/680068/...-took-down-michael-flynn-that-deeply-worrying
The Political Assassination of Michael Flynn
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-14/the-political-assassination-of-michael-flynn
America's spies anonymously took down Michael Flynn. That is deeply worrying.
http://theweek.com/articles/680068/...-took-down-michael-flynn-that-deeply-worrying
The Political Assassination of Michael Flynn
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-14/the-political-assassination-of-michael-flynn
That comment is looking pretty silly today isn't it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...utm_term=have confirmed&ncid=newsltushpmgnews
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
Your start with a reasonable statement that I pretty much agree with. Obama's Syria policy was inconsistent, ineffective, and at times bewildering.
Then, you leap to something so absurd that I am embarrassed to have agreed with your previous statement.
Then, you leap to something so absurd that I am embarrassed to have agreed with your previous statement.
Brad Austin
2,500+ Posts
Not really. HuffPo may be your trusted source to over-dramatize this as some illegal colluding scheme. Same "Russia did it" song and dance as before.
And when investigations prove nothing illegal was done on DT's part, he'll still benefit from the leak investigations Rep Senators are about to crank in full gear.
Libs can scream DT/Russia election collaboration until the cows come home.
Nothing will come from it but smearing DT to your own base and continued denial you lost the election fair and square cuz HC is a habitual liar and criminal.
Only the Radical right is still in denial. I have no "trusted source" there are a lot of sources reporting the same thing. I don't need to smear DT, he does a remarkable job of doing that himself.
Brad Austin
2,500+ Posts
So much for your new bombshell discovery of illegal wrongdoing.
Turns out this supposed smoking gun NYT story is nothing more than a rehash of the same story circulated after the election.
All they're doing is smearing DT with old information (which produced no illegal wrongdoing) now that the Flynn ordeal brought the topic back to the forefront.
"The New York Times published a story Tuesday night claiming that there was contact between associates of Donald Trump and Russian intelligence officials during the presidential race. The story states that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has found no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign and essentially is a rehash of a previous story.
The Times story, “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence,” cites four current and former American officials saying that phone records and intercepted calls show contact between Trump campaign officials and associates of the president with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election.
Despite the bombshell headline, the story includes several caveats. The Times reporters wrote that intelligence officials have found no evidence of cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin, and that “it is not clear whether the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trump’s campaign, or Mr. Trump himself.”
You've successfully exposed yourself as a sheep blindly following wherever the MSM leads you. No worries you have plenty of Libs to keep you company outside of reality.
Turns out this supposed smoking gun NYT story is nothing more than a rehash of the same story circulated after the election.
All they're doing is smearing DT with old information (which produced no illegal wrongdoing) now that the Flynn ordeal brought the topic back to the forefront.
"The New York Times published a story Tuesday night claiming that there was contact between associates of Donald Trump and Russian intelligence officials during the presidential race. The story states that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has found no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign and essentially is a rehash of a previous story.
The Times story, “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence,” cites four current and former American officials saying that phone records and intercepted calls show contact between Trump campaign officials and associates of the president with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election.
Despite the bombshell headline, the story includes several caveats. The Times reporters wrote that intelligence officials have found no evidence of cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin, and that “it is not clear whether the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trump’s campaign, or Mr. Trump himself.”
You've successfully exposed yourself as a sheep blindly following wherever the MSM leads you. No worries you have plenty of Libs to keep you company outside of reality.
Last edited:
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Background
-- Obama gave an Aug 2014 presser saying he “did not have a strategy” against ISIS (vid below)
-- Two months later (Oct 2014), Josh Earnest told the press “Our ISIS strategy is dependent on something that does not yet exist” (vid below)
The Kerry Audio (above)
The Kerry audio is ~40m at the UN in NYC at the the Dutch Mission. It makes clear what was actually going on at the time of those statements. If you are willing to take the time to listen to the whole thing, it helps tie together the entire confusing 5-year period of Obama's middle east policy. And puts their credibility on many things in doubt.
Present were ~two dozen ‘Syrian civilians’ from US backed opposition-linked NGO’s. If you dont want to listen to the whole thing, the important parts are begin at ~2:00 and then again ~18:30-29:00.
The substance of Kerry's admissions include --
-- Obama did already have a goal-- regime change/removal of Bashir Assad. This is admitted and outlined by Secretary John Kerry.
-- To accomplish this, Obama was willing to watch ISIS rise, encouraging their success to force Assad's to bow to Obama and step down.
-- To accomplish these two goals, Obama and Kerry armed ISIS. And may have even attacked a Syrian government military convoy in order to stop a strategic attack on ISIS (and other actors there) killing 80 Syrian soldiers. [this article says 62 but I think it ending up at 80 killed
So, not only were they lying but, assuming this is accurate, it was an Act of War. Then, of course, came even more problems for the Obama/Kerry secret strategy -- while they did grow ISIS large enough to threaten Assad, the Syrians refused to give in to Obama and instead turned to Russia. The entry of Russia was enough to turn the tide against Obama's guys -- ISIS, as well as al-Qaeda and al-Nusra.
Last edited:
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
For more in depth analysis of what Kerry admitted on the tape see --https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/30/world/middleeast/john-kerry-syria-audio.html?_r=0
http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/10/...-and-shilling-for-body-bags-and-war-in-syria/
http://knowterrorists.com/john-kerrys-leaked-conversation-and-why-russia-came-in/
http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/10/...-and-shilling-for-body-bags-and-war-in-syria/
http://knowterrorists.com/john-kerrys-leaked-conversation-and-why-russia-came-in/
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Here is an account of what may have been Obama's non-approved Act of War
The WAPO suggested 60+ were killed but I think the final number ended up ~ 80
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...1ddc8a724bb_story.html?utm_term=.0d502646ef75
The WAPO suggested 60+ were killed but I think the final number ended up ~ 80
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...1ddc8a724bb_story.html?utm_term=.0d502646ef75
Last edited:
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
But, wait, there's more -- in his "Second Presidential Finding Memo" Obama authorized additional CIA covert action in Syria back in 2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/obama-secret-syria-order_n_1730712.html?tw_p=twt
At that time, the real fighters were primarily Al-Qaeda. There were others, but these were the experienced fighters. Their goal? They were not after establishing a Syrian state but rather an Islamic State.
Obama's objective was regime change first. The CIA and McCain (+other Rs) were all on board. I say this period of time was the actual origin of ISIS more than anything else you can point to. If not the actual origin, then it it when the idea of it became a reality.
Put this in light of the Kerry audio and the picture becomes more clear.
2012: WASHINGTON, Aug 1 (Reuters) – President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government, U.S. sources familiar with the matter said.
Obama’s order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence “finding,” broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad.
Obama’s order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence “finding,” broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/obama-secret-syria-order_n_1730712.html?tw_p=twt
At that time, the real fighters were primarily Al-Qaeda. There were others, but these were the experienced fighters. Their goal? They were not after establishing a Syrian state but rather an Islamic State.
Obama's objective was regime change first. The CIA and McCain (+other Rs) were all on board. I say this period of time was the actual origin of ISIS more than anything else you can point to. If not the actual origin, then it it when the idea of it became a reality.
Put this in light of the Kerry audio and the picture becomes more clear.
Last edited:
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
In 2012 there were "centrist" rebel groups. In subsequent years these groups succumbed under the pressure by ISIS and Syria/Russia.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
CNN is reporting that Republican Senate leadership has asked Trump to withdraw his Labor Secretary nomination: Andrew Puzder.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
OK, so on to all of this^ and the Republican connections ..... and the 2016 election
That picture with McCain was in Syria in 2012. At that time, he was telling everyone that these guys were the "moderates" who opposed Assad. There were some media outliers during that period casting doubts on McCain's story. These media outliers claimed al-Qaeda and al-Nusra had fully infiltrated all the Syrian resistance groups, and a new militant Islamic "network" was forming. But they were largely ignored. See from July 2012 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/30/al-qaida-rebels-battle-syria
As we all know now, that "network" became ISIS. Back in 2013-14, although the ISIS name was not fully out there, it was clear that the "extremists" were in charge with Raqqa and Aleppo as the center. Then came August 2014 when Obama finally publicly admitted what had become the ISIS problem and stated he was caught off guard and did not have a strategy to combat them.
Here is that 2012 pic again. #1 is Abu Mosa who was the ISIS Press Officer. He was killed in 2014 (I can post the pic if you want). Back in 2012, during the organizational phases, this is the kind of guy Baghdadi would have with him at such a meeting.
#5 is Mouaz Moustafa who was part of the Syrian Emergency Task Force. The SETF is primarily the political wing of ISIS. It is also connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. They are the ones who got McCain into Syria at this time.
The lower foto is in Turkey in 2014. This was a meeting to set the terms to arm certain Syrian rebel groups. The other circled guys are Adam Kinzinger and Evan McMullin.
As we know, the biggest “Never Trumper” in Congress (besides Sen Ben Sasse and Sen Jeff Flake) was Congressman Adam Kinzinger. Kinzinger went on CNN alot to trash Trump. And McMullin, of course, is ex-CIA who ran for President against Trump. But here they were back in 2014 hanging out with Moustafa.
Some video from that trip. Can actually see McMullin loitering in the background
That picture with McCain was in Syria in 2012. At that time, he was telling everyone that these guys were the "moderates" who opposed Assad. There were some media outliers during that period casting doubts on McCain's story. These media outliers claimed al-Qaeda and al-Nusra had fully infiltrated all the Syrian resistance groups, and a new militant Islamic "network" was forming. But they were largely ignored. See from July 2012 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/30/al-qaida-rebels-battle-syria
As we all know now, that "network" became ISIS. Back in 2013-14, although the ISIS name was not fully out there, it was clear that the "extremists" were in charge with Raqqa and Aleppo as the center. Then came August 2014 when Obama finally publicly admitted what had become the ISIS problem and stated he was caught off guard and did not have a strategy to combat them.
Here is that 2012 pic again. #1 is Abu Mosa who was the ISIS Press Officer. He was killed in 2014 (I can post the pic if you want). Back in 2012, during the organizational phases, this is the kind of guy Baghdadi would have with him at such a meeting.
#5 is Mouaz Moustafa who was part of the Syrian Emergency Task Force. The SETF is primarily the political wing of ISIS. It is also connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. They are the ones who got McCain into Syria at this time.
The lower foto is in Turkey in 2014. This was a meeting to set the terms to arm certain Syrian rebel groups. The other circled guys are Adam Kinzinger and Evan McMullin.
As we know, the biggest “Never Trumper” in Congress (besides Sen Ben Sasse and Sen Jeff Flake) was Congressman Adam Kinzinger. Kinzinger went on CNN alot to trash Trump. And McMullin, of course, is ex-CIA who ran for President against Trump. But here they were back in 2014 hanging out with Moustafa.
Some video from that trip. Can actually see McMullin loitering in the background
Last edited:
Recent Threads
-
PRESIDENT TRUMP ADDRESS TO CONGRESS 3/4/25
- Started by WorsterMan
- Replies: 3
- West Mall
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 705
- West Mall
