President Trump- The Implications

[TeeDub]

We have been talking about that for over a year in this country - he is setting a tone and influencing people to ridicule, disparage, and demonize various groups - from handicapped, to Muslims, to gay, to POW's!!   This clown may not have had a direct 'mentoring' from Trump, but there are at least hundreds of thousands who have and they are doing this type activity every day.  It's only a very small stretch to bring this guy in as example since so many of Trump minions are doing similar...he can be the 'poster child' of Trump Minionism.   (We already have plenty for pedophilia, breaking Federal laws, and disparaging differing groups.)

It's like when Michael Brown was shot by police in Ferguson, attention was focused on all the surrounding ill deeds done by police - even though that one event was justified.

It's okay.   I blame all black violence on Obama.   I figure that oversweeping generalizations and outright stupidity is apparently not only accepted here, but actively encouraged.

[heironymouspasparagus]

It's okay.   I blame all black violence on Obama.   I figure that oversweeping generalizations and outright stupidity is apparently not only accepted here, but actively encouraged.

Why yes...yes it is...as you can see if reviewing all the posts from the Trump minions.

[swake]

Was Fake, removed

[BKDotCom]

Just going to leave this here.

cough fake

see https://twitter.com/mflynnjr for the real Flynn Jr acct

[swake]

cough fake

see https://twitter.com/mflynnjr for the real Flynn Jr acct

Ah, ok

[heironymouspasparagus]

I appreciate it....


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/michael-flynn-lock-her-up-irony_us_5a218094e4b0a02abe90dc55

[heironymouspasparagus]

cough fake

see https://twitter.com/mflynnjr for the real Flynn Jr acct

The fake one holds the thoughts he keeps in his "happy place"....

[Conan71]

So this is a synopsis of what I read about Michael Flynn and what he did:

Flynn contacted a Russian diplomat about not reacting to Obama-era sanctions and also about not voting for a UN resolution to condemn Israel for building settlements.

This all happened in late December three to four weeks prior to Trump's inauguration.  This supposedly all is in the context of trying to prove some sort of Russian collusion resulted in an upset victory in the presidential election by Donald Trump.  Again, the dateline of Flynn's actions seems to be well after the election.

Are we to assume that all prior incoming administrations have not had some sort of diplomatic contact with other nations?

A simple Google search of the Obama team turns up that other governments were lining up to seek influence with the new administration.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/washington/14policy.html

Even before the election, senior advisers to Mr. Obama — including Anthony Lake, the former national security adviser — had been meeting with European officials, including Pierre Vimont, the French ambassador to Washington, and Nigel Sheinwald, the British ambassador, European diplomats said. British and French officials are urging the Obama team to work on tone and mood before sitting down to talk with Iran, out of concern that Mr. Obama's pledge to open talks with Iran without preconditions could lead to trouble.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/world/americas/12iht-obama.1.17750367.html

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/presidential-transitions-and-foreign-policy

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/world/americas/12iht-obama.1.17750367.html

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/jun/02/kimberley-strassel/did-obama-seek-back-channel-talks-iran-during-his-/

There were claims of back channel communications between Candidate Obama and Iran prior to the 2008 election via a former Iranian ambassador.  Of course, the former ambassador denied any knowledge of this, but he might have only been lying to reporters and not the FBI which was Flynn's big mistake.

Clearly, from reading the articles above about the 2008 transition, world leaders seek contact with the new American President-Elect.  This does not seem to be unusual and it does not seem to be unusual for the POTUS-Elect or members of his transition team to meet with or field phone calls from foreign leaders and diplomats.  I'd be willing to bet there have been plenty of conversations much like Flynn had with his Russian contact with transition teams in the past.

My point is, the media makes it sound like much skullduggery, a national security advisor being in contact with an ambassador for another country assuring them their administration will be much friendlier.  Although, this does not sound like a terribly rare occurrence.  Perhaps Flynn may have over-stepped by asking Russia to vote a certain way on an UN resolution or asking them not to retaliate over sanctions imposed by the current administration.

I do appreciate the news accounts of Obama's transition team seeming to respect that President Bush would still be the President until inauguration day and stayed away from any diplomatic commitments.  At least that is the public assertion.  We really have no idea what may or may not have gone on in phone conversations.  I think it is a safe bet that there were Reagan operatives working around the clock between his election in 1980 and inauguration in 1981 to get the hostages released.

I guess, other than lying to investigators, what really did Michael Flynn do which was terribly different than times past in administration changes?  It's not like he bilked the government out of millions or was arranging the import of kilos of cocaine or shipments of arms.  If anything, Flynn on one count was simply asking a foreign government to sit on ice for a bit longer and wanted to make sure they did not create complications for his new employer.  On the other count, he asked a representative of another nation to not vote for a UN resolution.  I don't see anything which amounts to treason.  There is perhaps some over-reach but it is beyond me why a man of principle like Michael Flynn supposedly has shown throughout his military career would even bother to lie about what was said.

This is my take anyhow.

Anyone here knows I'm no apologist for POTUS Trump, I'm simply trying to figure out why there is all this ginned up interest in what happened six weeks following the election with Michael Flynn when the whole issue supposedly has been Russian meddling in the election.

[swake]

The NYT has emails showing that interactions with Russia by Flynn were directed by the campaign. Including this one:

If there is a tit-for-tat escalation Trump will have difficulty improving relations with Russia, which has just thrown USA election to him

Email from KT McFarlin (Trump transition official, now nominated to be Ambassador to Singapore) to Thomas Bossert (campaign official, now Homeland Security Adviser) which was then forwarded on to Flynn; Reince Priebus, Steve Bannon and Sean Spicer.

The emails direct Flynn to ask the Russian Ambassador to not react to sanctions by the Obama Administration.  Which he then did and lied about to the FBI.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/us/russia-mcfarland-flynn-trump-emails.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[Red Arrow]

Anyone here knows I'm no apologist for POTUS Trump, I'm simply trying to figure out why there is all this ginned up interest in what happened six weeks following the election with Michael Flynn when the whole issue supposedly has been Russian meddling in the election.

Sour grapes seems appropriate.

[Conan71]

The NYT has emails showing that interactions with Russia by Flynn were directed by the campaign. Including this one:

Email from KT McFarlin (Trump transition official, now nominated to be Ambassador to Singapore) to Thomas Bossert (campaign official, now Homeland Security Adviser) which was then forwarded on to Flynn; Reince Priebus, Steve Bannon and Sean Spicer.

The emails direct Flynn to ask the Russian Ambassador to not react to sanctions by the Obama Administration.  Which he then did and lied about to the FBI.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/us/russia-mcfarland-flynn-trump-emails.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

The article states though that McFarlin's statement in the email isn't clear if she had some sort of innate knowledge of meddling or if it was simply spoofing the Democrat's strongly-held belief that the Russians threw the election.

As far as why Flynn lied, it still baffles me.  At worst, from this article, his contacts with the Russian ambassador were violating a "request" from the Obama Administration.  He wasn't breaking any laws as far as I can tell.  He didn't break a law until he lied to the FBI investigators.  The only thing I can think is he assumed he was in some sort of trouble or violated a law he was not previously aware of or was afraid of reprisals from Obama who had previously fired him. 

Ostensibly, Trump fired Flynn for lying to Pence and others, but the FBI wasn't involved until key members of the Trump Administration figured they'd been lied to.  Why lie to them if he was a supposed insider to these election shenanigans?  Sounds like maybe Flynn is a bit like this guy:



Again, we are talking about actions which occurred Dec. 22nd and Dec. 29th of last year, six weeks after the election.

It's going to take a really long reach-around to tie this to election meddling and eventually end up in the impeachment of Trump and his removal from office.

Looks like weak sauce to me and getting beyond bizarre.

[Hoss]

There is that pesky 'obstruction of justice' looming though.

[Conan71]

There is that pesky 'obstruction of justice' looming though.

That's remote but possible.  But how are you going to get an impeachment or removal from office with a GOP majority?

[erfalf]

There is that pesky 'obstruction of justice' looming though.

Is it still considered obstruction of justice if the resulting investigation finds no wrong doing?

Conan hit on a point I have been pondering all along. All the discussion surrounding Flynn indicates he was being instructed to initiate contact with Russians. What is the need for this for an incoming administration that purportedly has been working hand in hand with the Russians for months on end? It doesn't add up.

[swake]

Is it still considered obstruction of justice if the resulting investigation finds no wrong doing?

No crime is required for obstruction.

However, not only is there definitely wrong doing related to the obstruction in this case, there's now a guilty plea. Remember? Trump asked Comey to stop the Flynn investigation and then fired Comey when he didn't. Flynn has now pled guilty as part of the investigation. There's a reason that charge was the one that was kept. It seals the obstruction charge and links it to a conviction.

And Trump was stupid enough today to Tweet he had to fire Flynn because he lied to the FBI, which means he knew there was a crime when he asked Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn.