If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
No announcement yet.
Calls for Exhaustive Investigation into Trump-Russia Connections
Republican Sen. Roy Blunt, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on Tuesday called for an exhaustive investigation into connections between President Donald Trump and Russia and said the Intelligence Committee should immediately speak with former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
Of course there are calls for an exhaustive investigation. I wouldn't expect anything less from clowns like Schummer, Warren, Pelosi, etc.. embolden by the perpetually aggrieved Left that has broken out into chaotic violent protests and riots since their side lost the election. Obstruction to the point of destruction is the name of the game that the Left has decided to play with the future of our people and country.
Yeah, what a scandal. You're hired for a job that starts in a month, you get a head start. His sin: he took the call a couple weeks early. Horrors! Sounds good to me. Interesting that you're bothered by what so far seems to be a phone call, and not by the fact that the intelligence services, butt hurt about being called out by Trump, wiretap a civilian and then leak the call to the press. I thought lefties were obsessed about rogue intelligence agencies?
denali, they are mutually exclusive events. Both are a problem. I never stated the leaks were okay. As far as what ''lefties'' are obsessed with I wouldn't know. If you want, you can go ask one. As a conservative, shouldn't you be worried about the law and the constitution? Shouldn't ALL people adhere to the rules?
Not really worried about a guy taking a phone call when he's about to start a job. You can imagine every country in the world wondering how they stand with a new administration. If you think no one else has ever done that, you're more trusting than I am. So what's the constitutional crisis here?
If there's more to the story, I'll reassess, but the hysteria with Dems seeing Russians under every bed is cute, considering how Dems used to love Russkies when they were communists. What, exactly, is the harm that has supposedly hit the country over this phone call?
old scotty, do you still claim you are an American or are you stuck waving that Republican partisan flag? I was under the impression you were a prosecutor or an attorney in the legal system of some sort. If so, I thought justice was blind. Shouldn't you be neutral in your position on law and order? Would it be appropriate to choose who and what to investigate and potentially prosecute solely based on one's political affiliation, or are all equal in the eyes of the law?
Wow! SMH. After reading your posts for the last several years, I expected more than ''I don't care'', when it came to the expectations placed on people in our government.
You know what makes me shake my head? People who act like the world is crashing and people are dying left and right because some anonymous source broke a story full of innuendo without any confirmation of particular substance. Have you heard or seen evidence that General Flynn negotiated with the Russian ambassador or undermined Obama's administration in any way? If not, then there was no law broken, least of all the Logan Act. So until you can show such proof rather than innuendo, can we please cut out the hysterics?
What really should concern people is how Obama's holdovers purposely have worked to torpedo the new administration by leaking private phone conversations to the media with pointed commentary, but without providing context or smoking gun evidence. What we have are traitors in the government. Worse than that, we have a police state, not quite, but nearing what East Germany had with the Stasi.
Colonel TroyBill referenced the alarming issue in another thread, and that's the real story here that should concern all of us...
Former Obama Officials, Loyalists Waged Secret Campaign to Oust Flynn
Sources: Former Obama officials, loyalists planted series of stories to discredit Flynn, bolster Iran deal
BY: Adam Kredo Follow @Kredo0
February 14, 2017 3:26 pm
The abrupt resignation Monday evening of White House national security adviser Michael Flynn is the culmination of a secret, months-long campaign by former Obama administration confidantes to handicap President Donald Trump's national security apparatus and preserve the nuclear deal with Iran, according to multiple sources in and out of the White House who described to the Washington Free Beacon a behind-the-scenes effort by these officials to plant a series of damaging stories about Flynn in the national media.
The effort, said to include former Obama administration adviser Ben Rhodes—the architect of a separate White House effort to create what he described as a pro-Iran echo chamber—included a small task force of Obama loyalists who deluged media outlets with stories aimed at eroding Flynn's credibility, multiple sources revealed.
The operation primarily focused on discrediting Flynn, an opponent of the Iran nuclear deal, in order to handicap the Trump administration's efforts to disclose secret details of the nuclear deal with Iran that had been long hidden by the Obama administration.
Insiders familiar with the anti-Flynn campaign told the Free Beacon that these Obama loyalists plotted in the months before Trump's inauguration to establish a set of roadblocks before Trump's national security team, which includes several prominent opponents of diplomacy with Iran. The Free Beacon first reported on this effort in January.
Sources who spoke to the Free Beacon requested anonymity in order to speak freely about the situation and avoid interfering with the White House's official narrative about Flynn, which centers on his failure to adequately inform the president about a series of phone calls with Russian officials.
Flynn took credit for his missteps regarding these phone calls in a brief statement released late Monday evening. Trump administration officials subsequently stated that Flynn's efforts to mislead the president and vice president about his contacts with Russia could not be tolerated.
However, multiple sources closely involved in the situation pointed to a larger, more secretive campaign aimed at discrediting Flynn and undermining the Trump White House.
"It's undeniable that the campaign to discredit Flynn was well underway before Inauguration Day, with a very troublesome and politicized series of leaks designed to undermine him," said one veteran national security adviser with close ties to the White House team. "This pattern reminds me of the lead up to the Iran deal, and probably features the same cast of characters."
The Free Beacon first reported in January that, until its final days in office, the Obama administration hosted several pro-Iran voices who were critical in helping to mislead the American public about the terms of the nuclear agreement. This included a former Iranian government official and the head of the National Iranian American Council, or NIAC, which has been accused of serving as Iran's mouthpiece in Washington, D.C.
Since then, top members of the Obama administration's national security team have launched a communications infrastructure after they left the White House, and have told reporters they are using that infrastructure to undermine Trump's foreign policy.
"It's actually Ben Rhodes, NIAC, and the Iranian mullahs who are celebrating today," said one veteran foreign policy insider who is close to Flynn and the White House. "They know that the number one target is Iran … [and] they all knew their little sacred agreement with Iran was going to go off the books. So they got rid of Flynn before any of the [secret] agreements even surfaced."
Flynn had been preparing to publicize many of the details about the nuclear deal that had been intentionally hidden by the Obama administration as part of its effort to garner support for the deal, these sources said.
Flynn is now "gone before anybody can see what happened" with these secret agreements, said the second insider close to Flynn and the White House.
Sources in and out of the White House are concerned that the campaign against Flynn will be extended to other prominent figures in the Trump administration.
One senior White House official told the Free Beacon that leaks targeting the former official were "not the result of a series of random events."
"The drumbeat of leaks of sensitive material related to General Flynn has been building since he was named to his position," said the official, who is a member of the White House's National Security Council. "Last night was not the result of a series of random events. The president has lost a valuable adviser and we need to make sure this sort of thing does not happen again."
Other sources expressed concern that public trust in the intelligence community would be eroded by the actions of employees with anti-Trump agendas.
"The larger issue that should trouble the American people is the far-reaching power of unknown, unelected apparatchiks in the Intelligence Community deciding for themselves both who serves in government and what is an acceptable policy they will allow the elected representatives of the people to pursue," said the national security adviser quoted above.
"Put aside the issue of Flynn himself; that nameless, faceless bureaucrats were able to take out a president's national security adviser based on a campaign of innuendo without evidence should worry every American," the source explained.
Eli Lake, a Bloomberg View columnist and veteran national security reporter well sourced in the White House, told the Free Beacon that Flynn earned a reputation in the Obama administration as one of its top detractors.
"Michael Flynn was one of the Obama administration's fiercest critics after he was forced out of the Defense Intelligence Agency," said Lake, who described "the political assassination of Michael Flynn" in his column published early Tuesday.
"[Flynn] was a withering critic of Obama's biggest foreign policy initiative, the Iran deal," Lake said. "He also publicly accused the administration of keeping classified documents found in the Osama bin Laden raid that showed Iran's close relationship with al Qaeda. He was a thorn in their side."
Lake noted in his column that he does not buy fully the White House's official spin on Flynn's resignation.
"For a White House that has such a casual and opportunistic relationship with the truth, it's strange that Flynn's ‘lie' to Pence would get him fired," Lake wrote. "It doesn't add up."
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer stated in his daily briefing that "the evolving and eroding level of trust as a result of this situation and a series of other questionable incidents is what led the president to ask General Flynn for his resignation."
A third source who serves as a congressional adviser and was involved in the 2015 fight over the Iran deal told the Free Beacon that the Obama administration feared that Flynn would expose the secret agreements with Iran.
"The Obama administration knew that Flynn was going to release the secret documents around the Iran deal, which would blow up their myth that it was a good deal that rolled back Iran," the source said. "So in December the Obama NSC started going to work with their favorite reporters, selectively leaking damaging and incomplete information about Flynn."
"After Trump was inaugurated some of those people stayed in and some began working from the outside, and they cooperated to keep undermining Trump," the source said, detailing a series of leaks from within the White House in the past weeks targeting Flynn. "Last night's resignation was their first major win, but unless the Trump people get serious about cleaning house, it won't be the last."
As I understand it 2006 is that GEN Flynn said the word sanctions, but never discussed them. It's semantics. It's ridiculous and petty. So he told Pence he didn't discuss sanctions, because he didn't, yet saying you aren't going to discuss sanctions at this time is now defined as discussing sanctions.
sctrojan2006 Can you name the last person to be prosecuted and convicted of violating the Logan act?
Don't bother, you can't. It's a trick question. No one has been prosecuted for it, least of all for what General Flynn is being accused of. Flynn is no more guilty of violating the Logan act than any of his predecessors who did pretty much the same thing in his position.
I know no one has been prosecuted for it. It states that in just about every article on the subject. The question is why they deception, lie by omissions, or whatever else you want to call it. Why wasn't Pence told about the DOJ's concerns prior to making his public statement? What was the conversation? Who leaked it? What was the motivation for leaking?
The point is what happens stinks of impropriety, but may be nothing. A man did have his reputation damaged, and felt it was best to resign or was 'encouraged' to resign. An investigation will either vindicate the Administration and expose a biased and rogue cell in the intelligence community, bring the Russia/Trump accusations to a close, or reveal nothing.
The country is split in two right now, some clarity may help bring the country together.
Another thing is, why have the law on the books, if there is no intention of enforcing it? Repeal it, if no one thinks it is important. However, if it is law it should be enforced...just as the immigration laws should be enforced at the state and local levels. Picking and choosing which laws to enforce is a form of lawlessness.
Interesting. I hadn't read the actual text of the Logan act until SC posted it.
As I read that, every single American student carrying a protest sign hoping to influence foreign governments to not play ball with Trump. Every major business leader who interacts with foreign leaders and is saying "Don't worry, we can contain Trump" could be charged. Certainly Al Gore, traveling the world and encouraging Governments to enter in to climate treaties that he knows this Administration won't support, could be charged.
And remember - everyone who heard about the Logan Act on Monday and became its passionate defenders on Tuesday - Both President Bill and Hillary Clinton, along with President Obama, are private citizens, now. Anybody want to take any bets on whether they'd accept a phone call from a foreign 'official', and whether complaints about current policy may come up?
(I actually do agree that an investigation may be appropriate, if it can be done quickly and inexpensively. BigTime is right, this really isn't a big deal, and the man has already ended his career over it. Let's be honest, though, the Left would not accept the results of the investigation if it turns out very little or nothing was done wrong. They want Trump's head on a platter - nothing less.)
The funny part is so many Americans know all this yet you have Dems wrapping themselves around the axle to get an "investigation" implying there was something horrific that happened. At least 4 more years of their lunacy.
I think applying it to a protestor is a stretch, but if any past elected official is undermining the current administration the should be fully investigated and prosecuted. The no longer represent our nation and have no right to interfere.
As far as the Clintons go, I feel they still need to be investigated and audited by the IRS.
As a matter of opinion, I think all elected officials should be audited after their terms.