Will Flynn bring back Yellowcake to WH Menu after 1-21-17?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Will Flynn bring back Yellowcake to WH Menu after 1-21-1

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Feb 08, 2017 8:14 am

The U.S. Is Playing With Fire on Iran

Posted on Feb 7, 2017

By Scott Ritter



National security adviser Michael Flynn “putting Iran on notice” last week. (Screen shot via Politico)

Last Wednesday, national security adviser Michael Flynn appeared in the White House briefing room to issue a statement. He singled out what he characterized as Iran’s “destabilizing behavior across the Middle East,” including “a provocative ballistic missile launch” that was, in his opinion, done “in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231,” which was passed July 20, 2015. UNSCR 2231 endorsed the Joint Comprehensive Program of Action (JCPOA), as the nuclear deal among Iran, the United States, Russia, China and the European Union is officially known. “As of today,” Flynn darkly declared, “we are officially putting Iran on notice.”

The Iranian test, which involved a Khorramshahr medium-range missile, took place three days earlier, on Jan. 29. After flying roughly 630 miles, the missile exploded in midair in what appeared to be a failed test of a re-entry vehicle. As Flynn noted in his statement, the Security Council had, in its Resolution 2231, “called upon” Iran “not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology.”

Iran maintains that its missile test was not in violation of any Security Council resolution, saying that it has no nuclear weapons program, its missiles are designed as conventional weapons only and it has a legitimate interest in self-defense, inclusive of the right to test and deploy ballistic missiles. Ali Akbar Velayati, a former foreign minister and current policy adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, dismissed Flynn’s statement as “baseless ranting.”

Legally, Iran has the stronger position. Although a previous U.N. resolution, UNSCR 1929, passed in 2010, directed “that Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles,” that resolution was terminated as a result of the ground-breaking nuclear deal. It was replaced by the resolution cited by Flynn. The later resolution, UNSCR 2231, only calls upon Iran not to test missiles, a far less stringent standard that falls short of an outright prohibition on missile testing. While the Obama administration, when negotiating the JCPOA, had opposed watering down of the language, Russia, China and Europe disagreed, and the new verbiage was approved.

But neither legality nor reality seems to be a defining feature in the worldview of the Trump administration. “Iran is playing with fire,” President Trump tweeted after the Iranian test. “They don’t appreciate how kind President Obama was to them. Not me!” Shortly after the newly inaugurated president’s tweet, the Treasury Department announced new sanctions against Iran for its “continued support for terrorism and development of its ballistic missile program.” After the sanctions were announced, Flynn issued a follow-on statement: “The days of turning a blind eye to Iran’s hostile and belligerent actions toward the United States and the world community are over.”

The charges supporting the Trump administration’s justification for sanctioning Iran, however, are factually and intellectually unsustainable. While there is no arguing that Iran’s behavior during the early years of the Islamic Republic’s existence justified it being labeled as a sponsor of state terrorism, the same cannot be said of its policies since 2001. Iran was quick to condemn the 9/11 terror attack on the United States and played a role in supporting American actions against the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Iran’s overt and covert actions in opposing what it viewed as an unjust and illegal occupation of Iraq by the United States are often cited by those opposed to the theocracy in Tehran as proof of the ongoing legitimacy of the “terrorist” label. Viewed broadly, however, the Iranian policies toward Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 are part and parcel of a coherent approach to opposing the very Sunni-based Islamic fundamentalism that motivated the 9/11 terror attacks and continue to drive al-Qaida, Islamic State and other Islamic extremist elements around the world today, a fundamentalism against which the United States wages its “global war on terror.” Iran is helping lead the fight against Islamic State in both Iraq and Syria and is a sworn enemy of al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Yemen. Seen in this context, Iran is more ally than foe, and the label “state sponsor of terror” appears trivial and inappropriate—especially when viewed beside the policies of erstwhile America allies such as Saudi Arabia, whose citizens constituted the majority of the 9/11 attackers and which is responsible for underwriting the financial and material support of Islamic extremists around the world, including Islamic State and al-Qaida.

When asked about the range of responses his administration might consider in dealing with a recalcitrant Iran, Trump replied, “Nothing is off the table,” implying a military option. Any military action against Iran, however, void of just cause and proper preparation and planning, would be foolish and counterproductive to U.S. national security objectives in the Middle East and around the world. It would also be near suicidal for U.S. forces deployed in the region.

An American military strike against Iran based upon continued testing of ballistic missiles would most likely trigger a response from Tehran that would neither be limited nor readily containable. American forces in Syria and Iraq that are currently focused on defeating Islamic State could be put at genuine risk from the thousands of Iranian troops and pro-Iranian proxies operating in their vicinity. Moreover, any military action against Iran could draw both Israel and Russia into the fight (and not necessarily on the same side) while alienating European allies and creating levels of uncertainty that neither the American military nor foreign service is prepared to deal with.

Trump committed to a strong anti-Iranian stance during his campaign, promising to do away with the “bad deal” that was the JCPOA. While more pragmatic minds seem to have convinced the new president that it would not be in America’s best interests to unilaterally withdraw from the nuclear deal with Iran, the words and actions of the Trump administration seem to indicate a willingness to foment a crisis with the theocracy in Tehran. This is not sound policy.

In May of this year, Iran will hold elections for the office of president. The incumbent, Hassan Rouhani, has proved to be a moderating influence on the more conservative elements inside Iran—he was singularly responsible for Iran’s willingness to negotiate a nuclear deal that many inside Iran opposed. Rouhani’s re-election is not a foregone conclusion; indeed, the recent death of his long-time mentor and ally, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, has substantially weakened the position of the Iranian president in the face of strong conservative opposition to his policies, further complicating any re-election bid by the incumbent.

Iran under Rouhani has shown itself more than capable of navigating difficult diplomatic waters made even more treacherous by inconsistent and often hostile American policy. A conservative Iranian president would not necessarily be able, or willing, to do the same. If the goal of the Trump administration is to do away with the Iranian nuclear deal, there is no more certain path to that outcome than the election of a conservative successor to President Rouhani. Such an outcome would be disastrous for Iran, the United States and the rest of the world. While the decision as to who will govern as president of Iran is ultimately one that the people of Iran, through their constitutionally mandated processes, will decide, there seems to be a lack of recognition within the Trump team as to the ramifications of the administration’s words and actions when it comes to shaping events involving Iran and other countries.

The Trump administration’s foray into Iran policy—courtesy of Michael Flynn’s statement—seemed to have been driven by a national security adviser flying solo; Secretary of Defense James Mattis was in Asia and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was not yet confirmed. One can only hope that Trump will, in the future, rely more on the advice of such senior Cabinet officials when it comes to issues with the complexity and magnitude of Iran, and less on the inflammatory words of Flynn. Military conflict with Iran is not desirable policy. Playing with fire is one thing, getting burned another—especially when it is the United States holding the match.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the ... n_20170207
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Will Flynn bring back Yellowcake to WH Menu after 1-21-1

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Feb 09, 2017 11:03 pm

Gen. YellowKerc

National security adviser Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials say

National security adviser Michael Flynn, shown in the daily White House news briefing on Feb. 1, had denied discussing sanctions with Russia’s ambassador, but backed away from that denial on Thursday. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
By Greg Miller, Adam Entous and Ellen Nakashima February 9 at 9:26 PM
National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former U.S. officials said.

Flynn’s communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were interpreted by some senior U.S. officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions that were being imposed by the Obama administration in late December to punish Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 election.

Flynn on Wednesday denied that he had discussed sanctions with Kislyak. Asked in an interview whether he had ever done so, he twice said, “No.”

On Thursday, Flynn, through his spokesman, backed away from the denial. The spokesman said Flynn “indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up.”

Officials said this week that the FBI is continuing to examine Flynn’s communications with Kislyak. Several officials emphasized that while sanctions were discussed, they did not see evidence that Flynn had an intent to convey an explicit promise to take action after the inauguration.

Flynn’s contacts with the ambassador attracted attention within the Obama administration because of the timing. U.S. intelligence agencies were then concluding that Russia had waged a cyber campaign designed in part to help elect Trump; his senior adviser on national security matters was discussing the potential consequences for Moscow, officials said.

The talks were part of a series of contacts between Flynn and Kislyak that began before the Nov. 8 election and continued during the transition, officials said. In a recent interview, Kislyak confirmed that he had communicated with Flynn by text message, by phone and in person, but declined to say whether they had discussed sanctions.

The emerging details contradict public statements by incoming senior administration officials including Mike Pence, then the vice president-elect. They acknowledged only a handful of text messages and calls exchanged between Flynn and Kislyak late last year and denied that either ever raised the subject of sanctions.

“They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia,” Pence said in an interview with CBS News last month, noting that he had spoken with Flynn about the matter. Pence also made a more sweeping assertion, saying there had been no contact between members of Trump’s team and Russia during the campaign. To suggest otherwise, he said, “is to give credence to some of these bizarre rumors that have swirled around the candidacy.”

Neither of those assertions is consistent with the fuller account of Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak provided by officials who had access to reports from U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies that routinely monitor the communications of Russian diplomats. Nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

All of those officials said ­Flynn’s references to the election-related sanctions were explicit. Two of those officials went further, saying that Flynn urged Russia not to overreact to the penalties being imposed by President Barack Obama, making clear that the two sides would be in position to review the matter after Trump was sworn in as president.

“Kislyak was left with the impression that the sanctions would be revisited at a later time,” said a former official.

A third official put it more bluntly, saying that either Flynn had misled Pence or that Pence misspoke. A spokesman for Pence did not respond to a request for comment. The sanctions in question have so far remained in place.

The nature of Flynn’s pre-
inauguration message to Kislyak triggered debate among officials in the Obama administration and intelligence agencies over whether Flynn had violated a law against unauthorized citizens interfering in U.S. disputes with foreign governments, according to officials familiar with that debate. Those officials were already alarmed by what they saw as a Russian assault on the U.S. election.

U.S. officials said that seeking to build such a case against Flynn would be daunting. The law against U.S. citizens interfering in foreign diplomacy, known as the Logan Act, stems from a 1799 statute that has never been prosecuted. As a result, there is no case history to help guide authorities on when to proceed or how to secure a conviction.

Officials also cited political sensitivities. Prominent Americans in and out of government are so frequently in communication with foreign officials that singling out one individual — particularly one poised for a top White House job — would invite charges of political persecution.

Former U.S. officials also said aggressive enforcement would probably discourage appropriate contact. Michael McFaul, who served as U.S. ambassador to Russia during the Obama administration, said that he was in Moscow meeting with officials in the weeks leading up to Obama’s 2008 election win.

“As a former diplomat and U.S. government official, one needs to be able to have contact with foreigners to do one’s job,” McFaul said. McFaul, a Russia scholar, said he was careful never to signal pending policy changes before Obama took office.

On Wednesday, Flynn said that he first met Kislyak in 2013 when Flynn was director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and made a trip to Moscow. Kislyak helped coordinate that trip, Flynn said.

Flynn said that he spoke to Kislyak on a range of subjects in late December, including arranging a call between Putin and Trump after the inauguration and expressing his condolences after Russia’s ambassador to Turkey was assassinated. “I called to say I couldn’t believe the murder of their ambassador,” Flynn said. Asked whether there was any mention of sanctions in his communications with Kislyak, Flynn said, “No.”

Kislyak characterized his conversations with Flynn as benign during a brief interview at a conference this month. “It’s something all diplomats do,” he said.

Kislyak said that he had been in contact with Flynn since before the election, but declined to answer questions about the subjects they discussed. Kislyak is known for his assiduous cultivation of high-level officials in Washington and was seated in the front row of then-GOP candidate Trump’s first major foreign policy speech in April of last year. The ambassador would not discuss the origin of his relationship with Flynn.

In his CBS interview, Pence said that Flynn had “been in touch with diplomatic leaders, security leaders in some 30 countries. That’s exactly what the incoming national security adviser should do.”

Official concern about Flynn’s interactions with Kislyak was heightened when Putin declared on Dec. 30 that Moscow would not retaliate after the Obama administration announced a day earlier the expulsion of 35 suspected Russian spies and the forced closure of Russian-owned compounds in Maryland and New York.

Instead, Putin said he would focus on “the restoration of ­Russia-United States relations” after Obama left office, and put off considering any retaliatory measures until Moscow had a chance to evaluate Trump’s policies.

Trump responded with effusive praise for Putin. “Great move on the delay,” he said in a posting to his Twitter account. “I always knew he was very smart.”

Putin’s reaction cut against a long practice of reciprocation on diplomatic expulsions, and came after his foreign minister had vowed that there would be reprisals against the United States.

Putin’s muted response — which took White House officials by surprise — raised some officials’ suspicions that Moscow may have been promised a reprieve, and triggered a search by U.S. spy agencies for clues.

“Something happened in those 24 hours” between Obama’s announcement and Putin’s response, a former senior U.S. official said. Officials began poring over intelligence reports, intercepted communications and diplomatic cables, and saw evidence that Flynn and Kislyak had communicated by text and telephone around the time of the announcement.

Trump transition officials acknowledged those contacts weeks later after they were reported in The Washington Post but denied that sanctions were discussed. Trump press secretary Sean Spicer said Jan. 13 that Flynn had “reached out to” the Russian ambassador on Christmas Day to extend holiday greetings. On Dec. 28, as word of the Obama sanctions spread, Kislyak sent a message to Flynn requesting a call. “Flynn took that call,” Spicer said, adding that it “centered on the logistics of setting up a call with the president of Russia and [Trump] after the election.”

Other officials were categorical. “I can tell you that during his call, sanctions were not discussed whatsoever,” a senior transition official told The Post at the time. When Pence faced questions on television that weekend, he said “those conversations that happened to occur around the time that the United States took action to expel diplomats had nothing whatsoever to do with those sanctions.”

Current and former U.S. officials said that assertion was not true.

Like Trump, Flynn has shown an affinity for Russia that is at odds with the views of most of his military and intelligence peers. Flynn raised eyebrows in 2015 when he appeared in photographs seated next to Putin at a lavish party in Moscow for the Kremlin-controlled RT television network.

In an earlier interview with The Post, Flynn acknowledged that he had been paid through his speakers bureau to give a speech at the event and defended his attendance by saying he saw no distinction between RT and U.S. news channels, including CNN.

A retired U.S. Army lieutenant general, Flynn served multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks — tours in which he held a series of high-level intelligence assignments working with U.S. Special Operations forces hunting al-Qaeda operatives and Islamist militants.

Former colleagues said that narrow focus led Flynn to see the threat posed by Islamist groups as overwhelming other security concerns, including Russia’s renewed aggression. Instead, Flynn came to see America’s long-standing adversary as a potential ally against terrorist groups, and himself as being in a unique position to forge closer ties after traveling to Moscow in 2013 while serving as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Flynn has frequently boasted that he was the first DIA director to be invited into the headquarters of Russia’s military intelligence directorate, known as the GRU, although at least one of his predecessors was granted similar access. “Flynn thought he developed some rapport with the GRU chief,” a former senior U.S. military official said.

U.S. intelligence agencies say they have tied the GRU to Russia’s theft of troves of email messages from Democratic Party computer networks and accuse Moscow of then delivering those materials to the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks, which published them in phases during the campaign to hurt Hillary Clinton, Trump’s Democratic rival.

Flynn was pushed out of the DIA job in 2014 amid concerns about his management of the sprawling agency. He became a fierce critic of the Obama administration before joining the Trump campaign last year.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 3c88161413
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Will Flynn bring back Yellowcake to WH Menu after 1-21-1

Postby tapitsbo » Fri Feb 10, 2017 12:55 am

Judging by actions as opposed to rhetoric, the Trump administration is so far somewhat more hostile to and at odds with Iran's enemies in Syria and Yemen than the Obama admin...
tapitsbo
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Will Flynn bring back Yellowcake to WH Menu after 1-21-1

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Feb 10, 2017 12:53 pm

poor Gen. YellowKekc isn't going to be able to bake that Kekc after all ...someone is leaking too much shit about him..I wonder who that might be :P

maybe we will not get bad intel to go to war with Iran after all...too bad Ledeen


Is it too much to ask for investigation into whether Pence lied to the American people?

Bombshell Report Suggests Trump's National Security Adviser Is Dishonest and a Threat to US Policy

He also may not be very bright.

DAVID CORN
FEB. 10, 2017 9:58 AM


Carlos Barria/Reuters/ZUMA
The Trump-Russia scandal has so far resided in the territory between smoke and fire. Donald Trump associates have reportedly been investigated for interactions with Russia, but the FBI has not released information on these contacts. Trump has pushed an America First policy, but he has curiously denied or downplayed the US intelligence conclusion that Vladimir Putin mounted an extensive covert campaign to subvert the 2016 election to benefit Trump and instead has cultivated an odd bromance with the Russian autocrat. A series of memos written by a former counterintelligence officer contained allegations that Russian intelligence had spent years cultivating or co-opting Trump and gathering compromising information on him and that the Trump camp had colluded with Russians, but the specifics have not been confirmed.

Yet now one piece of the Trump-Russia puzzle has been clearly depicted: Trump's national security adviser was in cahoots with Russia to undermine the US government's effort to punish Moscow for hacking the US election—and he apparently lied about it. If Trump does not fire him—and if Washington's political-media complex (including Republicans) does not go ballistic over this revelation—then the Putinization of America has taken another big step forward.

On Thursday night, after a long and wild day of Trump news (Trump attacking Sen. John McCain, Kellyanne Conway seemingly breaking the law, an appeals court ruling against Trump's Muslim travel ban, and much more), the Washington Post dropped a bomb: a thoroughly reported article with the headline "National security adviser Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials say." It began:

National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country's ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former U.S. officials said.

Flynn's communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were interpreted by some senior U.S. officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions that were being imposed by the Obama administration in late December to punish Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 election.

Here was Flynn working against US policy—against steps President Barack Obama had ordered in response to Putin's meddling in the US election. He was in essence telling Moscow not to fret over these sanctions and that Russia would be rewarded once Trump moved into the White House. He was explicitly aiding the enemy that had attacked US democracy.

This move was in sync with the approach taken by Trump, who has refused to criticize Russia for intervening in the election. After Trump's first call with Putin as president, the White House accounts of the call contained no indication that Trump had even raised the subject.

Moreover, the Post story—which was based on interviews with nine current or former officials at security and law enforcement agencies—suggests that Flynn is not honest and not smart.

Since the news first broke weeks ago that Flynn had talked with Kislyak in December, Flynn and the White House have denied that sanctions were discussed. White House press secretary Sean Spicer insisted Flynn's conversation with Kislyak was about more mundane matters, such as conveying holiday greetings and setting up a post-inauguration call between Trump and Putin. In an interview with CBS News last month, Vice President Mike Pence asserted, "They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States' decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia." Pence noted that he had spoken to Flynn about this. If so, it would seem that Flynn lied to him.

The Post reports there is no ambiguity about Flynn's conversation with the Russian ambassador:

All of those officials said ­Flynn's references to the election-related sanctions were explicit. Two of those officials went further, saying that Flynn urged Russia not to overreact to the penalties being imposed by President Barack Obama, making clear that the two sides would be in position to review the matter after Trump was sworn in as president.

"Kislyak was left with the impression that the sanctions would be revisited at a later time," said a former official.

A third official put it more bluntly, saying that either Flynn had misled Pence or that Pence misspoke. An administration official stressed that Pence made his comments based on his conversation with Flynn. The sanctions in question have so far remained in place.

Which brings us to the not-very-smart part of this story. How do all these officials know what was really said between Flynn and the Russian? US intelligence routinely conducts surveillance aimed at Russian diplomats and monitors their communications. The Post story clearly indicates that Flynn's conversation with Kislyak was intercepted and that a transcript of it has been passed throughout the intelligence community. Flynn, of course, should have been aware that any discussion he had with the Russian ambassador was vulnerable to surveillance. After all, not too long ago he was head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

This is a scandal. A big scandal. Republicans and Democrats should be screaming for investigations and public hearings.
This makes Flynn's behavior dumb on two counts. First, he should not have explicitly discussed undermining US policy with Kislyak, for he ought to have realized this conversation would be picked up by US intelligence. Second, he should not have told Pence and others that sanctions had not been covered in the conversation, for he should have known there was evidence of what had actually transpired during his chat.

On Wednesday, Flynn denied to the Post that he had discussed the sanctions with Kislyak. The next day, the paper reports, "Flynn, through his spokesman, backed away from the denial. The spokesman said Flynn 'indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn't be certain that the topic never came up.'" So he has shifted from an emphatic denial to weasel words. The FBI, according to the paper, is continuing to investigate, though it's unclear if any laws were broken. The Logan Act of 1799 does prohibit US citizens from meddling in US foreign policy matters, but it has never been successfully applied.

Flynn's conversation with Kislyak, it turns out, was part of a series of contacts. And this, too, is suspicious, given Flynn's history of interactions with the Putin regime. In December 2015, he was paid by RT, the English-language propaganda arm of Moscow, to attend a gala, where he sat at a table with Putin. (Flynn has steadfastly refused to say how much he pocketed for this appearance.) The Russian ambassador told the Post that he had been communicating with Flynn since before the election, but he declined to say what they had discussed. Oddly, he would not reveal the origin of his relationship with Flynn.

Last month, Pence declared there had been no contact between the Trump campaign and Russia. "Of course not," he said. "Why would there be any contact between the campaign? This is all a distraction, and it's all part of a narrative to delegitimatize the election and to question the legitimacy of [Trump's] presidency." But when Flynn was talking to Kislyak prior to the election, he was a senior campaign aide and surrogate for Trump. Pence was peddling a falsehood. And this raises the question: Why was Trump's top national security aide talking to Russia while Moscow was attacking the US election to help Trump? What was he signaling to Moscow? What was he being told?

This is a scandal. A real scandal. A big scandal. Republicans and Democrats should be screaming for investigations and public hearings. (Yesterday, House Democrats did resort to a little-used legislative tool to force a debate on both Trump's conflicts of interest and the possible ties between his inner circle and Russia.) And Flynn should be booted. The evidence is strong that he lied and that he cozied up to Moscow while it was assaulting American democracy. Worse, for a supposed national security maven, he acted in a stupid manner and practiced awful tradecraft. Placing the nation's security in his hands of a dishonest and reckless fellow is risky business.

The Trump-Russia story has faded in recent days, in the midst of other Trump chaos. But if this Flynn news does not cause a firestorm—and threaten Flynn's position—then something is very rotten in the nation's capital
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... ost-russia


New Russia revelations pose new problems for Trump’s NSA
02/10/17 09:22 AM
By Steve Benen
Michael Flynn, Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor, has maintained close ties to Moscow in recent years, even getting paid by the Kremlin’s propaganda outlet. It therefore caused quite a stir a month ago, when the Washington Post noted that Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak “several times” on Dec. 29, one day after President Obama retaliated against Russia for its role in the election hacking scandal.

The question, of course, was why Flynn made those calls. If he tried to undermine U.S. sanctions, for example, urging Russia not to retaliate because the Trump administration would pursue a more favorable policy, the communications may have been illegal under the Logan Act.

Team Trump said these were routine and uncontroversial calls, and Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters Flynn and Kislyak merely spoke to coordinate upcoming conversations between the American and Russian presidents. As the Washington Post reported overnight, the White House’s denials may have been false.
National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former U.S. officials said.

Flynn’s communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were interpreted by some senior U.S. officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions that were being imposed by the Obama administration in late December to punish Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 election.
As recently as Wednesday, Flynn insisted, on the record, that he did not discuss sanctions with the Russian ambassador. Yesterday, however, the White House national security advisor said though a spokesperson that Flynn “indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up.”

And that not-so-subtle shift has the potential to be a very serious problem.

There are a few angles to keep in mind here. The first is that it’s illegal for a private citizen to undermine U.S. foreign policy, and at the time of Flynn’s phone calls to Moscow, Trump was still president-elect and Flynn held no public office. If he offered Russia reassurances about U.S. sanctions, the day after Obama’s actions, Flynn may need a good lawyer.

The second point to keep in mind is that the White House may have just spent a month giving the public false information about Flynn’s actions. Vice President Mike Pence, in particular, insisted in no uncertain terms during a Jan. 15 interview on CBS that Flynn “did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia.”

Now, it’s possible that Pence believed what he was saying, and was simply misled by Flynn, but if that’s the case, Flynn’s ouster is inevitable. If, on the other hand, Pence was lying and trying to cover up Flynn’s alleged misdeeds, the vice president might need a good lawyer, too.

And finally, let’s not overlook the fact that many of these questions have knowable answers. The New York Times’ report on this added, “Federal officials who have read the transcript of the call were surprised by Mr. Flynn’s comments, since he would have known that American eavesdroppers closely monitor such calls. They were even more surprised that Mr. Trump’s team publicly denied that the topics of conversation included sanctions.”

This isn’t the only scandal surrounding Flynn, but it’s the one most likely to cost him his job.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... trumps-nsa



National Security Adviser Michael Flynn Under Fire For Reported Phone Call With Russian Ambassador
The reports come after he and White House officials repeatedly denied he’d discussed sanctions with the Russian official.
02/10/2017 01:34 pm ET | Updated 35 minutes ago

Sam Levine
Associate Politics Editor, The Huffington Post
X

Democrats on Friday began calling for the removal of Michael Flynn, Donald Trump’s national security adviser, over reports he discussed sanctions and cooperation with Russia’s ambassador to the United States before President Donald Trump was sworn in to office.

Top Trump officials, including Vice President Mike Pence, said last month that Flynn and Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, talked simply to arrange a phone call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Trump. But according to a report published in The Washington Post Thursday, Flynn told the ambassador that Trump would ease sanctions on the country once he took office. At the time of Flynn’s call, former President Barack Obama was about to impose new sanctions on Russia for interfering in the November presidential election. The sanctions were imposed after intelligence officials concluded that Russia had interfered, with the goal of boosting Trump’s chances of winning. Officials told The New York Times that Flynn did not explicitly promise sanctions relief, but there was the suggestion that it would be possible.

Flynn initially denied to the Post that he had ever discussed sanctions with Kislyak, but a spokesman later backtracked, saying Flynn simply had “no recollection” of whether they were discussed.

Last month, Pence said that Flynn and Kislyak “did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia.” An official on Friday told the Post that Pence made the comments based on conversations with Flynn. Pence aides also expressed frustration to Politico over the situation Flynn had put their boss in.

Such a conversation could place Flynn in violation of the Logan Act, which bars private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, said that if the report is true, Flynn should be fired.

“If he did so, and then he and other Administration officials misled the American people, his conduct would be all the more pernicious and he should no longer serve in this Administration or any other,” Schiff said in a statement.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, also said he was troubled by the reported actions.



Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) said the White House should suspend Flynn while it investigated.


Rep. Eliot Engel (D.N.Y.), the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs committee, also called on Flynn to be fired.

The details of Flynn’s conversation last month are the latest in a series of unflattering leaks about him. Last month, people close to Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, described Flynn to the New York Times as a bad leader. The Times also reported that Trump felt Flynn talked too much, and Trump ordered his team to remove Flynn’s son from the transition team after the younger Flynn tweeted an untrue conspiracy theory.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mik ... f370d6014e
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Will Flynn bring back Yellowcake to WH Menu after 1-21-1

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Feb 10, 2017 10:37 pm

Trump Will ‘Look Into’ Reports That Flynn Discussed Sanctions With Russia
By MATTHEW ROSENBERG and GLENN THRUSHFEB. 10, 2017

Michael T. Flynn, the national security adviser, left, on Friday. The White House has denied publicly that Mr. Flynn and a Russian ambassador had discussed sanctions that the Obama administration had imposed on Russia. Credit Al Drago/The New York Times
President Trump said he plans to “look into” reports that his national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, discussed sanctions in his pre-inauguration conversations with Russia’s ambassador to the United States and possibly misled administration officials about it.

“I don’t know about that. I haven’t seen it,” said Mr. Trump, speaking to reporters on Air Force One late Friday, during a flight to Florida from Washington. Several news outlets reported on Thursday that Mr. Flynn and Ambassador Sergei I. Kislyak had discussed sanctions that the Obama administration had imposed on Russia.

The White House has denied publicly that the two men discussed sanctions.

Even as Mr. Trump professed his lack of knowledge of the episode, administration officials were scrambling to contain the fallout of the latest revelations about the embattled former three-star general, who has been criticized internally for his judgment and for staffing the National Security Council with military officers instead of trained civilian personnel.

Perhaps a bigger concern for Mr. Flynn is his relationship with Vice President Mike Pence, who sometimes has had to defend him in public.

According to two administration officials, Mr. Flynn told Mr. Pence in January that he had only exchanged pleasantries with Mr. Kislyak during a phone call in December and denied discussing sanctions with him. Mr. Pence repeated Mr. Flynn’s account during a television appearance.

The president still confers daily with Mr. Flynn, one of the few former military leaders to support him during the campaign.

But three weeks into Mr. Trump’s presidency, Mr. Flynn’s role on national security matters has been challenged by other West Wing power players — including the president’s chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, and Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who have both taken expansive roles shaping foreign and defense policy.

Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, questioned on Friday whether Mr. Flynn should be allowed to stay in his job.

The allegation that Mr. Flynn spoke about sanctions relief with the Russian ambassador “raises serious questions of legality and fitness for office,” Mr. Schiff said in a statement. “If he did so, and then he and other administration officials misled the American people, his conduct would be all the more pernicious, and he should no longer serve in this administration or any other.”

Two Democratic senators on Friday renewed their calls for a review of Mr. Flynn’s security clearance, citing the reports of the December call.

“This disclosure highlights just one in a series of decisions made by Flynn both during his military service and as a private citizen that give rise to questions concerning his suitability for continued access to classified information,” the senators, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, said in a letter to Jim Mattis, the secretary of defense, and Mike Pompeo, the director of the C.I.A.

The senators first questioned whether Mr. Flynn should be allowed to hold a clearance in a separate letter sent in December. That letter focused on past investigations into allegations that Mr. Flynn leaked classified information, and potential conflicts presented by a private intelligence firm that he started after being forced out as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014.

Republicans in Congress have remained largely silent on the matter, and have said they see little gain in openly criticizing Mr. Flynn. Some believe he will ultimately stumble hard enough that he will be forced out of the job.

The accounts of Mr. Flynn’s contacts with the Russian ambassador added to the questions about connections between people close to Mr. Trump and Russia. American counterintelligence officials are already known to be investigating at least three of the president’s aides: Paul Manafort, his former campaign chairman; Carter Page, a businessman and former foreign policy adviser; and Roger Stone, a longtime Republican operative.

Those investigations are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad inquiry into possible links between Russian officials and associates of Mr. Trump.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/us/p ... .html?_r=0


The talks were part of a series of contacts between Flynn and Kislyak that began before the Nov. 8 election and continued during the transition, officials said. In a recent interview, Kislyak confirmed that he had communicated with Flynn by text message, by phone and in person, but declined to say whether they had discussed sanctions.

National security adviser Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials say
Flynn spoke with Russia’s ambassador about sanctions during presidential transition Play Video2:28
The Post’s Adam Entous reports that national security adviser Michael Flynn’s conversations with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. during the transition of power included discussion of sanctions. (Video: Bastien Inzaurralde/Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
By Greg Miller, Adam Entous and Ellen Nakashima February 9 at 11:25 PM
National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former U.S. officials said.

Flynn’s communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were interpreted by some senior U.S. officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions that were being imposed by the Obama administration in late December to punish Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 election.

Flynn on Wednesday denied that he had discussed sanctions with Kislyak. Asked in an interview whether he had ever done so, he twice said, “No.”

On Thursday, Flynn, through his spokesman, backed away from the denial. The spokesman said Flynn “indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up.”

Officials said this week that the FBI is continuing to examine Flynn’s communications with Kislyak. Several officials emphasized that while sanctions were discussed, they did not see evidence that Flynn had an intent to convey an explicit promise to take action after the inauguration.

President-elect Donald Trump named retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn his national security adviser on Nov. 18, but Flynn has a history of making incendiary and Islamophobic statements that have drawn criticism from his military peers. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)
Flynn’s contacts with the ambassador attracted attention within the Obama administration because of the timing. U.S. intelligence agencies were then concluding that Russia had waged a cyber campaign designed in part to help elect Trump; his senior adviser on national security matters was discussing the potential consequences for Moscow, officials said.

[FBI reviewed Flynn’s calls with Russian ambassador but found nothing illicit]

The talks were part of a series of contacts between Flynn and Kislyak that began before the Nov. 8 election and continued during the transition, officials said. In a recent interview, Kislyak confirmed that he had communicated with Flynn by text message, by phone and in person, but declined to say whether they had discussed sanctions.

The emerging details contradict public statements by incoming senior administration officials including Mike Pence, then the vice president-elect. They acknowledged only a handful of text messages and calls exchanged between Flynn and Kislyak late last year and denied that either ever raised the subject of sanctions.

“They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia,” Pence said in an interview with CBS News last month, noting that he had spoken with Flynn about the matter. Pence also made a more sweeping assertion, saying there had been no contact between members of Trump’s team and Russia during the campaign. To suggest otherwise, he said, “is to give credence to some of these bizarre rumors that have swirled around the candidacy.”

Neither of those assertions is consistent with the fuller account of Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak provided by officials who had access to reports from U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies that routinely monitor the communications of Russian diplomats. Nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

All of those officials said ­Flynn’s references to the election-related sanctions were explicit. Two of those officials went further, saying that Flynn urged Russia not to overreact to the penalties being imposed by President Barack Obama, making clear that the two sides would be in position to review the matter after Trump was sworn in as president.

“Kislyak was left with the impression that the sanctions would be revisited at a later time,” said a former official.

A third official put it more bluntly, saying that either Flynn had misled Pence or that Pence misspoke. An administration official stressed that Pence made his comments based on his conversation with Flynn. The sanctions in question have so far remained in place.

The nature of Flynn’s pre-inauguration message to Kislyak triggered debate among officials in the Obama administration and intelligence agencies over whether Flynn had violated a law against unauthorized citizens interfering in U.S. disputes with foreign governments, according to officials familiar with that debate. Those officials were already alarmed by what they saw as a Russian assault on the U.S. election.

U.S. officials said that seeking to build such a case against Flynn would be daunting. The law against U.S. citizens interfering in foreign diplomacy, known as the Logan Act, stems from a 1799 statute that has never been prosecuted. As a result, there is no case history to help guide authorities on when to proceed or how to secure a conviction.

Officials also cited political sensitivities. Prominent Americans in and out of government are so frequently in communication with foreign officials that singling out one individual — particularly one poised for a top White House job — would invite charges of political persecution.

Former U.S. officials also said aggressive enforcement would probably discourage appropriate contact. Michael McFaul, who served as U.S. ambassador to Russia during the Obama administration, said that he was in Moscow meeting with officials in the weeks leading up to Obama’s 2008 election win.

“As a former diplomat and U.S. government official, one needs to be able to have contact with foreigners to do one’s job,” McFaul said. McFaul, a Russia scholar, said he was careful never to signal pending policy changes before Obama took office.

On Wednesday, Flynn said that he first met Kislyak in 2013 when Flynn was director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and made a trip to Moscow. Kislyak helped coordinate that trip, Flynn said.

Flynn said that he spoke to Kislyak on a range of subjects in late December, including arranging a call between Russian President Vladi­mir Putin and Trump after the inauguration and expressing his condolences after Russia’s ambassador to Turkey was assassinated. “I called to say I couldn’t believe the murder of their ambassador,” Flynn said. Asked whether there was any mention of sanctions in his communications with Kislyak, Flynn said, “No.”

Kislyak characterized his conversations with Flynn as benign during a brief interview at a conference this month. “It’s something all diplomats do,” he said.

Kislyak said that he had been in contact with Flynn since before the election, but declined to answer questions about the subjects they discussed. Kislyak is known for his assiduous cultivation of high-level officials in Washington and was seated in the front row of then-GOP candidate Trump’s first major foreign policy speech in April of last year. The ambassador would not discuss the origin of his relationship with Flynn.

In his CBS interview, Pence said that Flynn had “been in touch with diplomatic leaders, security leaders in some 30 countries. That’s exactly what the incoming national security adviser should do.”

Official concern about Flynn’s interactions with Kislyak was heightened when Putin declared on Dec. 30 that Moscow would not retaliate after the Obama administration announced a day earlier the expulsion of 35 suspected Russian spies and the forced closure of Russian-owned compounds in Maryland and New York.

Instead, Putin said he would focus on “the restoration of ­Russia-United States relations” after Obama left office, and put off considering any retaliatory measures until Moscow had a chance to evaluate Trump’s policies.

Trump responded with effusive praise for Putin. “Great move on the delay,” he said in a posting to his Twitter account. “I always knew he was very smart.”

Putin’s reaction cut against a long practice of reciprocation on diplomatic expulsions, and came after his foreign minister had vowed that there would be reprisals against the United States.

Putin’s muted response — which took White House officials by surprise — raised some officials’ suspicions that Moscow may have been promised a reprieve, and triggered a search by U.S. spy agencies for clues.

“Something happened in those 24 hours” between Obama’s announcement and Putin’s response, a former senior U.S. official said. Officials began poring over intelligence reports, intercepted communications and diplomatic cables, and saw evidence that Flynn and Kislyak had communicated by text and telephone around the time of the announcement.

Trump transition officials acknowledged those contacts weeks later after they were reported in The Washington Post but denied that sanctions were discussed. Trump press secretary Sean Spicer said Jan. 13 that Flynn had “reached out to” the Russian ambassador on Christmas Day to extend holiday greetings. On Dec. 28, as word of the Obama sanctions spread, Kislyak sent a message to Flynn requesting a call. “Flynn took that call,” Spicer said, adding that it “centered on the logistics of setting up a call with the president of Russia and [Trump] after the election.”

Other officials were categorical. “I can tell you that during his call, sanctions were not discussed whatsoever,” a senior transition official told The Post at the time. When Pence faced questions on television that weekend, he said “those conversations that happened to occur around the time that the United States took action to expel diplomats had nothing whatsoever to do with those sanctions.”

Current and former U.S. officials said that assertion was not true.

Like Trump, Flynn has shown an affinity for Russia that is at odds with the views of most of his military and intelligence peers. Flynn raised eyebrows in 2015 when he appeared in photographs seated next to Putin at a lavish party in Moscow for the Kremlin-controlled RT television network.

In an earlier interview with The Post, Flynn acknowledged that he had been paid through his speakers bureau to give a speech at the event and defended his attendance by saying he saw no distinction between RT and U.S. news channels, including CNN.

[Trump adviser Michael T. Flynn on his dinner with Putin and why Russia Today is just like CNN]

A retired U.S. Army lieutenant general, Flynn served multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks — tours in which he held a series of high-level intelligence assignments working with U.S. Special Operations forces hunting al-Qaeda operatives and Islamist militants.

Former colleagues said that narrow focus led Flynn to see the threat posed by Islamist groups as overwhelming other security concerns, including Russia’s renewed aggression. Instead, Flynn came to see America’s long-standing adversary as a potential ally against terrorist groups, and himself as being in a unique position to forge closer ties after traveling to Moscow in 2013 while serving as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Flynn has frequently boasted that he was the first DIA director to be invited into the headquarters of Russia’s military intelligence directorate, known as the GRU, although at least one of his predecessors was granted similar access. “Flynn thought he developed some rapport with the GRU chief,” a former senior U.S. military official said.

U.S. intelligence agencies say they have tied the GRU to Russia’s theft of troves of email messages from Democratic Party computer networks and accuse Moscow of then delivering those materials to the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks, which published them in phases during the campaign to hurt Hillary Clinton, Trump’s Democratic rival.

Flynn was pushed out of the DIA job in 2014 amid concerns about his management of the sprawling agency. He became a fierce critic of the Obama administration before joining the Trump campaign last year.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 807b02525f



US investigators corroborate some aspects of the Russia dossier
Jim Sciutto-Profile-Image
By Jim Sciutto and Evan Perez, CNN
Updated 5:25 PM ET, Fri February 10, 2017
US officials corroborate aspects of dossier

Source: CNN

US officials corroborate aspects of dossier 05:51
Washington (CNN)For the first time, US investigators say they have corroborated some of the communications detailed in a 35-page dossier compiled by a former British intelligence agent, multiple current and former US law enforcement and intelligence officials tell CNN. As CNN first reported, then-President-elect Donald Trump and President Barack Obama were briefed on the existence of the dossier prior to Trump's inauguration.

None of the newly learned information relates to the salacious allegations in the dossier. Rather it relates to conversations between foreign nationals. The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals. Sources would not confirm which specific conversations were intercepted or the content of those discussions due to the classified nature of US intelligence collection programs.
But the intercepts do confirm that some of the conversations described in the dossier took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier, according to the officials. CNN has not confirmed whether any content relates to then-candidate Trump.
The corroboration, based on intercepted communications, has given US intelligence and law enforcement "greater confidence" in the credibility of some aspects of the dossier as they continue to actively investigate its contents, these sources say.
Reached for comment this afternoon, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said, "We continue to be disgusted by CNN's fake news reporting."
Spicer later called back and said, "This is more fake news. It is about time CNN focused on the success the President has had bringing back jobs, protecting the nation, and strengthening relationships with Japan and other nations. The President won the election because of his vision and message for the nation."
Spokespeople for the FBI, Department of Justice, CIA and Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment.
US intelligence officials emphasize the conversations were solely between foreign nationals, including those in or tied to the Russian government, intercepted during routine intelligence gathering.
Some of the individuals involved in the intercepted communications were known to the US intelligence community as "heavily involved" in collecting information damaging to Hillary Clinton and helpful to Donald Trump, two of the officials tell CNN.
Until now, US intelligence and law enforcement officials have said they could not verify any parts of the dossier.
Officials who spoke to CNN cautioned they still have not reached any judgment on whether the Russian government has any compromising information about the President.
Officials did not comment on or confirm any alleged conversations or meetings between Russian officials and US citizens, including associates of then-candidate Trump.
One of the officials stressed to CNN they have not corroborated "the more salacious things" alleged in the dossier.
CNN has not reported any of the salacious allegations.
Trump dismissed the entire dossier last month during his only news conference as President-elect, saying in January, "It's all fake news. It's phony stuff. It didn't happen."
The dossier was commissioned as opposition research by political opponents of then-candidate Trump and compiled by a former British intelligence agent. US intelligence agencies checked out the former MI6 operative and his vast network throughout Europe and found him and his sources to be credible.
CNN's Pamela Brown and Marshall Cohen contributed to this story.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/ ... er-update/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Will Flynn bring back Yellowcake to WH Menu after 1-21-1

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:09 pm

McCaskill calls for FBI briefing on Flynn
BY MAX GREENWOOD - 02/10/17 05:33 PM EST 240

McCaskill calls for FBI briefing on Flynn
© Getty Images
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) is calling for an FBI briefing "as soon as possible" on communications between President Trump’s national security advisor Michael Flynn and Russia’s ambassador to the U.S.

In a letter to FBI Director James Comey on Friday, McCaskill – the top Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee – voiced concern over reports that Flynn discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with Moscow's ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak in the month before Trump's inauguration.

“As part of these communications, General Flynn may have struck an agreement or implied future cooperation with Russia and President Vladimir Putin regarding sanctions relief or some form of preferential treatment,” McCaskill said in the letter.

McCaskill said that possibility justifies the committee receiving a closed briefing on the communications.

“Given the significant implications that any such communications may have had for the nation’s homeland and national security, I request that you provide a closed briefing for the Committee as soon as possible regarding the scope and status of any current FBI investigation related to General Flynn’s contacts with the Russian government,” she said.

Flynn had been in contact with Kislyak a number of times before Trump's electoral win in November. Those contacts have been reviewed by the FBI, who intercepted the communications as part of routine monitoring of foreign officials in the U.S., according to The Washington Post.

So far, FBI officials have not found any evidence suggesting that Flynn promised a Trump administration review of sanctions to Kislyak, the newspaper reported Thursday, citing several sources.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said in a statement on Friday that if Flynn spoke about sanctions with Kislyak he should be dismissed from his position.

Schiff argued that if Flynn and the Trump administration misled the American people, "his conduct would be all the more pernicious, and he should no longer serve in this Administration or any other."

The Obama administration levied new sanctions against Russia in December amid revelations that the Kremlin had interfered in the 2016 presidential election in favor of Trump. Trump has questioned those allegations, and has accused the U.S. intelligence community of playing politics.

Trump has expressed admiration for Putin, at one point calling him a stronger leader than Obama, despite bipartisan pressure to take a tougher stance on Russia.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-secu ... ls-for-fbi



DNC puts out list of Dems who are calling for a Flynn investigation
Image
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Will Flynn bring back Yellowcake to WH Menu after 1-21-1

Postby SonicG » Sat Feb 11, 2017 1:21 am

Caveat: Former CIA...and "The American Conservative"...
Iran Hawks Take the White House
Inspired by fringe theories about Islamic civilization, Michael Flynn is leading Trump down a dangerous path.

The United States is adding new sanctions on Iran over that country’s alleged misdeeds, and nearly all of those allegations are either out-and-out lies or half-truths. It has a familiar ring to it, as demonizing Tehran has been rather more the norm than not since 1979, a phenomenon that has included fabricated claims that the Iranians killed American soldiers after the U.S.’s armed interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. This time around, the administration focused on the perfectly legal Iranian test of a non-nuclear-capable, medium-range ballistic missile and the reported attack on what was initially claimed to be a U.S. warship by allegedly Iranian-backed Yemeni Houthi fighters. The ship was later revealed to be a Saudi frigate.

Donald Trump’s national-security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, “officially” put Iran “on notice” while declaring that “The Trump Administration will no longer tolerate Iran’s provocations that threaten our interests. The days of turning a blind eye to Iran’s hostile and belligerent actions toward the United States and the world community are over.”

Ignoring the fact that Iran cannot actually threaten the United States or any genuine vital national interests, the warning and follow-up action from the White House also contradict Donald Trump’s campaign pledge to avoid yet another war in the Middle East, which appears to have escaped Flynn’s notice. The increase in tension and the lack of any diplomatic dialogue mean that an actual shooting war might now be a “false flag,” false intelligence report, or accidental naval encounter away.

more at
https://www.theamericanconservative.com ... ite-house/


Indeed...Going to be an interesting race for Flynn and his bud Ledeen to get that flag up the pole before Wikileaks leaks the recordings of the phone calls... :moresarcasm
"a poiminint tidal wave in a notion of dynamite"
User avatar
SonicG
 
Posts: 1279
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:29 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Will Flynn bring back Yellowcake to WH Menu after 1-21-1

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Feb 11, 2017 1:37 am

yea Mr. YellowKekc was trying to get Putin to go all in on attacking Iran with trumpty dumbty

9 sources ratting him out...I guess some people thought it was a bad idea to start a war with Iran with the help of Putin :P
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Will Flynn bring back Yellowcake to WH Menu after 1-21-1

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Feb 11, 2017 8:37 am

The Basic Question
ByJOSH MARSHALLPublishedFEBRUARY 10, 2017, 3:30 PM EST
The New York Times reports that Gen. Mike Flynn had a back channel line of communication to the Russian Ambassador to the United States during the 2016 campaign. Did President Trump know this at the time? If so, did he discuss the conversations with Flynn? Authorize them? Use them as a conduit for passing his own messages? If he did not know about them at the time, when did he learn of them?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog



What About the Other Calls?

ByJOSH MARSHALL
Published FEBRUARY 10, 2017, 12:04 PM EDT

Overnight articles from the Washington Post and New York Times report that National Security Advisor Michael Flynn did more than speak to Russian Ambassador Sergey I. Kislyak the day before then-President Obama imposed a series of punitive sanctions on Russia. We knew that. He also appears to have lied when he claimed that he didn't discuss those sanctions. Not only he but also Vice President Pence - apparently conveying Flynn's denial - denied this. Both papers have multiple sources who say this is not true. Flynn told Kislyak that anything that Obama could do could be undone by Trump in a matter of weeks. Hold tight, Flynn apparently insinuated. Help was on the way.

Published reports also suggest Flynn may have violated the Logan Act, which bars private citizens from carrying on unauthorized diplomacy with foreign powers. But I think this specific legal question is a distraction. The Logan Act is seldom enforced and possibly unenforceable - all the more so with an incoming top national security official who is not simply an ordinary private citizen. Indeed, I don't think it's the lying or even the late December calls themselves that are the biggest part of these new revelations.

To me, though, the even bigger story is one buried a few paragraphs down in the Times story.

But current and former American officials said that conversation — which took place the day before the Obama administration imposed sanctions on Russia over accusations that it used cyberattacks to help sway the election in Mr. Trump’s favor — ranged far beyond the logistics of a post-inauguration phone call. And they said it was only one in a series of contacts between the two men that began before the election and also included talk of cooperating in the fight against the Islamic State, along with other issues.
Let's step back and piece this together.

The sanctions President Obama imposed were in retaliation for what the US government claimed were Russian efforts to subvert the US presidential election on behalf of now-President Trump. It is not unheard for foreign policy hands on the periphery of a presidential campaign to meet informally with foreign diplomats to discuss the generalities of a presidential candidate's views - especially for allied governments. But this suggests that during the time the hacking and release of documents was taking place and certainly when claimed Russian involvement had become a major campaign issue in itself, Flynn was holding on-going communications with the Russian Ambassador.

Flynn wasn't just vaguely tied to the Trump campaign. He was his top foreign policy advisor and indeed a regular fixture with him on the campaign trail, often appearing with him at campaign rallies. Flynn also accompanied Trump when he received his first intelligence briefing as Republican nominee on August 17th.

Again, let's piece this together.

Trump and Flynn received repeated security briefings during the final months of the campaign. Reports indicate that they received at least broad accounts of Russian hacking targeting Hillary Clinton. Seemingly during this period Flynn was also conducting backchannel communications with Russia's ambassador to the US. (What the Times said specifically was that they dated back prior to the US election on November 8th. Conceivably, given the vagueness of the sentence, they started on November 6th. But the Times sources certainly seem to be suggesting something that began considerably earlier.)

Did the subject of the hacking come up in those conversations with Kislyak?

Another question comes up. There were numerous instance during the campaign in which discredited and clearly false Russian propaganda ended up in statements or interviews from top Trump campaign leaders, including but not limited to Flynn. A number came from Manafort too.

At the time I thought it was most likely that they picked these up through alt-right Twitter streams and Breitbart, both of which were ready channels for Russian propaganda from sources like RT and Sputniknews. If that was what you were immersed in you'd likely hear these fake stories reported as news. I still think that's the most likely explanation. But perhaps it's not the only one.

When we look at the big picture, these pre-election back channel communications seem considerably more significant than the post-election ones.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/wha ... lier-calls
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Will Flynn bring back Yellowcake to WH Menu after 1-21-1

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Feb 11, 2017 8:52 am

Could NSA Flynn face Criminal Charges over Russia Ties?
By Juan Cole | Feb. 11, 2017 |

By Juan Cole | (Informed Comment) | – –
Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn (Ret.) is the National Security Adviser of President Trump. Very serious questions continue to swirl around his relationship with the government of the Russian Federation. These questions take on special significance given the alleged Russian role in interfering in the 2016 presidential election. By now, two possible criminal charges could be lodged against Flynn, both related to Russia. The first is that he took money from the Russian government, a violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. The other is that he called the Russian Embassy on Christmas Day last year and discussed the sanctions imposed on that country by President Obama over the hacking of the RNC and DNC during the election. Such a conversation would be a violation of the Logan Act.
The Washington Post reports that conversations with no less than nine intelligence officials confirm that Flynn did talk with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about Obama’s sanctions on the Russian Federation. Flynn apparently urged the Russians not to be too upset about the new sanctions suggesting that the Trump administration would revisit them. Flynn at the time was not in any government office and had no right to negotiate with a foreign power, an act prohibited to civilians by the Logan Act. Flynn must have known that the Russian ambassador’s telephone is under NSA surveillance and so it is weird to the extreme that he would risk breaking the law in public, so to speak.
Wall Street Journal: ” Michael Flynn’s Ties to Russia Under Investigation”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3tp6f__GdM
It is bad enough that Flynn may have committed this breach of the law. On top of that, when questioned about these allegations he lied and said he had not discussed sanctions with Kislyak. He not only lied himself but he told Vice President Mike Pence this lie and so arranged for Pence to go on television and repeat Flynn’s lie. Flynn wasn’t under oath, so I suppose this is just a lie and not perjury. But surely lying to your boss and embarrassing him would be a firing offense?
Wochit News: “Aides Claim Flynn Told Pence He Didn’t Discuss Russia Sanctions”
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHJ5ZVCMdRQ[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHJ5ZVCMdRQ
In 2015, retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, having been fired by the Obama administration as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and then having retired from the military, flew to Moscow and attended a banquet in celebration of the “Russia Today” network, the Russian state-owned television channel. RT does some good work, but you have to keep in mind that its editorial line is set by the Kremlin. The connection to the state is even closer than in the case of the Voice of America. Flynn appears to have been paid for his appearance in Moscow, and it is possible that he was paid quite a lot.
Trump Security Adviser Mike Flynn Gives Putin Standing Ovation at Celebration of Propaganda Network

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CGh1b_tmj0
Retired officers can be recalled and are cautioned when they retire that they should avoid such payments by a foreign government, since it violates the Emoluments clause of the Constitution (1.9:)
“No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”
Retired officers of the US military, inasmuch as they are subject to recall to service, are considered to be a “person holding any office of profit or trust” under the United States. Ranking Democratic members of six Congressional committees have asked the Pentagon for an explanation. So far none has been forthcoming.
Flynn is widely thought to be somewhat unbalanced, inasmuch has he has retweeted bizarre conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton and has said that it is rational to be afraid of Islam. (Islam is the religion of 1/5 of humankind, so this is like being afraid of Chinese food or of Indian languages). Note that Flynn served alongside Afghan and Pakistani Muslim officers and if anything appears to have been overly cozy with them (he leaked classified intelligence on terrorists in Afghanistan to Pakistani officers), so the fear-mongering is for political and maybe financial benefit. If you thought the Muslim Pakistani officers were people you should be afraid of or that they were intent on killing 80% of the world, as Flynn has alleged in other contexts, then why would you give them classified intelligence on Afghan terrorists? Flynn’s private consulting firm also took a contract from a business in Turkey with links to President Tayyip Erdogan; no rational fear there.
Surely this is the first time since the Reagan Iran-Contra scandal that National Security Council personnel have been on such legal thin ice, such that criminal charges could be filed.
http://www.juancole.com/2017/02/crimina ... ussia.html



CIA freezes out top Flynn aide
The agency denied a security clearance for a key aide to the National Security Adviser — ratcheting up tensions between Flynn and the intel community.
By KENNETH P. VOGEL and JOSH DAWSEY 02/10/17 10:16 PM EST Updated 02/10/17 11:09 PM EST

A top deputy to National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was rejected for a critical security clearance, effectively ending his tenure on the National Security Council and escalating tensions between Flynn and the intelligence community.

The move came as Flynn’s already tense relationships with others in the Trump administration and the intelligence community were growing more fraught after reports that Flynn had breached diplomatic protocols in his conversations with the Russian ambassador to the United States.

On Friday, one of Flynn’s closest deputies on the National Security Council, senior director for Africa Robin Townley, was informed that the Central Intelligence Agency had rejected his request for an elite security clearance required for service on the NSC, according to two people with direct knowledge of the situation.

That forced Townley, a former Marine intelligence officer who had long maintained a top secret-level security clearance, out of his NSC post, explained the sources, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive personnel matters.

One of the sources said that the rejection was approved by Trump’s CIA director Mike Pompeo and that it infuriated Flynn and his allies.

Both sources said that the CIA did not offer much explanation for why Townley’s request for so-called “Sensitive Compartmented Information” clearance was rejected. But the sources said that Flynn and his allies believe it was motivated by Townley’s skepticism of the intelligence community’s techniques — sentiments shared by Flynn.

“They believe this is a hit job from inside the CIA on Flynn and the people close to him,” said one source, who argued that some in the intelligence community feel threatened by Flynn and his allies. “Townley believes that the CIA doesn’t run the world," the source said.

Spokespeople for the NSC and the CIA declined to comment. Townley and the White House press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, dismissed as “baloney” any suggestion that the clearance was denied because the intelligence community was trying to brushback Flynn.

Trump and Flynn “see treachery everywhere they go,” Schiff said, adding “if a security clearance is denied, it’s for a reason.” Intelligence agencies tend to be careful in rejecting security clearances because “they know they’re going to have to justify it," Schiff concluded.

One person close to Trump said that, within the White House, Flynn is regarded by some as waging “a jihad against the intelligence community.” This person said Flynn is blamed by some people around Trump for trying to turn the new president against the intelligence community during the campaign and transition period, when Trump was openly skeptical about U.S. intelligence findings that Russia meddled in the election to try to help his campaign and damage that of his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

Flynn’s own ties to Russia, a leading U.S. geopolitical foe, also have come under scrutiny.

Trump’s critics cited Flynn’s paid speech in Russia and dinner with Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2015 as evidence of ties between the Kremlin and Trump’s inner circle.

And the FBI has been looking into Flynn’s December communications with Russia's ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak.

Flynn had maintained that those communications did not include discussion of U.S. sanctions levied against Russia for hacking into Democratic electronic communications during the 2016 presidential race.

But the Washington Post on Thursday reported that sanctions were in fact discussed, citing nine top current and former officials at multiple agencies.

Democrats on Friday seized on the report, calling for Flynn to be suspended and pleading with Republicans to investigate him. Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the House oversight committee said he had "grave questions" about Flynn's honesty — and whether other White House officials were aware of his communications with Kislyak.

Inside the Trump administration, the ranks of Flynn’s critics seem to be growing — and becoming emboldened.
A White House official said there had been concerns about Flynn's calls to the Russian ambassador, which weren't known by all of Trump's top advisers and aides. The official said Flynn is not particularly close to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson or Defense Secretary James Mattis.

Someone close to Trump said "a lot of people are gunning for Flynn, but I think the president likes him."

"The president thinks he's loyal and has expertise," this person said. "Among others, there's this perception he is wild, outside the box, not suited for the office.”

A senior Trump official played down the idea that Flynn may be in danger, saying he remained in contact with top Trump officials and cabinet secretaries.

Trump in a Friday afternoon gaggle aboard Air Force One said he was unaware of the report that Flynn had discussed the sanctions with the Russian but said he would "look into that."

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/m ... ump-234923


Day After Flynn Bombshell, Trump Calls On Only Murdoch Outlets At Press Conference
Blog ››› February 10, 2017 3:37 PM EST ››› ALEX KAPLAN

Following a bombshell report that National Security Adviser Michael Flynn may have violated the Logan Act, President Donald Trump called on reporters only from outlets owned by Rupert Murdoch at a February 10 U.S.-Japan joint press conference, favoring news sources that have been major supporters and receiving no questions about the Flynn report.

Speaking at a press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Trump took questions from the New York Post’s Daniel Halper and Fox Business’ Blake Burman, both of whom asked about an appeals court decision upholding the suspension of his Muslim ban executive order. Neither reporter asked Trump about reports that National Security Adviser Michael Flynn had spoken with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. about Russian sanctions prior to Trump’s inauguration, which Trump aides had previously denied. If it’s true, Flynn could be in violation of the Logan Act, which, as The New York Times explains, “prohibits private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments in disputes involving the American government.”

Murdoch has staunchly supported Trump since he began his presidential campaign. The media mogul recently sat in on an interview Trump had with one of his British newspapers and, according to the Financial Times, Trump’s daughter Ivanka was until recently “a trustee for a large bloc of shares in 21st Century Fox and News Corp that belongs to Rupert Murdoch’s two youngest daughters.” Trump has also been helpful to Murdoch in return, asking for his input on Federal Communications Commission chairman nominees.

Murdoch’s support of Trump has directly impacted the former’s outlets. The New York Post was one of the only papers in the country to endorse Trump during either the primary or general election campaign. And according to New York magazine, Fox News under Murdoch’s direction has been pushed to go “in a more pro-Trump direction.” Fox's pro-Trump direction can also be seen on Fox Business, where hosts have spun polls to push "Trumponomics." Reporters at another Murdoch-owned outlet, The Wall Street Journal, have expressed concerns that they have been pressured to “to reflect pro-Trump viewpoints.”

Trump’s decision to take questions from only these conservative-leaning outlets also fits into a broader administration approach of seemingly focusing on right-wing outlets in order to avoid challenging queries.
https://mediamatters.org/blog/2017/02/1 ... nce/215309
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Will Flynn bring back Yellowcake to WH Menu after 1-21-1

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Feb 13, 2017 9:05 am

But the words of the code’s Article VI should still have some resonance. They read: “I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free.”

One of those principles is truth





Another Strike Against National Security Adviser Michael Flynn
© Gary Cameron / Reuters
By Ciro Scotti

February 13, 2017

Donald Trump’s National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn -- the former Army general, fake news aficionado and now apparently misleader of the vice president – is looking as gone as a wild goose in one of those winters we used to have before climate change came along.

On NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday morning, uber-prepared Trump adviser and Steve Bannon lieutenant Stephen Miller (who has the look and feel of a young Roy Cohn) declined to speak for the president when moderator Chuck Todd asked about the boss’s continued confidence in General Flynn.

“That's the question that I think you should ask the president, the question you should ask Reince [Priebus], the chief of staff. I'm here today as a policy advisor. And my focus was on answering the policy questions that you have. General Flynn has served his country admirably. He is a three-star general. He [was] head of the defense intelligence agency. And I look forward to having more discussions about this in the future,” Miller said.

“So the White House did not give you anything to say other than that on General Flynn?” Todd asked.

“They did not give me anything to say,” Miller replied.

“So you cannot say whether or not the president still has confidence in his national security advisor?” Todd persisted.

“Asked and answered, Chuck,” said Miller. “It's not for me to tell you what's in the president's mind. That's a question for the president -- that's a question for a chief of staff. Asked and answered, Chuck.”

“Let me ask you this, if you were caught misleading the vice president of the United States, would that be considered a fire-able offense in the Trump White House?” Todd asked.

Related: Looks Like Flynn Is Manipulating Trump on Russia. Where’s His Pink Slip?

“It's not for me to answer hypotheticals. It wouldn't be responsible. It's a sensitive matter. General Flynn has served his country admirably. He served his country with distinction. And I look forward to having a conversation with you once you've had a chance to talk with the appropriate people in the White House who are dealing with this matter,” Miller replied.

In short, Miller had no problem speaking for the commander-in-chief on any topic raised by Todd – except for the latest Flynn conundrum.

The general is taking incoming fire for allegedly discussing President Obama’s sanctions against Russia with the Russian ambassador before Trump took office – and then misleading Vice-President Mike Pence about his discussions.

On the CBS program Face the Nation on Jan. 15, moderator John Dickerson asked Pence if talks between Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak led Moscow to moderate its reaction to the sanctions imposed by Obama over meddling in the U.S. election.

Pence said he had talked with Flynn about the conversation with Kislyak and they “did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia.”

Now it certainly looks like Pence was misled.

A Washington Post story on Friday said: “Current and former U.S. officials said that in [Flynn’s] conversation with Kislyak in late December, Flynn urged Moscow to show restraint in its response to punitive sanctions being imposed on Russia by the Obama administration, signaling that the Trump administration would revisit the issue when it took office.”

In other words, the designated National Security Adviser to the next president of the United States was advising one of America’s chief adversaries how to react to punitive measures imposed by the sitting president in retaliation for said adversary trying to disrupt the nation’s free and honest elections.

On Friday, an aide to Flynn said the general had "no recollection of discussing sanctions" but "couldn't be certain that the topic never came up," according to CNN.

Related: Trump Adviser Had Five Calls With Russian Envoy on Day of Sanctions: Sources

Miller was right about one thing: General Flynn’s bona fides as a dedicated and decorated officer are unquestionable. In fact, his performance in the war theaters of Iraq and Afghanistan as an analyst of military intelligence was by all accounts superior.

As a player in the national political theater, though, he has been appalling.

Flynn’s behavior during the campaign – leading chants of “lock her up” and spreading bogus news stories -- was unseemly for a person of his intellect, but almost unimaginable for a former three-star general steeped in the unspoken rules of behavior attached to his rank.

Flynn might want to revisit the military Code of Conduct. Yes, it applies to those in uniform, and Flynn has hung his in a closet. And yes, it is about what is expected of a soldier under arms, not of a civilian or a warrior who has put down his sword.

But the words of the code’s Article VI should still have some resonance. They read: “I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free.”

One of those principles is truth.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2017/02/1 ... hael-Flynn



The White House’s Michael Flynn problem reaches a tipping point
02/13/17 08:00 AM—UPDATED 02/13/17 09:31 AM
By Steve Benen

Magnitude of Trump adviser Flynn's Russia scandal gains clarity

Multiple reports from late last week indicate that White House National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, despite repeated denials from leading members of Donald Trump’s team, spoke to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about U.S. sanctions before Inauguration Day. Flynn, who previously insisted no such conversations took place, is now saying he’s not sure whether sanctions came up during his calls with Kislyak or not.

The scandal is starting to snowball, and as the Washington Post’s David Ignatius, who first broke the news of Flynn’s calls a month ago, noted in a new column over the weekend, there’s no shortage of questions in need of answers.
Michael Flynn’s real problem isn’t the Logan Act, an obscure and probably unenforceable 1799 statute that bars private meddling in foreign policy disputes. It’s whether President Trump’s national security adviser sought to hide from his colleagues and the nation a pre-inauguration discussion with the Russian government about sanctions that the Obama administration was imposing.

“It’s far less significant if he violated the Logan Act and far more significant if he willfully misled this country,” said Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, in a telephone interview late Friday. “Why would he conceal the nature of the call unless he was conscious of wrongdoing?”
That’s a good question, and it’s one of many.

Why did Vice President Mike Pence, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, and Press Secretary Sean Spicer tell the public Flynn didn’t talk about sanctions with the Russian ambassador?

There are really only two possibilities: Either Flynn told his colleagues a lie, which they repeated because they believed him, or Flynn told them the truth, and they chose to help cover up his alleged wrongdoing.

For his part, Pence and his office have gone out of their way to say that the vice president relied entirely on Flynn’s word when he addressed the subject publicly. In other words, the VP is arguing that he was lied to, not that he did the lying.

If the White House national security advisor misled his own West Wing colleagues, how can he keep his job?

When Trump World lies to the American electorate, the president and his team don’t seem to mind. When top officials on Team Trump lie to each other, it seems likely to create an untenable dynamic. Then again, this president hates admitting mistakes, so traditional rules and common sense may not apply.

What does Donald Trump have to say about this?

So far, alarmingly little. Despite the uproar on Friday, the president spoke briefly to reporters on Friday aboard Air Force One, where he claimed to have no idea what story journalists were even referring to. “I don’t know about that, I haven’t seen it,” Trump said. “What report is that? I haven’t seen that. I’ll look into that.”

To hear Trump tell it, the White House national security advisor is accused of having potentially illegal talks with Russia, but the president was, and is, out of the loop.

If the allegations are true, is it possible Flynn was freelancing without Trump’s involvement?

It seems hard to believe that Flynn, one of Trump’s closest advisors, had multiple communications with Russia, but he did so without any guidance or instructions from his boss, who at the time was the incoming president of the United States. Moreover, if evidence emerges that Flynn was acting on Trump’s orders, this scandal is going to take an even more dramatic turn.

Is there some kind of potentially incriminating tweet that should be part of the mix?

Actually, yes. On Dec. 28, President Obama took actions against Russia in response to Moscow’s role in undermining the American elections. On Dec. 29, Flynn allegedly had multiple conversations with the Russian ambassador, including a chat about the sanctions. On Dec. 30, Vladimir Putin announced he wouldn’t retaliate in kind, prompting Trump to hail the Russian president’s “great move,” adding, “I always knew he was very smart!” (Trump pinned the tweet so it would be the first thing readers saw on his Twitter profile.) What are the chances Trump didn’t speak to Flynn about any of this as the developments unfolded?

The question, “What did the president know and when did he know it” may be a Watergate-era cliché, but in this case, it’s also an important line of inquiry.

What are congressional Democrats saying and doing about all of this?

Quite a bit. Leading Dems in both chambers have pushed for Flynn to be fired, investigated, or both. Several others have demanded that the administration pull Flynn’s security clearance, at least until the matter is resolved.

What about congressional Republicans?

GOP leaders have said effectively nothing about the scandal.

If the allegations against Flynn are correct, why did he lie?

For now, it’s very hard to say. Maybe he thought no one would find out. Perhaps didn’t fully appreciate the implications of his communications. But if there’s any evidence that Trump encouraged him to lie, buckle up.

If the reports are accurate and Flynn keeps his job, what kind of signal would that send?

It would make it quite clear that Trump is, at a minimum, comfortable with Flynn’s alleged misdeeds, and possibly that Flynn acted with Trump’s backing.

Did we learn anything new on the Sunday shows?

NBC’s Chuck Todd asked Stephen Miller, a top Trump aide, on “Meet the Press” whether Flynn still enjoys the president’s confidence. Miller wouldn’t answer the question directly.

What’s next?

The Washington Post reports this morning that Flynn “is under increasing political pressure and risks losing the confidence of some colleagues…. Privately, some administration officials said that Flynn’s position has weakened and support for him has eroded largely because of a belief that he was disingenuous about Russia and therefore could not be fully trusted going forward.”

The piece quoted an unnamed administration official who said, “The knives are out for Flynn.”
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... ping-point


ImageImage
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Will Flynn bring back Yellowcake to WH Menu after 1-21-1

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Feb 13, 2017 5:25 pm

Report: White House Pulled Flynn Out Of Speech At Defense Symposium

Carolyn Kaster
ByESME CRIBBPublishedFEBRUARY 13, 2017, 2:13 PM EDT
National Security Adviser Michael Flynn reportedly withdrew Monday from giving a speech at a defense-focused event originally scheduled for the same night.

Flynn was listed as an "invited" speaker on Monday night at the National Defense Industrial Association's annual special operations/low intensity conflict symposium, per the NDIA's final agenda.

"Flynn had never confirmed his attendance. He was always listed as invited," NDIA public relations and communications director Ashley Saunders wrote in an email to TPM.

The White House withdrew Flynn due to scheduling conflicts, according to Defense One tech editor Patrick Tucker, who first reported the cancellation.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/w ... um-keynote
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Will Flynn bring back Yellowcake to WH Menu after 1-21-1

Postby Karmamatterz » Mon Feb 13, 2017 5:43 pm

Flynn is just typical background noise. If "journalists" were really doing their work they wouldn't get their panties in a bunch over Flynn but instead this:

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/up ... rategy.pdf

Iran is the last chess piece is the mid-east long term strategy. This smells just like the Project for a New American Century.

The Trump administration isn't playing with fire. All this has been in motion for years and would continue regardless of who sits in the white house. As Bannon as stated, Trump is a blunt instrument. There are no doubt, webs within webs and multiple hidden agendas that will unravel over time. I think the establishment is happy with the polarization, maybe would even be happy with all out civil war between left and right. The left and right noise machine in Amerika is however, a distraction from the geo-political hegemony strategy that is ALWAYS more important than the local noise machine and dog whistles.

There so much noise in the media right now and a lot of people are not filtering out the clutter.
User avatar
Karmamatterz
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Will Flynn bring back Yellowcake to WH Menu after 1-21-1

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Feb 13, 2017 6:07 pm

excuse me did you read the title of this OP?
All this has been in motion for years and would continue regardless of who sits in the white house.


oh I thought that there were people here chanting war with Russia if Clinton got in..so what's the plan all along?

I DO NOT IGNORE ANYTHING ....

the establishment is happy with the polarization


the establishment is ALWAYS happy with the polarization


How is anyone going to learn anything if they completely ignore all media? How is anyone supposed to know what is bullshit if they don't read everything and then figure that out on their own instead of listening to you telling them not to believe anything


The Trump administration isn't playing with fire.


That fucking idiot most certainly is

You call it clutter....I call it reading every fucking thing I can so I know what everybody is thinking and then I can make up my own mind about what the fuck is happening


Flynn is/was trying to get Russia to help us with war on Iran.....I am waiting for the new yellowkekc to be baked

of course the "media" ....Ledeen is still running around bff with Flynn ...did you notice the post by Josh Marshall?

he is the "media" he gets it


Image
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Will Flynn bring back Yellowcake to WH Menu after 1-21-1

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Mon Feb 13, 2017 6:56 pm

"Huey Long once said, “Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism.” I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security."
-Jim Garrison 1967
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: California
Blog: View Blog (37)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests