Russia

Michael Flynn Resigns—Russian Concerns Over Trump Growing

Democrats say Flynn resignation just the beginning.

|

Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff

Michael Flynn, President Trump's national security advisor, resigned last night over a controversy about a phone call he made to the Russian ambassador to the U.S. in December. In his resignation letter, Flynn said he "inadvertently" provided "incomplete information" about phone calls to the ambassador—specifically, Flynn told Vice President Mike Pence and Reince Priebus, the White House chief-of-staff, he did not discuss sanctions with the ambassador even though he did. In its last days, the Obama administration imposed new sanctions on Russia over its alleged interference in the 2016 presidential election—Russia did not respond, and Trump called that a "great move" and Putin "very smart."

Late last month, the Department of Justice reportedly informed the Trump White House that Flynn had misled it about his call to the ambassador—the Washington Post reports that the message was delivered by Sally Yates, who Trump fired after she said she was not convinced the DOJ should defend Trump's travel ban executive order in court. It's unclear how the DOJ concluded Flynn was not being truthful about his phone call with the ambassador.

The Daily Wire's Ben Shapiro notes two possibilities for Flynn's deceit—that he misled Pence, Priebus, and Trump, or that he withheld the nature of his call to the ambassador from Pence and Priebus because Trump had not authorized him to disclose that information to others.

Congressional Democrats insist Flynn is "just the beginning" and are calling for hearings on the phone call. "It defies reason," Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) said, according to The Hill. "People in that position don't do things without authorization." The House and Senate intelligence committees are already probing allegations of Russian interference in last year's election.

Russian policy makers and political elites, meanwhile, are growing more concerned about the Trump administration and U.S.-Russia relations, as Foreign Policy reports. Ivan Krastev and Stephen Holmes write that Russia's leadership is worried about trade wars, and that the Trump presidency also meant "Putin has lost his monopoly over geopolitical unpredictability." The two also report that Kremlin insiders may be most worried about Trump resigning, being removed from office, or even being killed, which would be "bound to unleash a virulent and bipartisan anti-Russian campaign" in the U.S. "Putin has become a hostage to Trump's survival and success," the two conclude, saying that that reality has restricted Russia's options on the international stage.

It's a far cry from November, when Russian leaders reportedly cheered the results of the U.S. presidential election. Russia preferred the unpredictability of Trump to the predictably aggressive stance Clinton had staked as secretary of state and was campaigning for president on. The hysteria whipped up by the American political elite over Russia's alleged influence on the election may yet exert enough pressure on the U.S. to keep its relations with Russia frosty. Russia's political elite, too, may be working toward that goal—Russia reportedly deployed a cruise missile in violation of a 1987 arms control treaty. It had test fired the missile back in 2014.

Advertisement

NEXT: U.K. Considers War on Leaks by Criminalizing Even Receiving Secret Gov't Info

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. ‘The hysteria whipped up by the American political elite over Russia’s alleged influence on the election may yet exert enough pressure on the U.S. to keep its relations with Russia frosty’

    Isn’t this what all of this huffing and puffing is all about? Trump has people in his administration that don’t abide by the Washington Consensus on foreign policy and it’s pissing off the neoconservative war mongers, who are abetted by a partisan media and their left-wing allies.

    The US deserves perpetual mindless war if even those who supposedly profess to be anti-war when convenient, happily support the warmongers when it suits their politics.

    1. Waka, what was your last reasonoid name?

        1. I thought I was Tulpa. *short-circuits

          1. “I’m Tulpa.” One of the disheveled men said from the crowd. Crassus surveyed his conquered prisoners, and focused on the claimant.

            “No, I’m Tulpa.” another one said. Crassus’s gaze fell on him.

            “I’m Tulpa.” Yet another chimed in, followed by another and another as it dawned on Crassus he had broken their army but not their spirit…

            “Crucify all the Tulpas!” Crassus said.

    2. The most charitable interpretation of Trump’s love affair with Putin is that he sees him as an ally in a global holy war against Islam, i.e., neoconservatism set to maximum stupid.

      1. What evidence do you have to support this assertion? And what is up with lefties saying everything is a “war” on something

        1. Teddy Roosevelt “progressive era” politics. When you are at war, there is unification against the perceived aggressor. ~ Dumbshit Proggie Policy 101

        2. Um, war on drugs? War on terror? Granted, LBJ probably started it with the War on Poverty, but it’s mind-numbingly partisan to suggest that “war on…” is a uniquely “leftie” trait.

          The reason commentariat continues its descent into imbecility.

      2. And the most charitable interpretation of President Obama’s foreign policy is ‘incompetent’ (Syria, Libya, throwing Mubarak under the bus in Egypt, etc.). Trump has a low bar set for him. You would realize that if you weren’t just a Leftist partisan.

        1. Leftist aren’t good at realization. They’re to busy patting themselves on the back for being ‘smart’ and projecting their racism onto their opponents.

        2. No one really had a good plan on Syria. Libya was a fuckfest by Obama and Hillar. But I prefer Obama’s don;t do stupid shit to a guessing game as to what would work in that hornet’s nest of the mideast. Too bad obama didnt stick with that instinct with Libya.

  2. Ha! Double posted articles. It seems even the staff isn’t immune to the squirrelz.

    1. Flynn was so shitty he was fired twice.

    2. Aaaannnnddddd…they fixed it. Bummer.

  3. Congressional Democrats insist Flynn is “just the beginning” and are calling for hearings on the phone call. “It defies reason,” Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) said, according to The Hill. “People in that position don’t do things without authorization.”

    Let me be the first to utter the phrase “FLYNNGAZI”

    1. Cummings spent the entire Hillary email controversy grandstanding how it was all a taxpayer waste of money and time on a political hit job.
      Absolutely shameless.

      1. Well, that’s his job, innit?

        i think a lot of what congress did *was* a taxpayer waste of money and a political hit job. they didn’t really do dick about the IRS, and they didn’t really expose the sham-investigation of Hillary, and the Benghazi hearings never so much as mused aloud whether the CIA’s role in Benghazi was ‘less than legal’ given the Admin’s claims to totally not be shipping weapons to the Syrian rebels, etc.

        they only did their little hearings just to stay in the news and keep their partisan flames burning. sure, cummings was a silly cunt, but the sanctimoniousness of Darryl Issa and Gowdy isn’t much better given that their whole M.O. was merely to chastize people from the bench, not actually, you know, try and enforce the law.

        @#*&$ Lois Lerner should be in jail. But the govt doesn’t really police itself. Because they know the shoe will be on the other foot someday (like it is now) and its all in the game.

        1. taxpayer waste of taxpayer money

        2. “Waste taxpayer money” is the entire job description of every FedGov employee.

      2. The Hillary email controversy was overblown though her arrogance needed to be punished to set a precedent for her control freakishness that got her into that mess. Having said that, Trump and his people are being pretty sloppy too. Normally, the Flynn thing is puzzling to me why it became such a huge deal. Worse things have been done by both parties inthe psat. And what was Flynn’s motivation to hide anything from Pence??? It makes no sense.

  4. I am still waiting for someone to investigate Madonna’s threat against Hillary voters. She threatened to give all Hillary voters a blowjob. Just think of all the potential Hillary voters who stayed home cowering in fear of what Madonna might do to them.

    Is Madonna a secret Putin agent?

    1. Who would pass up a free one. Regardless of the woman’s appearance or politics. I’m still waiting to cash-in. She didn’t say it was void if Hillary lost

      1. Depends. It’s Madonna. Does the penicillin come with it?

        1. I would insist upon it. But, hell, we all know she has tons of experience. She must be pretty good at it

    2. I would imagine she is quite good, technically speaking. I myself am a optics-priority kind of guy like yourself, but quite a few people are very much the opposite extreme. Different strokes for different folks.

      1. Even the best wear out after a few million.

      2. Different strokes for different folks.

        Is phrasing just dead? /Archer

  5. The two also report that Kremlin insiders may be most worried about Trump resigning, being removed from office, or even being killed

    Hmmm, should I be worried about any of those?

    1. Yes, because Pence steps in

    2. “Hmmm, should I be worried about any of those?”

      um, yeh. If Trump gets pushed out in questionable circumstances, the 60+ million people who voted for him, some quite passionately might be justifiably concerned that their voice and vote in the future of the USA is truly null-and-void. A big chunk of support for Trump was/is based on the premise that DC is broken and people were desperate for anyone to fix it.
      Remove that meager hope and you’ll see a whole new group of people marching in anger on DC. And they won’t be wearing cute little pink hats.

    3. Yes, because Pence is a religious nut. Trump at least can destory things – good and bad- and it is preferable to reset things than do things as normal.

  6. Foreign Policy‘s Kremlinology was intriguing but in the end seemed to have mostly the whiff of speculation.
    .
    On a more substantive note, I can’t wait to hear Director Flynn’s limo comment monologue!

  7. The hypocrisy on the left is mindboggling. A failure to disclose a single call is a major crime. But running an unauthorized private server to handle thousands of sensitive emails for years is not a problem at all. Makes perfect sense.

    1. I mean, not to be a pedant, but is your mind really boggled? If consistency, fairness, and rationality were practiced by the prog left, they wouldn’t be prog left.

      1. Careful. If you point out inconsistencies in the narrative you are bound to be labeled a ‘Trumpkin’. There is no place for reason under a fascist dictatorship. This is known

        1. Probably. But then again, people who would be prone to such a thing are irrational and unable to be reasoned with, so fuck ’em.

      2. Haha. No. I’m just pointing out that the difference seems to be in degree. And not in a good way for the left.

      3. They aren’t the prog left anymore. They are the ctrl-left. This fits perfectly with the alt-right as all we have to do to shut down the nation is delete-everyone else.

    2. ^This. It concerns me that the left’s attitude right now can be quoted from a batman movie:
      “Some men just want to watch the world burn.” – Alfred

      1. Especially in statistical analysis.

  8. Russian hackers- what can’t they do?

  9. Oh man this is too funny. Flynn was the lynch pin for their ‘islam is a cancer’ hyperbole. Now that he’s gone they’re going to have to take a softer line. Just in time to tell Netanyahu that they’re going to cut off aid to pay for Israel’s universal health care. Good times, good times.

  10. Putin is vindictive, but the only thing he really cares about is how he’s perceived within Russia. Even his vindictiveness against Hillary was ultimately driven by her statements questioning the legitimacy of his election in 2012.

    “Clinton, who began her tenure by famously offering a “reset” of Russian relations, would end it by publicly blasting Putin’s government on issues including alleged vote-rigging in Russia”

    —-Washington Post

    http://tinyurl.com/z56lkzv

    To whatever extent Putin sought to throw the election for Hillary, it was because Hillary cast doubt on his legitimacy at home.

    Putin being worried about trade wars is beside the point. As far as Russian interests being tied to Trump’s success, Putin’s interest in foreign policy is, as always, driven by perceptions within Russia. He needs to be seen as a tough guy that defends Russia’s pride by standing up to America. I suppose it might be harder to sell that image if he’s seen buddying up with Trump.

    Meanwhile, Russia’s oil and resource based economy (again, we’re talking about domestic policy) is threatened by the new oil exporting powerhouse in the world–the fracking United States of America.

  11. Putin is up for reelection in March of 2018, about a year from now. He’s worried about how he’s going to sell himself to his people. His position is always precarious–not just with his people, but with the oligarchs. If he shows any weakness in standing up to the U.S., he could lose the support of the Russian people. What’s the point of weak strongman? If he fails to represent the interests of Russia’s oil and other resource industries, the oligarchs may trade him in for someone else.

    Whatever Putin’s real concerns are about Trump, they’re actually a function of the numerous swords he has dangling over his head. Let’s not miss the forest for the trees.

    1. There are two things that are keeping Putin in office and alive; the fact that he can pay off Russian elites with oil revenue and his ability to stir up nationalist fervor in the Russian population. Putin has done enormous damage to the Russian economy and made the life of the average Russian much worse. He is still popular, however, because the Russians see him as a strong leader who is restoring Russia as a super power and defending Russia’s honor against an arrogant and aggressive US

      Its a little hard to portray the US as the great enemy and Putin as Russia’s defender when the US just elected a President that so many people consider to be in the pocket of Putin. That in some ways helps Putin in the short term but in the long term is a huge problem. Without the US as an enemy, he has a much harder time stirring up nationalist fervor to keep the Russian public’s mind off how bad things are.

      1. Without the US as an enemy, he has a much harder time stirring up nationalist fervor to keep the Russian public’s mind off how bad things are.

        That’s what neighboring former Soviet states that stupidly gave up their nukes are for.

        1. True. But that is a harder sell. Also, unlike the US, Putin is expected to actually do something against those states. For all of the panic over him invading Ukraine, it hasn’t turned out that well for him. It has cost Russia a fortune and it seems to just gotten them involved in a civil war. So his ability to bully his neighbors is a bit limited because since they are not the US, the population expects him to do something about it.

      2. “Putin has done enormous damage to the Russian economy and made the life of the average Russian much worse”

        I question that assessment. The Russian economy was horrid since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Putin is, at most, a blip in the collapse of what’s left of Russia. They never had a robust manufacturing base that wasn’t utterly dependent on a captured market of client states and those on the US embargo list. Russian goods have always had a perception of being of shoddy construction and questionable quality control….not something in high demand on a global open market.

        1. The Russian economy was horrible even before the collapse!!!! Heh heh.

  12. It’s unclear how the DOJ concluded Flynn was not being truthful about his phone call with the ambassador.

    The NSA shared the contents of the call with them?

    1. All of those calls are recorded. It’s astounding that he lied about what he said.

      1. People in those positions are often unbelievably arrogant. They think they can lie to anyone’s face and get away with it.

        1. In fairness, other high-ranking officials in the national security complex have shown that they can. See Clapper, James.

      2. It’s astounding that no Republican has asked for investigations. Unlike some private email server or what was on Weiner’s laptop

        No, not astounding, expected

        1. He admitted he did it, I’m not sure what the investigation would be?

          Also, I have no issue with him talking to them about sanctions. The Trump administration was going to be in power in a few days. They should be able to speak of their future policy. The law was intended for normal citizens, not an incoming administration.

          1. “Silly plebs! Laws aren’t for us.”

            If anyone should be exactingly ? even ruthlessly ? held to the letter of the law, it is someone who chooses to become part of government in any capacity.

  13. Flynn was a fat target for the national security state.

    No actually he was trying to create a new authoritarian state based on “if you think islam isn’t a cancer then it’s already too late for you”. This was a huge blow to TrumPutinBannon’s ambition to take over the world. Now they are dependent on Miller and Kushner for their ideology. Sad.

    1. Absolutely. Clearly the hallmarks of an authoritarian state is (1) an adversarial press; (2) an intelligence community that leaks information to discredit elected officials, and (2) supporters that are subjected to violence for the way they voted or for attending a speech.

      Also, down is up. Shouldn’t you be reading the New York Times or some other fanatical publication right about now?

      1. Shhhhh….don’t feed it.

  14. The Russians don’t understand the US or US politics very well. I don’t think they understood what Trump was saying or doing. They also didn’t understand that Trump’s opponents were engaging in hyperbole for political advantage and took the charges that Trump was going to walk away from NATO and US commitments abroad literally. At the same time, they seem to have completely failed to grasp the significance of Trump’s position regarding the regulatory state. How a country that is dependent on oil and gas revenue could think a US President who planned to undo the existing restrictions on oil and gas production and stop treating CO2 as a pollutant was in their best interests is beyond me.

    The Russians also seemed to have thought that charges of Trump being a Kremlin stooge were in their interests because it would weaken Trump’s legitimacy and ability to govern. Instead, these charges have created a bi-partisan anti Russian coalition in US politics. That means if Trump decides to turn hawkish on Russia either out of conviction or political necessity, there is no one to stop him or even temper him.

    Putin isn’t nearly as smart or clever as he thinks he is. Past Russian leader have had a certain Eastern cleverness about them. Putin has none of that. For all of his bluster, he remains what he has always been, a third rate KGB thug and really a complete dolt.

    1. The Russians don’t understand the US or US politics very well. I don’t think they understood what Trump was saying or doing.

      Its also possible, John, that the new story about “what the Russians think” is just as bullshit as the previous stories about “what the Russians think” and that none of it has anything to do with the Russians at all, and is just disinfo pumped out by a media which wants to keep Russia front and center as a narrative-anchoring device.

      1. True. You can never tell what is disinformation. And you are right, this might not be what they think. I am inclined to think this is true. I never understood how Trump being elected was in the Russian’s best interest. The Russians want high oil prices and Trump’s attitude towards regulation and the AGW cult are not conducive to higher oil prices.

        The rise of fracking and US oil and gas production is a grave strategic threat to Russia. Not only does it conspire to keep oil prices down, it gives Europe a possible alternative source of natural gas. Putin has long used the Russian supply of gas to Europe as leverage. The rise of US gas production and its ability to now export it, takes away a lot of that leverage.

        Further, the US no longer being dependent on oil imported from the middle east means Putin can no longer damage the US economy by making trouble in the Middle east and creating oil price shocks. The rise US oil gas production is nothing but bad news for Russia. The best thing that could have happened to Russia was Hillary winning and continuing Obama’s global warming policies.

        So, I do believe that they for some reason didn’t understand that and are now starting to figure out their mistake.

        1. The Russians want high oil prices

          they’re not the only ones, fwiw. Trump et al might end up helping engineer higher oil prices, but it wouldn’t be because “russia”

          I’d think from a geopolitical standpoint, the Russians are more concerned about being the key supplier of Nat gas to EU.

          the US no longer being dependent on oil imported from the middle east

          Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait add up to less than half of what we import from Canada alone, annually.

          We were never super-“dependent” on ME oil; we simply import it because its there and its plentiful and we coincidentally think guarateeing a steady supply-market is in everyone’s best interests.

          that also means that fracking, etc. is not going to stop us from caring about ME oil, or stopping importing it.

          My point was mainly just that the media seems to want to pretend that Russia is still a superpower involved in some super-high-level international chess game with the US, when in reality they’re more like a 3rd tier country that happens to punch way above its weight, diplomatically, because of Nukes and their seat on the security council.

          Otherwise they’re just a crony petro state like many others, and the media-pants-wetting about them being some Big Deal is mainly just invented to pretend that the US’ strategic failures in Syria wasn’t really a blunder entirely of our own making.

          1. We were never super-“dependent” on ME oil; we simply import it because its there and its plentiful and we coincidentally think guarateeing a steady supply-market is in everyone’s best interests.

            We were dependent upon importing oil. That meant when the price of oil went up, we got poorer as we had to send more money out of the country to pay for our oil. Now that we import comparatively little oil, that is no longer the case. The price of oil rising or falling just shuffles around the winners and losers in the economy rather than making us poorer. For example, when oil prices crashed a few years ago, it didn’t result in the usual boost to the economy. The reason for this was since we were not importing much oil, the money we made from cheaper oil was offset by the losses to domestic oil producers. That made it a wash. This means our economic well being is no longer tied to stability in the Middle East. If Iran goes nuts and cuts off the Persian Gulf and Oil goes back to $125 a barrel, it will suck for consumers but the overall economy will remain about what it was as the money consumers pay for gas goes to domestic oil producers instead of Canada or the ME. That is an enormous shift in US interests and one that our foreign policy establishment has yet to grasp.

            1. Now that we import comparatively little oil, that is no longer the case.

              we still import massive amounts of oil, albeit ‘less’ than 10 years ago

              we still don’t produce as much oil as we did in the 1980s

              Bringing things back to “1970s” levels of imports vs. production isn’t going to be some geopolitical sea-change.

              1. Thanks. I was under the impression we imported much less than we did.

          2. Russia is a third rate power. It is however still able to cause us problems by propping up Iran and threatening its neighbors.

            What the media and the rest of our Foreign Policy establishment don’t get is that the cold war is over. Russia is no longer an existential threat to us. It is a regional power with a sphere of influence just like every other big power. So Russia playing local bad boy with Ukraine or the Baltics or Georgia is not the same kind of threat to the US and its interests that such things were during the cold war.

            At some point we have to recognize that and stop treating Putin as Hitler and every regional crisis as the next Munich. And further, at some point Europe is going to have to stand up to the need to defend itself against its big nasty neighbor instead of expecting the American taxpayers to foot the bill so they can have a cradle to grave welfare state.

            1. I agree with most of this, tho i don’t know how much they really ‘prop up’ Iran.

              1. Sell them military equipment and veto any UNSC actions that might have real teeth.

      2. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

        This is most likely the truth.

    2. Yeah I’ll bet his legion of doom soldiers even wear face concealing head gear and the ductwork in his inner sanctum is large enough for people to crawl through

  15. Good job nyt and newsmax….job well done

    http://thehill.com/homenews/me…..er-account

    1. They will believe and print anything that they think makes Trump look bad, no matter how obviously false it is.

  16. Always got to have a bad guy, right? Maybe it’s just my inner conspiracy theorist talking, but there seems to be a concerted effort to cast Russia as one of our major antagonists again. Maybe to take the heat off China?

    1. This whole thing is the deep state shitting their pants over Trump, couple that with all the big money tied up in cronyism for their own economic advantage.

      Trump really plans on blowing up the system, and the system is scared.

      1. Trump is not really “planning” anything about the Deep State. He’s not planning to defend it or preserve it’s assets or priorities. He isn’t going to care if what he does wrecks the DS so he probably will. When people realise that the DS isn’t getting what it wants they’ll figure out that means they can’t give them what you want. When that happens they’re finished. Trump doesn’t have to even TRY to destroy the DS. All he has to do is whatever he wants, provided it doesn’t suit what they want.

  17. Ed i am curious by this underneath the headline…are you jumping on board with this hysteria or trying to more drive rumors for clicks? Sounds pretty ominous

    “Democrats say Flynn resignation just the beginning.”

    1. Seemed more like straight reporting on the situation than support to me.

      1. True but it comes off as kind of a click bait to me. Should be contained in article imo

  18. Damn, on a day reason.com decided to shed all pretense and get behind Drumpf, this happens

  19. Flynn was ousted because he deceptively failed to disclose an unauthorized and possibly illegal discussion that he had with Russian Ambassador Kislyak. The fact that Flynn talked with Kislyak was established by US intelligence services. US intelligence services leaked the fact to US media. In doing so, US intelligence services effectively revealed that they are willing and able to surveille anybody and everybody, that they will use the fruits of that labor to undermine any American political figure that they find inconvenient, and that they don’t care who knows that the US has become a police state with unlimited surveillance reach.

    Eli Lake refers to the Flynn ouster as a “political assassination”, and acknowledges that “It’s very rare that reporters are ever told about government-monitored communications of U.S. citizens.”

    I’ve been an observer of American politics since the mid-60s. I don’t recall any time that US intelligence services leaked information that reveals sources and methods to undermine an elected US political figure. That US intelligence services are so determined to undermine Trump that they will even reveal sources and methods to keep him from draining the swamp strongly supports some the darkest conspiracy theories about the Deep State and US intelligence services.

    1. As US Representative Rep. Devin Nunes, chairman of the House intelligence committee, puts it: “”First it’s Flynn, next it will be Kellyanne Conway, then it will be Steve Bannon, then it will be Reince Priebus.” Lake summarizes its: “Put another way. Flynn is only the appetizer; Trump is the entree.”

      1. Do they feel that powerful that shaking our whole outlook on “government if for the people” will not have serious repercussions?

        1. *is
          Must’ve been a Freudian slip.

      2. This doesn’t really make sense to me though. Why would you tip your hand if this was the plan? That doesn’t make sense. If this a warning shot…Trump has an incentive to cross T and dot Is

    2. Good let’s hope trumps brings them into the light

    3. Flynn was ousted because he deceptively failed to disclose an unauthorized and possibly illegal discussion that he had with Russian Ambassador Kislyak.

      He was ousted because he lied to Pence and Pence put himself out there in Flynn’s defense. That was his cardinal sin.

      1. Yeah, never let your boss get blindsided is a rule pretty much everywhere.

    4. Yep. I think 2 things went on.

      1. The CIA didn’t like Flynn and found a way to destroy him. Not sure exactly what that means for the Trump Administration and I don’t usually buy into all the “deep-government” stuff but they may need to do some major house-cleaning there.

      2. Sounds like Flynn mislead Pence and that’s why he’s out. That’s the right move if true.

      1. Pretty much this. All the team D people I know are claiming this as some kind of political victory because of ‘investigations’ and ‘truth’ or whatever. I just point out the facts of element 2 cast doubt on the efficacy of those efforts. Irrespective of what conversations he had, an advisor lied to his boss pretty sure that gets you fired on The Apprentice: Washington, D.C..

        That aside, didn’t all the conversations take place before he was ever on the government payroll? If so, who cares what someone is saying in their capacity as a private citizen or what promises were made? To me, the issue is only joined if there is some quid pro quo following up. Like you said, its the Deep State stuff I find really disturbing.

        1. To the best of my ability to Google, the conversation in question took place after the election and after Trump named Flynn to the position, but before the inauguration. (Sorry, I’m typing on my phone and incapable of making a link work with my fat arthritic fingers.).

          1. Right, so incoming administration shouldn’t be able to talk to anyone about their future plans?

            That is ridiculous at face value. Everyone but the incredibly deranged Democrats and their Cosmo allies at Reason understands this.

    5. I agree with you. The guy made an illegal phone call and then lied about doing it. He needed to be fired. What that fact says about Trump and his administration is debatable and will be revealed as time goes on. But I don’t think you can call this a political assassination. Flynn got what he deserved.

      If nothing else, it is a nice change to see someone held accountable for once. Do you remember anyone in the Obama administration being fired? Petreus maybe but that was after he was about to be indicted. I can’t think of anyone who fucked up and was fired for it. Can you?

      1. I’m not completely familiar with the facts. Which facts under what statute made the call/calls illegal?

        1. I misspoke. It is not that the call was illegal, his failure to report it was illegal. He made contact with a foreign government and then didn’t tell his superiors. It was the failure to tell his superiors he did it that was illegal.

          Sorry not to be more clear. But I think that was the issue.

          1. With that I agree. The issue appears to me to be fundamentally a management issue, although if he has a clearance then he might have been under an affirmative duty to file a foreign contact report with whoever his certifying authority is, assuming he had no prior exemptions from those disclosure requirements. If so that might actually bring his acts into the potential ambit of a prosecution by at least one federal agency…

            1. How could the national security advisor not have a clearance?

              1. Being a National Secuirty advisor doesn’t, by necessity, entail a clearance. There are many think tanks and publications which offer such advice and opinions open source and their staff also hold no clearances. I’ll admit, that in the current context it would be odd if he did not have a clearance or an IC shield. I just haven’t personally looked at any source material one way or the other establishing if he had received one and didn’t want to jump to a conclusion.

                1. I understand that completely. I would just assume that the job would necessitate it. And that either: 1) he’d already have a TS+ clearance to be considered for the positions or that 2) they’d significantly expedite the procedure for such a high-ranking official.

                  1. True. Even operating under an interim clearance prior to final adjudication he’d still be subject to reporting requirements. To push your point a little, I argue that as an advisor you could probably function effectively with only an S depending on your portfolio. There is still an institutional drive to publish all the analysis at S so all the users can have access. Although, as a political matter, the closeness to power would likely entail being read onto the standard compartments.

          2. He wasn’t just some random person with no security clearance, though. He was the Director of National Intelligence for 2 years under Obama. Does nobody remember that Obama himself appointed him to this post? He has plenty of contacts and why wouldn’t he try to make headway before an election? I just feel like this is all over technicalities.

            1. You’ll have to unpack this a little for me. What are you arguing or what point are you attempting to make here?

          3. He wasn’t just some random person with no security clearance, though. He was the Director of National Intelligence for 2 years under Obama. Does nobody remember that Obama himself appointed him to this post? He has plenty of contacts and why wouldn’t he try to make headway before an election? I just feel like this is all over technicalities.

      2. Didn’t Obama fire Flynn for pushing back on the sunny narrative that the fight against terrorists was going swimmingly?

        1. I think so. And he fired McCrystal for saying mean things about the snowflakes in the White House. So yes, you could get fired for embarrassing the President. But never for incompetence that i can remember.

          1. To be pedantic, when your job is political embarrassing your boss is incompetence. That said, your point is well taken.

        2. Yes, but what does Obama know? Drumpf knew Flynn was his man because of that

    6. “illegal” HOW? Comrade Obama did the same thing even before he was elected. He went overseas and visited several leaders and talked with them about his positions,etc. this is just more double standards garbage.

  20. “People in that position don’t do things without authorization.”

    BWAHAHAhahahaha!

    Too fucking funny.

  21. So was this call recorded as official recording or was it snooped?

    1. He wasn’t a Federal employee at the time, was he? If not, it was snooped.

  22. I’m having a flashback to the ’60s. Are schools having air raid drills again? You know, where the children are told to take shelter from a 200 megaton shockwave under their desks?

    1. It’s a precursor to a new House Committee on Un-American Activities.

    2. “Duck and cover” WORKS against nuclear weapons, as it does against all explosions if you get warning. People say “It won’t work against something that powerful” as though the effective power didn’t drop with distance. Sure if you’re a meter away D&C won’t work, but neither will anything else. For any size explosion, even nukes, there is a ring where it will work. Closer it’s useless, further away it’s not necessary.

  23. What are the odds Obama went outside the “official lines of communication” when he was putting out feelers for the Cuba trip? Or did he just pick up the phone and call los Castros direct?

  24. I mentioned above but does this make sense to tip your hand like this if this was true? Why would you let Trump know what you are looking to do and just go straight after him. Now he has reason to be guarded if true

    As US Representative Rep. Devin Nunes, chairman of the House intelligence committee, puts it: “”First it’s Flynn, next it will be Kellyanne Conway, then it will be Steve Bannon, then it will be Reince Priebus.” Lake summarizes its: “Put another way. Flynn is only the appetizer; Trump is the entree.”

    1. It makes sense if the Deep State wants a compliant Trump. They just executed a hostage. Trump now has to meet their demands, or they execute another, and another.

      If everything is monitored and recorded, the ability to destroy a person is almost complete.

      I remember a bunch of pre-election talk about soft-coups by the Deep State and infighting between the FBI and CIA/NSA. Seemed kooky at the time.

      1. If I’m understanding all this correctly it’s because they briefly talked about the Russian sanctions so the progtards are trying to use this as proof of being complicit in any actions the Russians may or may not have talen to influence the election.

        Back in December they were trying to use the same thing to discredit him but it was because the FBI was monitoring his call, which turned out to be a big nothing burger.

        This seems like more evidence that there are a lot of government employees thar need to be fired. Let’s fire ALL of them and see which ones we missed after a year.

      2. If I’m president, I make public the names of all the CIA agents in the field.

        1. Would the political operatives at the CIA care about what happens to the field agents?

        2. Would the political operatives at the CIA care about what happens to the field agents?

        3. Yeah but the NOC list is kept under pretty tight security at Langley. Now maybe if we had a team willing to accept this rather impossible mission, we could pull it off and get the list.

  25. I guess this means Hillary’s rear is in big trouble over Uranium 1. Far worse than anything Flynn has done.

  26. So even if Flynn lied, from what I gather he basically just told Russia he’d have more flexibility after the election, am I right? Doesn’t that sound familiar?

  27. so now you are spreading politically motivated lies and manufactured rumors by democrats? and you are still calling yourselves Reason?

  28. It’s unclear how the DOJ concluded Flynn was not being truthful about his phone call with the ambassador.

    I’ve read it somewhere — no, I’m not going to search for it — that the NSA monitors the Russian Ambassador’s unencrypted phone calls (and maybe even the encrypted ones as well).

    1. The squirrels ate the blockquote tags on the 1st line. 🙁

  29. Father Peter Lonergan: Well, I can’t say it’s true, and I won’t say it’s not, but there’s been talk.
    Michaleen Flynn: Oh, a lot of talk.

    The Quiet Man

  30. There is nothing new here, Russia have Trumps balls in a vice, anyone who did not know that before they voted for him were not paying attention.

  31. I’m not seeing what the controversy is.

    Was it illegal for a national security adviser to casually chat with a Russian diplomat? Unethical?

    If he was heard discussing payments in exchange for persuading Trump to lift sanctions, that would be one thing. It certainly looks like Trump threw him under the bus.

    1. The controversy is that Drumpf asked his NSA head honcho to resign hours after expressing full confidence in him over matters that he knew for weeks.

      If Drumpf threw him under the bus, then Flynn needs to speak up. Matter of national security.

      Why not instead speculate what was on Hillary’s private email server?

  32. I guess Rand Paul turns Republican now.

    http://bit.ly/2lh9wRw

  33. this Flynn business is just a trumped-up bogus charge intended to sabotage the Trump Administration. There’s lots of Obama leftovers just waiting to throw their wrenches in the works. The leftist media is hot to blow it all out of proportion,to make mountains out of molehills. It’s sad that Trump caved to this,now the sharks smell blood in the water.
    There needs to be a widespread purge of all these leftovers.

    1. ^ This.

      I think Trump just “caved in” because he doesn’t need the distraction.

  34. Russian concerns over Trump? Good! . . . . Just so free market players and job seekers aren’t concerned.

  35. “Putin has lost his monopoly over geopolitical unpredictability.”
    He never had it. Putin whatever else his faults, is predictable. If it threatens Russia’s ability to be a “Great Power” he’ll try to stomp on it. The Eurocrats on the other hand are amazingly unpredictable. Subsidize the Ukraine for influence, they’ll condemn you, remove the subsidy and charge full price, they’ll condemn you. Oh wait, that is predictable, predictably hypocritical.

  36. “Putin has lost his monopoly over geopolitical unpredictability.”
    He never had it. Putin whatever else his faults, is predictable. If it threatens Russia’s ability to be a “Great Power” he’ll try to stomp on it. The Eurocrats on the other hand are amazingly unpredictable. Subsidize the Ukraine for influence, they’ll condemn you, remove the subsidy and charge full price, they’ll condemn you. Oh wait, that is predictable, predictably hypocritical.

  37. Trump could kill all this controversy by asking him to come back.He got suckered into this one.

  38. Late last month, the Department of Justice reportedly informed the Trump White House that Flynn had misled it about his call to the ambassador?the Washington Post reports that the message was delivered by Sally Yates, who Trump fired after she said she was not convinced the DOJ should defend ???? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? Trump’s travel ban executive order in court. It’s unclear how the DOJ concluded Flynn was not being truthful about his phone call with the ambassador.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.