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 » Mon Feb 13, 2017 7:08 pm

here's what I just learned from the MSM

A paying Mar-a-Lago member took photos of Trump being briefed ...
Business Insider-4 hours ago



Mar-a-Lago guest takes picture with nuclear 'football' briefcase

A visitor to President Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida posted a Facebook photo with a person he says is responsible for carrying the black bag that contains the nuclear launch codes for the president of the United States.

“This is Rick...He carries the ‘football’ The nuclear football (also known as the atomic football, the President's emergency satchel, the Presidential Emergency Satchel, the button, the black box, or just the football) is a briefcase, the contents of which are to be used by the President of the United States to authorize a nuclear attack while away from fixed command centers, such as the White House Situation Room,” the caption reads.

The two images, one of which shows the man carrying the briefcase, is tagged at "Donald Trump Palm Beach Home."
http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... ll-carrier


The precise nature of said “detail” has less to do with what Trump, Abe, and their aides discussed and more to do with the flurry of activity the missile test’s news generated at Mar-a-Lago. Even so, as the Washington Post pointed out, the contrast between the very public national security meeting and Trump’s campaign comments regarding Hillary Clinton’s supposed security missteps was telling. Especially since patrons like Richard DeAgazio, a retired Boston-area investor interviewed by the Post‘s David Farhenthold, was able to snap several photos of the session and post them to Facebook.


VIA RICHARD DEAGAZIO
Image
The Post referenced DeAgazio’s above post as photographic evidence of the CNN report’s claim regarding the dimly-lit atmosphere of the room. “The patio was lit only with candles and moonlight,” it read, “So aides used the camera lights on their phones to help the stone-faced Trump and Abe read through the documents.” Not good, says Post writer Philip Bump, who references an account of Edward Snowden’s infamous hotel room meeting with reporters in Hong Kong to make a point about the perilous nature of the Trump team’s apparent lack of care for tight security.

Phones — especially phones with their flashes turned on for improved visibility — are portable television satellite trucks and, if compromised, can be used to get a great deal of information about what’s happening nearby, unless precautions are taken.
Snowden’s well-founded paranoia notwithstanding, Bump concludes “precautions weren’t taken” based on DeAgazio’s numerous Facebook posts from Mar-a-Lago over the weekend. Like the businessman and occasional actor‘s photo with the military aide then serving as the president’s “nuclear football,” whom he identified by name. “This is Rick,” DeAgazio explained before copying and pasting the opening paragraph from Wikipedia’s “Nuclear Football” entry into his post. “Rick is the man.”
http://uproxx.com/news/richard-deagazio ... -football/
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 7:22 pm

The bottom line is that Putin is far shrewder than Trump and capable of playing him like a balalaika. And with the likes of foolhardy Bannon, dangerous professional twerp and presidential advisor Stephen Miller, security risk Michael Flynn and others egging Trump on — obsessed with a nightmarish hallucination about America and the world’s future — we live at one of the most dangerous moments in our republic’s history.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/ ... russia-now



So you all better read every fucking thing you can get your hands on...don't let any anonymous poster on the internet tell you everything is fake news...READ IT ALL AND FIGURE IT OUT

ALTERNATIVE FACTS = AN EVIL STATECRAFT


Adam Schiff drops bombshell: Michael Flynn may have used encryption to hide Russia talks from US
David Edwards DAVID EDWARDS
13 FEB 2017 AT 15:06 ET

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) revealed allegations on Monday that President Donald Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Flynn, may have tried to hide his unofficial discussions with Russia by using encryption technology.

Speaking to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Schiff explained that the Trump administration was not labeling allegations against Flynn as “fake news” because U.S. intelligence agencies may have audio recordings of him speaking to Russian officials while President Barack Obama was still in office.

“They know that if there is a transcript, if there are recordings, that can’t be dismissed,” Schiff said. “The fact that they would mislead the country about this is inexplicable.”

“What I think is interesting here, there are allegations — again, as yet unproven — that they may have also used encrypted communications,” he added. “Since Flynn was talking with the Russians, if he was using encrypted communications, it wasn’t to conceal it from the Russians. Then you have to ask, who were they concealing conversations from?”

According to Schiff, the allegations suggest that Flynn engaged in encrypted communications in addition to the un-encrypted discussions that were reportedly recorded by U.S. intelligence agencies.

“This is something that I think we need to determine as part of an investigation,” he said. “But if there were then the question is, why were those being used? Who were those conversations to be concealed from, why was it necessary to go to that if you were simply talking about Christmas greetings as Sean Spicer apparently misrepresented to the country?”

Watch the video below from CNN, broadcast Feb. 13, 2017.
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/adam-s ... s-from-us/



That Makes No Sense
ByJOSH MARSHALLPublishedFEBRUARY 13, 2017, 5:50 PM EST
We certainly do not know for a fact that President Trump knew about Mike Flynn's conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak before the election. But why is anyone assuming Trump is only learning about that back channel now? That seems like a highly questionable assumption, given how close Flynn and Trump were during the election and how much Russia came up during the campaign. Remember, according to multiple published reports, Flynn was not just in communication with Kislyak at the end of December, when Trump was President-Elect. He was in on-going communication with him before the 2016 election too.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog
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 9:06 pm

I do want to thank you for posting that link ..it should be read by everyone



Karmamatterz » Mon Feb 13, 2017 4:43 pm wrote: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.



Question why would Flynn have to lie about the call at all?

I think there's some kekc in the oven baking away



It’s a big if, but if Flynn presents falsehoods face-to-face with the FBI, it’s a potential felony.

Commentary: Flynn facts: a threat to national security

U.S. National Security Advisor Michael Flynn (R) and Senior Counselor Steve Bannon board Air Force One at West Palm Beach International airport in West Palm Beach, Florida U.S., February 12, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria
U.S. National Security Advisor Michael Flynn (R) and Senior Counselor Steve Bannon board Air Force One at West Palm Beach International airport in West Palm Beach, Florida U.S., February 12, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria
By Tim Weiner
The National Security Council was created 70 years ago, at the dawn of the Cold War, as the White House intelligence center – where secrets of state were weighed, assayed and placed before the president for life-and-death decisions.

Running the NSC is a killing job. You juggle hand grenades seven days a week. Keep them flying and you gain great power, like Henry Kissinger did. Let them fall and you might face indictment like the two NSC chiefs who blew covert operations under President Ronald Reagan.

Twenty-five people have held the post. Never has there been one like Michael Flynn, the former lieutenant general appointed by President Donald Trump. Flynn has been under investigation by the FBI since late last year – and that is a danger to American national security.

Flynn has been startling superiors and subordinates since he became director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2012. He had spent a brave decade on the dark side of the war on terror. But he flouted authority and flayed his counterparts in the national security establishment, flaunted what DIA officers called “Flynn facts” – falsehoods – such as asserting that Iran has killed more Americans than al Qaeda in the 21st century, and was fired in 2014.

Then, as a private citizen running an intelligence consulting firm, Flynn got cozy with Russian President Vladimir Putin. After dining as Putin’s guest of honor and taking payments from his propaganda machine, Flynn got on the Trump bandwagon, tweeting links to fake news accusing Hillary Clinton of sex crimes with children and leading “Lock Her Up!” chants at raucous rallies. His reward was his appointment as national security adviser. He took office on Jan. 20 – already the subject of scrutiny by FBI counterintelligence agents and their colleagues at the CIA. The case is the most politically charged intelligence investigation since the Cold War.

The FBI and the CIA agree that Putin tried to swing the 2016 election for Trump. (Trump concedes that point but says he had nothing to do with Putin’s efforts.) The intelligence agencies reached this conclusion in December: cyber-attacks, information warfare, and clandestine operations promoted Trump as part of a campaign to destabilize Western democracies. That fact beggars belief, but American, British and German intelligence services are unanimous about Putin’s astonishing ambitions.

The explosive question for the FBI is whether members of the Trump campaign were in cahoots with this covert crusade on behalf of their candidate.

Enter Flynn – as a private citizen, before his swearing-in, and a subject of the FBI’s scrutiny – conversing with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the United States. These colloquies, as Reuters reported on Jan. 13, included five talks in late December. They began just before Obama hit back hard at Moscow for meddling in the election, targeting 35 Russian intelligence operatives, and continued until Putin’s surprising statement that he would not respond tit-for-tat.

The FBI listened in; the Bureau and American intelligence have routinely eavesdropped on foreign embassies in Washington since the 1950s.

Was it wrong for Flynn to talk with the Russian envoy? Absolutely not. Kissinger himself met with Boris Sedov, officially a diplomat but actually a spy, at the Soviet Embassy on Jan. 2, 1969, eighteen days before President Nixon was inaugurated and Kissinger became his national security adviser. “Sedov said that the Soviet Union was very interested that the inaugural speech contain some reference to open channels of communication to Moscow,” Kissinger told the president-elect. Nixon took that to heart at his swearing-in. His exact words, addressed to Moscow: “Our lines of communication will be open.”

The difference between then and now? Kissinger checked in with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover before he went to talk to Sedov. In the context of the Cold War, that constituted the highest security clearance.

Flynn did not clear his chats with Putin’s ambassador – certainly not with the FBI nor the Obama administration, and evidently not with the incoming secretaries of state and defense, who are statutory members of the National Security Council. That might be no more than a diplomatic misdemeanor.

But it might be something worse. Flynn insisted until late last Thursday that he never talked about the sanctions to Moscow’s man in Washington. When he learned that the FBI had proof to the contrary, on tape, Flynn contradicted himself, saying he couldn’t recall what he had said. Every national-security reporter in Washington has that story nailed. Their work has the acrid odor of truth, still smoldering.

It’s a big if, but if Flynn presents falsehoods face-to-face with the FBI, it’s a potential felony.

Or Flynn’s troubles may vanish in the swamp. Remember Kissinger’s deathless quip, which Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch chose as his college yearbook epigraph: “The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.” Kissinger survived a scarifying stint at the National Security Council, won the Nobel Peace Prize while denounced as a war criminal, and, at age 93, reigns as an eminence grise. Michael Flynn is a tough guy. He might live to fight the long game under President Trump.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-flynn ... SKBN15S28E



AND THIS IS NOT THE BIGGEST STORY OF THE NIGHT

why is trumpty dumbty dangling this firing over Gen. Yellowkekc Flynn head for days now?
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Mon Feb 13, 2017 10:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 9:17 pm

MONDAY, FEB 13, 2017 01:12 PM CST
Flynn’s field of fright: The terror is coming from inside the White House
The only thing that's known about Trump's foreign policy is that there's no coherent foreign policy
IRA CHERNUS,

Flynn's field of fright: The terror is coming from inside the White House
(Credit: AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
This piece originally appeared on TomDispatch.
What kind of national security policy will the Trump administration pursue globally? On this issue, as on so many others, the incoming president has offered enough contradictory clues, tweets, and comments that the only definitive answer right now is: Who knows?

During his presidential campaign he more or less promised a non-interventionist foreign policy, even as he offered hints that his might be anything but. There was, of course, ISIS to destroy and he swore he would “bomb the shit out of them.” He would, he suggested, even consider using nuclear weapons in the Middle East. And as Dr. Seuss might have said, that was not all, oh no, that was not all. He has often warned of the dangers of a vague but fearsome “radical Islam” and insisted that “terrorists and their regional and worldwide networks must be eradicated from the face of the Earth, a mission we will carry out.” (And he’s already ordered his first special ops raid in Yemen, resulting in one dead American and evidently many dead civilians.)

And when it comes to enemies to smite, he’s hardly willing to stop there, not when, as he told CNN, “I think Islam hates us.” He then refused to confine that hatred to “radical Islam,” given that, on the subject of the adherents of that religion, “it’s very hard to define, it’s very hard to separate. Because you don’t know who’s who.”

And when it comes to enemies, why stop with Islam? Though President Trump has garnered endless headlines for touting a possible rapprochement with Vladimir Putin’s Russia, he also suggested during the election campaign that he would be tougher on the Russian president than Hillary Clinton, might have “a horrible relationship” with him and might even consider using nukes in Europe, presumably against the Russians. His apparent eagerness to ramp up the American nuclear arsenal in a major way certainly presents another kind of challenge to Russia.

And then, of course, there’s China. After all, in addition to his own belligerent comments on that country, his prospective secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, and his press secretary, Sean Spicer, have both recently suggested that the U.S. should prevent China from accessing artificial islands that country has created and fortified in the South China Sea — which would be an obvious American act of war.

In sum, don’t take the promise of non-intervention too seriously from a man intent, above all else, on pouring money into the further “rebuilding” of a “depleted” U.S. military. Just who might be the focus of future Trumpian interventions is, at best, foggy, since his vision of The Enemy — ISIS aside — remains an ever-moving target.

Suppose, though, we judge the new president not by his own statements alone, but by the company he keeps — in this case, those he chooses to advise him on national security. Do that and a strange picture emerges. On one thing all of Trump’s major national security appointees seem crystal clear. We are, each one of them insists, in nothing less than a world war in which non-intervention simply isn’t an option. And in that they are hardly kowtowing to the president. Each of them took such a position before anyone knew that there would be a Donald Trump administration.

There’s only one small catch: none of them can quite agree on just whom we’re fighting in this twenty-first-century global war of ours. So let’s take a look at this crew, one by one, and see what their records might tell us about intervention, Trump-style.

Michael Flynn’s field of fright

The most influential military voice should be that of retired Lieutenant General and National Security Adviser Michael Flynn (though his position is already evidently weakening). He will lead the National Security Council (NSC), which historian David Rothkopf calls the “brain” and “nerve center” of the White House. Flynn laid out his views in detail in the 2014 book he co-authored with neocon Michael Ledeen, The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies (a volume that Trump, notorious for not reading books, “highly recommended”). To call Flynn’s views frightening would be an understatement.

America, Flynn flatly asserts, is “in a world war” and it could well be a “hundred-year war.” Worse yet, “if we lose this war, [we would live] in a totalitarian state… a Russian KGB or Nazi SS-like state.” So “we will do whatever it takes to win… If you are victorious, the people will judge whatever means you used to have been appropriate.”

But whom exactly must we defeat? It turns out, according to him, that we face an extraordinary network of enemies “that extends from North Korea and China to Russia, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela and Nicaragua.” And that’s not all, not by a long shot. There’s “also al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, ISIS, and countless other terrorist groups.” And don’t forget “the merging of narcotics traffickers, organized criminals, and terrorists.” (Flynn has claimed that “Mexican drug cartels” actually post signs at the U.S.-Mexican border — in Arabic, no less — marking “lanes of entry” for Islamic terrorists.)

Now, that’s quite a list! Still, “radical Islam” seems to be America’s number one enemy on most pages of the book and Flynn puts the spotlight of fear squarely on one nation-state: “Iran is the linchpin of the alliance, its centerpiece.”

How Shi’ite Iran can be the “linchpin” in what turns out to be a worldwide insurgency of the Sunni Islamic State (aka ISIS) is something of a mystery. Perhaps it’s not any single version of Islam that threatens us, but the religion in all its many forms, or so Flynn seems to have decided after he published his book. In this spirit, in February 2016 he infamously tweeted “Fear of Islam is RATIONAL” as an endorsement of a video that indicted and vilified that religion of 1.6 billion people. And to this day he evidently remains unsure whether “radical Islam” — or maybe even Islam as a whole — is a religion or a political ideology that we must fight to the death.

In our present world, all of this highlights another glaring contradiction: Why would Vladimir Putin’s Russia, for so long fiercely resisting Muslim insurgencies within its own borders and now fighting in Syria, ally with global radical Islam? In his book, Flynn offers this facile (and farfetched) explanation meant to clarify everything that otherwise makes no sense whatsoever: all the forces arrayed against us around the world are “united in their hatred of the democratic West and their conviction that dictatorship is superior.”

Anti-democratic ideology, if you’ll excuse the choice of words, trumps all. Our enemies are waging war “against the entire Western enterprise.” In response, in his book Flynn ups the ante on the religious nature of our global war, calling on all Americans to “accept what we were founded upon, a Judeo-Christian ideology built on a moral set of rules and ties… The West, and especially America, is far more civilized, far more ethical and moral, than the system our main enemies want to impose on us.”

As it happens, though, Flynn seems to have come to a somewhat different conclusion since his book was published. “We can’t do what we want to do unless we work with Russia, period,” he’s told the New York Times. “What we both have is a common enemy… radical Islam.” The Russians, it turns out, may be part of that Christian… well, why not use the word… crusade against Islam. And among other things, Russia might even be able to help “get Iran to back out of the proxy wars they are involved in.” (One of which, however, is against ISIS, a reality Flynn simply ducks.)

Of course, Russia has not significantly changed its policies in this period. It’s Flynn, at a moment when geopolitical strategy trumps (that word again!) ideology, who has apparently changed his tune on just who our enemy is.

“I would want this enemy to be clearly defined by this president,” Flynn saidwhen talking about President Obama. Now that Donald Trump is president, Flynn’s the one who has to do the defining, and what he’s got on his hands is a long list of enemies, some of whom are visibly at each other’s throats, a list evidently open to radical revision at any moment.

All we can say for sure is that Michael Flynn doesn’t like Islam and wants us to be afraid, very afraid, as we wage that “world war” of his. When he chose a title for his book he seems to have forgotten one letter. It should have been The Field of Fright. And his present job title deserves a slight alteration as well: national insecurity adviser.

An uncertain (in)security team

On the national insecurity team Flynn heads, everyone seems to share a single conviction: that we are indeed already in a global war, which we just might lose. But each of them has his or her own favorites among Flynn’s vast array of proffered enemies.

Take his top assistant at the NSC, K.T. McFarland. For her, the enemy is neither a nation nor a political unit, but a vaguely defined“apocalyptic death cult… the most virulent and lethal in history” called “radical Islam.” She adds, “If we do not destroy the scourge of radical Islam, it will ultimately destroy Western civilization… and the values we hold dear.” For her, it’s an old story: civilization against the savages.

There’s no way to know whether McFarland will have real influence on decision-making in the Oval Office, but her view of the enemy has been voiced in much the same language by someone who already does have such influence, white nationalist Steve Bannon, whom the president has just given a seat on the National Security Council. (He reportedly even had a major hand in writing the new president’s Inaugural Address.) Trump’s senior counselor and key adviser on long-term foreign policy strategy offered rare insight into his national insecurity views in a talk he gave at, of all places, the Vatican.

We’re in “a war that’s already global,” Bannon declared, “an outright war against jihadist Islamic fascism.” However, we also face an equally dangerous threat: “an immense secularization of the West,” which “converges” with “radical Islam” in a way he didn’t bother to explain. He did, however, make it very clear that the fight against the “new barbarity” of “radical Islam” is a “crisis of our faith,” a struggle to save the very ideals of “the Judeo-Christian West … a church and a civilization that really is the flower of mankind.”

New CIA Director Mike Pompeo seems to agree wholeheartedly with Bannon that we’re in a global religious war, “the kind of struggle this country has not faced since its great wars.” Part of the key to survival, as he sees it, is for “more politicians of faith to infuse the government with their beliefs and get the nation back on track, instead of bowing to secularism.” In this battle of churches and mosques, he also claims that the line has been drawn between “those who accept modernity and those who are barbarians,” by which he means “the Islamic east.” In such a grandiose tangle, who exactly is who among our enemies remains up for grabs. All Pompeo seems to knows for sure is that “evil is all around us.”

Retired General and Secretary of Defense James Mattis admits forthrightly just how confusing this all is, but he, too, insists that we have to “take a firm, strategic stance in defense of our values.” And who exactly is threatening those values? “Political Islam?” he asked an audience rhetorically. On that subject, he answered himself this way: “We need to have the discussion.” After all, he went on, “If we won’t even ask the question, how do we even recognize which is our side in a fight?”

Several years ago, however, when Barack Obama asked him to spell out his top priorities as CENTCOM commander in the Greater Middle East, Mattis was crystal clear. He bluntly replied that he had three priorities: “Number one: Iran. Number two: Iran. Number three: Iran.” Moreover, in his confirmation hearings, he suddenly proclaimed Russia a “principal threat… an adversary in key areas.”

Still another view comes from retired General and Secretary of Homeland Security James Kelly. He, too, is sure that “our country today is in a life-and-death struggle against an evil enemy” that exists “around the globe.” But for him that evil enemy is, above all, the drug cartels and the undocumented immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexican border. They pose the true “existential” threat to the United States.

Everyone on Trump’s national insecurity team seems to agree on one thing: the United States is in a global war to the death, which we could lose, bringing some quite literal version of apocalyptic ruin down on our nation. Yet there is no consensus on whom or what exactly we are fighting.

Flynn, presumably the key voice on the national insecurity team, offers a vast and shifting array of enemies milling around pugnaciously on Trumpworld’s field of fright. The others each highlight and emphasize one or more groups, movements, or nations in that utterly confused crew of potential adversaries.

We need an enemy, any enemy

This could, of course, lead to bruising disagreements and a struggle for control over the president’s foreign and military policies. It’s more likely, though, that Trump and his team don’t see these differences as crucial, as long as they all agree that the threat of destruction really is at our doorstep, whoever the designated deliverer of our apocalyptic fate may be. Starting out with such a terrifying assumption about how our present world works as their unquestioned premise, they then can play fill-in-the-blank, naming a new enemy as often as they wish.

For the last near-century, after all, Americans have been filling in that blank fairly regularly, starting with the Nazis and fascists of World War II, then the Soviet Union and other members of the “communist bloc” (until, like China and Yugoslavia, they weren’t), then Vietnamese, Cubans, Grenadians, Panamanians, so-called narco-terrorists, al-Qaeda (of course!), and more recently ISIS, among others. Trump reminds us of this history when he saysthings like: “In the twentieth century, the United States defeated Fascism, Nazism, and Communism. We will defeat Radical Islamic Terrorism, just as we have defeated every threat we have faced in every age before.”

The field of fright that Trump and his team are bringing to the White House is, by now, an extreme version of a familiar feature of American life. The specter of apocalypse (in the modern American meaning of the word), the idea that we face some enemy dedicated above all else to destroying us utterly and totally, is buried so deep in our political discourse that we rarely take the time to think about it.

One question: Why is such an apocalyptic approach — even when, as at present, so ludicrously confused and unsupported by basic facts, not to say confusing to its own proponents — convincing for so many Americans?

One answer seems clear enough: it’s hard to rally the public behind interventions and wars explicitly aimed at expanding American power and control (which is why the top officials of the Bush administration worked so hard to locate fantasy weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and bogusly link him to the 9/11 attacks before invading his country in 2003). Americans have assured pollsters for years that they don’t want to be the cops of the world. So, as successful leaders since President Franklin Roosevelt have recognized, any wars or steps toward war must be clothed in the word defense, and if you can add a sense of apocalyptic menace to the package, all the better.

Defense is little short of a sacred term in the American lexicon (right down to the “Defense” Department, once upon a time known far more accurately as the War Department). It bestows an aura of moral justification on even the most violent and aggressive acts. As long as the public is convinced that we must defend ourselves at all costs against an enemy that threatens our very world, anything is possible.

Trump and his national insecurity team are blessed with an added benefit in this process: the coming of all-news, all-the-time media, which has a tendency to inflate even the relatively modest (if bloody) acts of “lone wolf” terrorists until they seem to engulf our lives, 24/7, threatening everything we hold dear. Images of terror that might once have been glimpsed for a few minutes on the nightly news are now featured, as with the San Bernardino or the Pulse night club killings, for days, even weeks, at a time.

Certainly, when so many news consumers in the world’s most powerful nation accept such fearsome imagery, and their own supposed vulnerability to it, as reality itself (as pollsters tell us so many Americans indeed do), they do so in part because it makes whatever violence our government inflicts on others seem “regrettable, but necessary” and therefore moral; it absolves us, that is, of responsibility.

In part, too, such collective apocalyptic anxiety gives Americans a perverse common bond in a world in which — as the recent presidential campaign showed — it’s increasingly hard to find a common denominator that defines American identity for all of us. The closest we can come is a shared determination to defend our nation against those who would destroy it. In 2017, if we didn’t have such enemies, would we have any shared idea of what it means to be an American? Since we’ve been sharing that sense of identity for three-quarters of a century now, it’s become, for most of us, a matter of unquestioned habit, offering the peculiar comfort that familiarity typically brings.

At this point, beyond upping the ante against ISIS, no one can predict just what force, set of groups, nation or nations, or even religion the Trump administration might choose as the next great “threat to national security.” However, as long as the government, the media, and so much of the public agree that staving off doom is America’s preeminent mission, the administration will have something close to a blank check to do whatever it likes. When it comes to “defending” the nation, what other choice is there?
http://www.salon.com/2017/02/13/flynns- ... ite-house/
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 9:36 pm


January 23

Yates again raised the issue with Comey, who now backed away from his opposition to informing the White House. Yates and the senior career national security official spoke to McGahn, the White House counsel, who didn’t respond to a request for comment.


trumpty dumbty has known about this since Jan. 23


Justice Department warned White House that Flynn could be vulnerable to Russian blackmail, officials say

By Adam Entous, Ellen Nakashima and Philip Rucker February 13 at 8:17 PM
The acting attorney general informed the Trump White House late last month that she believed Michael Flynn had misled senior administration officials about the nature of his communications with the Russian ambassador to the United States, and warned that the national security adviser was potentially vulnerable to Russian blackmail, current and former U.S. officials said.

The message, delivered by Sally Q. Yates and a senior career national security official to the White House counsel, was prompted by concerns that ­Flynn, when asked about his calls and texts with the Russian diplomat, had told Vice ­President-elect Mike Pence and others that he had not discussed the Obama administration sanctions on Russia for its interference in the 2016 election, the officials said. It is unclear what the White House counsel, Donald McGahn, did with the information.

In the waning days of the Obama administration, James R. Clapper Jr., who was the director of national intelligence, and John Brennan, the CIA director at the time, shared Yates’s concerns and concurred with her recommendation to inform the Trump White House. They feared that “Flynn had put himself in a compromising position” and thought that Pence had a right to know that he had been misled, according to one of the officials, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

A senior Trump administration official said that the White House was aware of the matter, adding that “we’ve been working on this for weeks.”

The current and former officials said that although they believed that Pence was misled about the contents of Flynn’s communications with the Russian ambassador, they couldn’t rule out that Flynn was acting with the knowledge of others in the transition.

Here's why Flynn's phone calls with Russia's ambassador are so interesting Play Video2:28

National security adviser Michael Flynn allegedly spoke to Russia’s ambassador about sanctions during the presidential transition in December 2016. The Post’s Adam Entous explains why those phone calls are so interesting and how the Trump administration has responded to them. (Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)
The FBI, Yates, Clapper and Brennan declined to comment on the matter. The White House said in a statement Monday that Trump was “evaluating the situation” regarding Flynn.

In a Feb. 8 interview with The Washington Post, Flynn categorically denied discussing sanctions with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, repeating public assertions made in January by top Trump officials. One day after the interview, Flynn revised his account, telling The Post through a spokesman that he “couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up.”

Two officials said a main topic of the relevant call was the sanctions. Officials also said there was no evidence that Russia had attempted to exploit the discrepancy between public statements by Trump officials and what Flynn had discussed.

[National security adviser Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador]

Flynn told The Post earlier this month that he first met Kislyak in 2013, when Flynn was director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and made a trip to Moscow.

U.S. intelligence reports during the 2016 presidential campaign showed that Kislyak was in touch with Flynn, officials said. Communications between the two continued after Trump’s victory on Nov. 8, according to officials with access to intelligence reports on the matter.

Kislyak, in a brief interview with The Post, confirmed having contacts with Flynn before and after the election, but he declined to say what was discussed.

For Yates and other officials, concerns about the communications peaked in the days after the Obama administration on Dec. 29 announced measures to punish Russia for what it said was the Kremlin’s interference in the election to help Trump.

After the sanctions were rolled out, the Obama administration braced itself for the Russian retaliation. To the surprise of many U.S. officials, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced on Dec. 30 that there would be no response. Trump praised the decision on Twitter.

Intelligence analysts began to search for clues that could help explain Putin’s move. The search turned up Kislyak’s communications, which the FBI routinely monitors, and the phone call in question with Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general with years of intelligence experience.

From that call and subsequent intercepts, FBI agents wrote a secret report summarizing ­Flynn’s discussions with Kislyak.

Yates, then the deputy attorney general, considered Flynn’s comments in the intercepted call to be “highly significant” and “potentially illegal,” according to an official familiar with her thinking.

Yates and other intelligence officials suspected that Flynn could be in violation of an obscure U.S. statute known as the Logan Act, which bars U.S. citizens from interfering in diplomatic disputes with another country.

At the same time, Yates and other law enforcement officials knew there was little chance of bringing against Flynn a case related to the Logan Act, a statute that has never been used in a prosecution. In addition to the legal and political hurdles, Yates and other officials were aware of an FBI investigation looking at possible contacts between Trump associates and Russia, which now included the Flynn-Kislyak communications.

Word of the calls leaked out on Jan. 12 in an op-ed by Post columnist David Ignatius. “What did Flynn say, and did it undercut U.S. sanctions?” Ignatius wrote, citing the Logan Act.

The next day, a Trump transition official told The Post, “I can tell you that during his call, sanctions were not discussed whatsoever.”

White House press secretary Sean Spicer, in a conference call with reporters on Jan. 13, said that the conversation between Flynn and Kislyak had “centered on the logistics” of a post-inauguration call between Trump and Putin. “That was it, plain and simple,” Spicer added.

On Jan. 15, Pence was asked about the phone call during an appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” Citing a conversation he had with Flynn, Pence said the incoming national security adviser and Kislyak “did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia.”

Before the Pence statement on Jan. 15, top Justice Department and intelligence officials had discussed whether the incoming Trump White House should be notified about the contents of the Flynn-Kislyak communications.

Pence’s statement on CBS made the issue more urgent, current and former officials said, because U.S. intelligence agencies had reason to believe that Russia was aware that Flynn and Kislyak had discussed sanctions in their December call, contrary to public statements.

The internal debate over how to handle the intelligence on Flynn and Kislyak came to a head on Jan. 19, Obama’s last full day in office.

Yates, Clapper and Brennan argued for briefing the incoming administration so the new president could decide how to deal with the matter. The officials discussed options, including telling Pence, the incoming White House counsel, the incoming chief of staff or Trump himself.

FBI Director James B. Comey initially opposed notification, citing concerns that it could complicate the agency’s investigation.


Clapper and Brennan left their positions when Trump was sworn in, but Yates stayed on as acting attorney general until Jan. 30, when Trump fired her for refusing to defend his executive order temporarily barring refugees and people from seven majority-Muslim countries — an action that had been challenged in court.

A turning point came after Jan. 23, when Spicer, in his first official press briefing, again was asked about Flynn’s communications with Kislyak. Spicer said that he had talked to Flynn about the issue “again last night.” There was just “one call,” Spicer said. And it covered four subjects: a plane crash that claimed the lives of a Russian military choir; Christmas greetings; Russian-led talks over the Syrian civil war; and the logistics of setting up a call between Putin and Trump. Spicer said that was the extent of the conversation.

Yates again raised the issue with Comey, who now backed away from his opposition to informing the White House. Yates and the senior career national security official spoke to McGahn, the White House counsel, who didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Trump has declined to publicly back his national security adviser since the news broke.

On Monday afternoon, Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president, said Trump had “full confidence” in Flynn. Minutes later, however, Spicer delivered a contradictory statement to reporters.

“The president is evaluating the situation,” Spicer’s statement read. “He’s speaking to Vice President Pence relative to the conversation the vice president had with Gen. Flynn and also speaking to various other people about what he considers the single most important subject there is: Our national security.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 65ecf11342



Stick around everybody....this is going to get interesting :wave:

That he hasn't yet been fired suggests Russia has more on Trump than pee pee tapes.

Conway at 4:07: "Gen. Flynn does enjoy the full confidence of the president."
Spicer at 5:11: "The president is evaluating the situation."



In total there are 96 users online :: 2 registered, 3 hidden and 91 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)

Oh Dear, Sally Yates. Oh wait, she got fired

Image


Phillip CarterVerified account
‏@Carter_PE
White House searching for potential Flynn replacements (short list incl Petraeus, Hadley, Kelly, Bassett, Stavridis)


Josh Marshall ‏@joshtpm 2h2 hours ago
For the country, whether Flynn lied to Pence is like the 19th or 20th most important thing about this. What did Flynn do? What did Prez do?
71 replies 580 retweets 1,551 likes


:P
President Bannon ‏@PRESlDENTBANNON 3h3 hours ago
I am assessing the situation concerning National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. I have contacted his Russian supervisor for more details.
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 » Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:03 am

MICHAEL FLYNN HAS RESIGNED

WAY TO GO SALLY

When does the trial start?

Lots and lots of questions

what did the president know and when did he know it? :P


January 23

Yates again raised the issue with Comey, who now backed away from his opposition to informing the White House. Yates and the senior career national security official spoke to McGahn, the White House counsel, who didn’t respond to a request for comment.


Why did you really fire Sally Yates trumpty dumbty?



Who knew this when Flynn was sworn in?

Jan. 19


The internal debate over how to handle the intelligence on Flynn and Kislyak came to a head on Jan. 19, Obama’s last full day in office.

Yates, Clapper and Brennan argued for briefing the incoming administration so the new president could decide how to deal with the matter. The officials discussed options, including telling Pence, the incoming White House counsel, the incoming chief of staff or Trump himself.

FBI Director James B. Comey initially opposed notification, citing concerns that it could complicate the agency’s investigation.


U.S. Investigated National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s Russia Ties
January 22, 2017
By Margaret Hartmann
Just hours after retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn was sworn in as Donald Trump’s national security adviser on Sunday, The Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. counterintelligence agents have investigated Flynn’s communication with Russian officials.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... -ties.html


so Comey decides the day after Flynn is sworn in to tell McGahn, the White House counsel....when did McGahn tell the president

Image


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

Apparently not :D
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 Elvis » Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:44 am

PERPWALK!

:happybanana: :happybanana: :happybanana: :happybanana: :happybanana: :happybanana: :happybanana: :happybanana:

Could we see the first arrest and handcuffing of the Trump Gang?
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

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

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:48 am

Thank you Sally Yates

paybacks are such a bitch trumpty dumbty should have never fired her


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 seemslikeadream » Tue Feb 14, 2017 1:38 am

nowhere in that letter did Gen. Yellowkekc say he lied to the president


Mig Greengard ‏@chessninja 3h3 hours ago
"General Flynn is stepping down in order to spend more time with his KGB handlers."



Image


Paul Singer ‏@singernews 7m7 minutes ago
One thing we learned from Gen. Flynn's resignation: Apparently, not ALL the news was "fake."




In like Flynn: As some pointing out, if fired he cld go public about Trump-Russia links. Time for an oligarch payoff -- or some polonium



‘Flynn’s resignation victory for mainstream media & Democrats’ – ex-Pentagon official to RT
https://www.rt.com/usa/377271-flynn-res ... democrats/


NO FUCKERS IT WAS A DEFEAT FOR PUTIN
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Tue Feb 14, 2017 9:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 » Tue Feb 14, 2017 9:08 am

Flynn Was Paid By Russia for 2015 Trip

ByJOSH MARSHALL
PublishedFEBRUARY 13, 2017, 10:02 PM EDT
The Times has now published an article which covers similar ground to the one I noted below from the Post. But it adds this additional piece of information: "In addition, the Army has been investigating whether Mr. Flynn received money from the Russian government during a trip he took to Moscow in 2015, according to two defense officials."

This sounds very bad. And it may be very bad. But there's some important context here. Flynn has stated publicly that he was paid for his appearance at the RT banquet in Moscow in December 2015.

Here he discusses it in an August 2016 interview with The Washington Post's Dana Priest ...

PRIEST: Tell me about the RT [state-run Russian Television] relationship?
FLYNN: I was asked by my speaker’s bureau, LAI. I do public speaking. It was in Russia. It was a paid speaking opportunity. I get paid so much. The speaker’s bureau got paid so much, based on our contract.

PRIEST: Can you tell me how much you got for that?

FLYNN: No.

PRIEST: No? Because you don’t want to get your fees out there?

FLYNN: Yeah, I don’t.

PRIEST: What was the gig?

FLYNN: The gig was to do an interview with [RT correspondent] Sophie Shevardnadze. It was an interview in front of the forum, probably 200 people in the audience. My purpose there was I was asked to talk about radical Islam in the Middle East. They asked me to talk about what was going on in the situation unfolding in the Middle East. … The speaking agreement was done before Russian went into Syria, which was actually more interesting to me because … one of my discussions, I talked about the attacks in France … and the negative role that Iran was playing where I thought Russian could actually have a role. The statement that I made was actually: “Russia ought to get Iran to back out of the proxy wars they are involved in,” to include Syria, so we, the rest of the international community, could settle this situation down.

PRIEST: Have you appeared on RT regularly?

FLYNN: I appear on Al Jazeera, Skye New Arabia, RT. I don’t get paid a dime. I have no media contracts. … [I am interviewed] on CNN, Fox …

PRIEST: Why would you go on RT, they’re state run?

FLYNN: Well, what’s CNN?

PRIEST: Well, it’s not run by the state. You’re rolling your eyes.

FLYNN: Well, what’s MSNBC? I mean, come on … what’s Al Jazeera? What’s Sky News Arabia? I have been asked by multiple organizations to be a [paid] contributor but I don’t want to be.

The Times goes on to say this.

Such a payment might violate the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, which prohibits former military officers from receiving money from a foreign government without consent from Congress. The defense officials said there was no record that Mr. Flynn, a retired three-star Army general, filed the required paperwork for the trip.
Relevant point being, it's no secret that Flynn was paid for this. Whether he should have done it, whether he filed the right paperwork, that's another matter.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/fly ... -2015-trip


Image

Stacey Kramer ‏@Mamastacela 9h9 hours ago
More
@nielslesniewski @DaviSusan How lucky for him! Not many people get to "retire" after less than a MONTH on the job...




'Michael Flynn’s resignation - US establishment coup’
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/377290-us-mi ... signation/


NO FUCKERS IT WAS A REALITY CHECK FOR PUTIN
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 » Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:36 am

the FauxNews wackadoodle K.T. McFarland

NYT: K.T. McFarland Expected To Leave Current Position On NSC

ANGEL CHEVRESTT
ByMATT SHUHAMPublishedFEBRUARY 14, 2017, 9:56 AM EDT
The deputy national security adviser brought in to President Donald Trump’s inner circle by the former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, is expected to leave that role, the New York Times reported Tuesday morning.

K.T. McFarland served Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan before beginning a career as a Fox News analyst, and then as an adviser to Trump.

Flynn resigned from his position as national security adviser Monday night, just days after the Washington Post reported he discussed sanctions on a phone call with Russia’s ambassador to the United States as a civilian in December, before Trump was inaugurated.

Then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates told White House counsel Don McGahn in late January that Flynn could be vulnerable to Russian blackmail, the Post reported Monday. The former NSC chief of staff, retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, has taken Flynn's place as acting national security adviser, though the Times also reported that it was unlikely Kellogg would stay in that role permanently.

McFarland brought some of Trump’s energy to national security council meetings, the Times reported Sunday. The paper reported that many “apolitical” members of the council were uncomfortable with her displays of partisanship, including at one recent meeting when she urged them to “make America great again.”

At that meeting, Flynn, at least jokingly, seemed to acknowledge his and McFarland’s precarious place in the administration. After a comment about work-life balance, the Times reported, he turned to McFarland and asked: “I wonder if we’ll be here a year from now?”


Flynn deputy K. T. McFarland expected to leave role: report
BY REBECCA SAVRANSKY - 02/14/17 08:27 AM EST 80

© Getty
Deputy national security adviser K. T. McFarland is expected to leave her role following the resignation of President Trump's national security adviser Michael Flynn, The New York Times reported Tuesday morning.

McFarland has worked under three Republican administrations and was selected last year to serve as deputy national security adviser
.
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 » Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:41 am

Some historical perspective on this situation:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/10/ted ... elections/

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/kgb- ... er-to-ussr

There is always a good laugh (we need humor) with all these shenanigans. One has to wonder if there is cognitive dissonance at play or did everybody forget what Senator Ted Kennedy did?

Asking the Soviets to intervene in U.S. elections? Tut tut.... cluck cluck
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 » Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:50 am

talk about beating a dead right wing horse :rofl: :rofl:\


HELLO..... IRAN CONTRA CALLING

ANYONE ANYONE

You did hear what Reagan did to Carter?
You did hear what Nixon did to Johnson?
You did hear about the Forged Niger Docs?

Funny that those must have slipped your mind just couldn't go back that far in time? :jumping:

Forged Niger Docs wasn't that long ago.. you must have heard about those...but they were created by Ledeen and crew so I suppose you could just overlook that history lesson and they really don't fit your narrative

trumpty dumbty has ties to the Russian mob...stick that in your hat


good to get to know you better..now I know who I am dealing with...my first impression of you was correct..I should ALWAYS go with my first impressions

damn I was right about you..I should have accepted your first post to me for what it was ...a personal VICIOUS attack and not you're measly attempted excuse at brushing it off..."oh I didn't mean it that way"

hello .....the 1980's want their OLD news back

this is 2017 .......this is happening now and we are talking about the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND HIS TIES WITH RUSSIA .....YOU KNOW LIKE
MONEY.... DEBT AND BLACKMAIL

AND ACTUAL REAL LIFE NAZIS IN THE WHITE HOUSE


Image




keep those cards and letters coming in :wave:

In total there are 100 users online :: 2 registered, 4 hidden and 94 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
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 Iamwhomiam » Tue Feb 14, 2017 1:40 pm

Miller's next! What a friggin creep he is.

Does Trump's losing his national security advisor make him a loser?

A loser with an overwhelming electoral college victory.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

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

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Feb 14, 2017 5:40 pm

Big Trouble

ByJOSH MARSHALL

PublishedFEBRUARY 14, 2017, 3:46 PM EDT
Another shoe seems to have dropped. The New York Times just reported that in the short window of time between President Trump's inauguration on January 20th and Acting Attorney General Sally Yates warning to the White House on January 26th, the FBI interviewed National Security Advisor Michael Flynn about his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak on December 29th, 2016.

What the Times story does not say is what Flynn said. But the logic of the report certainly leaves the impression that Flynn was less than truthful. If that's the case, the Flynn's dismissal just went from being a political scandal to major legal jeopardy. You can't lie to the FBI and people are routinely (often too routinely) prosecuted for doing so.

In the Times words ...
F.B.I. agents interviewed Michael T. Flynn when he was national security adviser in the first days of the Trump administration about his conversations with the Russian ambassador, current and former officials said on Tuesday.
At the risk of stating the obvious, this interview must have been in the context of the much discussed but still little understood counter-intelligence probe scrutinizing Flynn's communications with Russian government officials.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/big-trouble--7



F.B.I. Interviewed Flynn in Trump’s First Days in Office, Officials Say
By ADAM GOLDMAN, MATT APUZZO and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDTFEB. 14, 2017

The events that led to Michael T. Flynn’s abrupt resignation as national security adviser stretch back to before President Trump’s inauguration.

WASHINGTON — F.B.I. agents interviewed Michael T. Flynn when he was national security adviser in the first days of the Trump administration about his conversations with the Russian ambassador, current and former officials said on Tuesday.

The interview raises the stakes of what so far has been a political scandal that cost Mr. Flynn his job. If he was not entirely honest with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, it could expose Mr. Flynn to a felony charge. President Trump asked for Mr. Flynn’s resignation on Monday night.

While it is not clear what he said in his F.B.I. interview, Mr. Flynn maintained publicly for more than a week after his interview that his conversations with the ambassador had been innocuous and did not involve Russian sanctions, something now known to be false.

Shortly after the F.B.I. interview, on Jan. 26, the acting attorney general, Sally Q. Yates, told the White House that Mr. Flynn was vulnerable to Russian blackmail because of inconsistencies between what he had said publicly and what intelligence officials knew to be true.

At issue is a conversation during the presidential transition in which Mr. Flynn spoke to the Russian ambassador about sanctions levied against Russia by the Obama administration. The call spurred an investigation by the F.B.I. into whether Mr. Flynn had violated the rarely invoked Logan Act, which prohibits private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments in disputes with the United States.

The National Security Agency routinely eavesdrops on calls involving high-ranking foreign diplomats. Mr. Flynn was not a focus of the eavesdropping, officials said.

It is not clear whether Mr. Flynn had a lawyer for his interview with the F.B.I. or whether anyone at the White House, including lawyers there, knew the interview was happening.

Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, said on Tuesday that President Trump was made aware of the situation weeks ago. Mr. Spicer said the White House had reviewed the situation and determined that Mr. Flynn didn’t violate any laws during his call with the Russian ambassador.

Mr. Spicer said Mr. Flynn was asked to resign because he had lost the trust of the president and vice president.

In late December, Mr. Flynn spoke with Sergey Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador to the United States. During the call, Mr. Flynn and the ambassador discussed sanctions, according to current and former United States officials. In the call, Mr. Flynn indicated that the Obama administration was Moscow’s adversary and that relations would change under Mr. Trump.

But on Jan. 14, Mr. Flynn told Vice President Mike Pence that he hadn’t discussed sanctions in his call. The next day, Mr. Pence went on “Fox News Sunday” and declared: “I talked to General Flynn yesterday, and the conversations that took place at that time were not in any way related to the new U.S. sanctions against Russia or the expulsion of diplomats.”

Even after F.B.I. agents later interviewed Mr. Flynn and Ms. Yates warned the White House, Mr. Flynn denied yet again — this time to The Washington Post on Wednesday — that he had discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/p ... -news&_r=1


Making Sense of the Spicer's Tale

ByJOSH MARSHALL
PublishedFEBRUARY 14, 2017, 3:13 PM EDT

Governments lie, about things big and small. We know this. They lie especially when they are in the midst of being engulfed in a major scandal. This is usually clear at the time. But it can also be very hard to prove. What was most conspicuous about Sean Spicer's afternoon press conference was not that so many of his claims were likely false but that the White House seemed like it hadn't even taken the time yet to get its story together.

Let's review a few key points.

1: Fast Not Slow. Spicer said that President Trump first heard about Flynn's deceptions on January 26th, after Acting Attorney General Sally Yates informed the White House Counsel about it. Spicer says there was a slow erosion of trust which led over almost three weeks to Flynn's ouster on February 13th. This makes no sense at all. Flynn appears to have maintained all his access to the center of the national security process right up until the day he was fired. Mere hours before his ouster top administration officials were still saying he had the full confidence of the President. And the White House had no replacement at the ready when Flynn was fired. These and many other reasons point overwhelmingly to the conclusion that Flynn's firing was a sudden decision, triggered by leaks which confirmed both his deceptions (2/9) and the DOJ warning (2/13).

2: No Mention of the President. Spicer awkwardly asserted a few key claims - that President Trump did not authorize the sanctions conversation with the Russian Ambassador and that he did not know about it until the DOJ warning. These were not categorical denials. But Spicer found his way to denying them. But throughout, Spicer conspicuously did not say that the Flynn misled the President. This is not an accident. It's a key to the story. It simply makes no sense and most likely means the President knew what had happened all along.

3. Trump Knew It Was Okay. Spicer repeatedly stated that President Trump "instinctively" knew that what Flynn had done was okay and that Trump's chief lawyer later confirmed this. (Spicer used the term "instinctively" at least three times.) No one thinks this was okay. Whether it violated any statutes is highly uncertain. It's not okay. If it were, why would Flynn have lied about it repeatedly? This is a highly odd statement which seems to allow for the President to acknowledge later either knowing about or authorizing the conversation.

4: And Trump Was Definitely Right. The consistent theme of Spicer's argument was that there was no legal or substantive problem with what Flynn did. Indeed, the President "instinctively" knew it was okay. The only issue was that Flynn misled the Vice President and others. In other words, there's no "Russia" issue here at all, simply an internal White House issue of the President losing confidence in the honesty of a key staffer. This is demonstrably not true. The need to insist it is strongly suggests that others in the White House, namely the President, is implicated in the Russia issue. Otherwise, it would make political sense and be eminently fair to toss Flynn to the wolves.

5. Desperate Not Serious. Handling a White House briefing in this climate would be a challenge for anyone. But Spicer is palpably not up to the challenge. This was clear in awkward pauses, pained attempts at humor, etc. But he made a number of claims that were clearly pre-planned. The most glaring instance of this was blaming the Department of Justice for not informing the White House soon enough. This isn't just ridiculous. It's not simply a typically Trumpian effort to shift blame, often in nonsensical ways. It shows panic and desperation.

Everything about this story suggests that the White House has many secrets to hide and little of the time to prepare, the competence to execute or the cooperation of the President to hide them effectively.

The story makes no sense. That's because it's not true. They didn't even have enough time to concoct a tight cover story.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/mak ... icer-story
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)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests