Trump Directed Flynn to make contact with the Russians

[origami_itto]

Now the part that you have to consider is that these are light charges. He is getting a sweetheart deal in exchange for information. They are not buttering Flynn up to take a swing at manafort.
I usually refrain from political discussion here because it's so subjective but the writing is on the wall

[Steve James]

Bill Clinton wasn't impeached for sexual misconduct --though we know it was voluntary. He was impeached for lying to the Congress and the people. We tended to pooh-pooh the sexual aspect because it was just being used as the excuse. People said that it was none of the government's business. Looking back, the difference was that Monica didn't complain; yet, she was vilified. The same happened with Bill's other accusers, and with Trump's accusers.

But, the Flynn issue isn't just about the fact that he lied. The issue, unlike BC's, is what Flynn lied about. Cooperating with a foreign government for financial and political gain is in a whole different ball park. For a general who will be in charge of national security to act as a foreign agent boggles the mind. To fire someone who is investigating even the whiff that it might be the case has to be seen as a crime against the American people. It doesn't matter whether the charge were true or not. Did Trump know what Flynn was doing? He'll say no, one way or the other. Should he have known? Maybe not, but he should definitely say that he would not have hired Flynn, and that he would urge Flynn's prosecution.

Instead, it's the usual deny, disclaim, deny routine, and if convicted, pardon.

[Steve James]

I do agree that leaving out crucial details makes a report unreliable. So, adding "before" or "after" the election changes the entire sense of "Trump told Flynn to talk to Russians." Half truths are no better than lies.

[Michael]

ABC News suspends Brian Ross for 4 weeks over erroneous Flynn story

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/02/media/abc-news-brian-ross/index.html

[windwalker]

ABC News suspends Brian Ross for 4 weeks over erroneous Flynn story

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/02/media/abc-news-brian-ross/index.html

noted , people tend to react to the messenger http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism ... thout-pay/
even when it says the same thing.

[KEND]

Just finished watching msnbc, the consensus is that Kushner , trump may have said something incriminating. The question is would Kushner give up trump to save himself.

[Peacedog]

So far seems much ado about nothing.

I would be curious as to the specifics about what Flynn lied about.

And if you are going to MSNBC for news keep in mind the National Inquirer is more credible than those guys.

[Michael]

Are Never Trumpers sustained on merely a diet of nothing burgers? Randi prize in jeopardy.

It looks like a top FBI investigator in Mueller's investigation was demoted for having an extramarital affair, the discovery of which revealed anti-Trump texts between the two lovers. Worse is that although Congress specifically subpoenaed information on the cause for the demotion of Strzonk months ago, the FBI did not reveal it to them until a politically convenient leak on the topic occurred this past weekend. Rep. Nunes says he's considering contempt charge for Rosenstein.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-nunes-blows-up-threatens-contempt-after-fbi-stonewalls-house-on-russia-investigator-demoted-for-anti-trump-bias/article/2642387

[Steve James]

Demoted for an extramarital affair? Um, ... let's look past that. But, anti-Trump texts between lovers? Were they both FBI investigators? I mean. Can anyone write an anti-Trump text? Can Trump write an anti-anybody tweet? Anyway, if the texts were pro-Trump, what exactly should happen.

Ah, I see. The link says that that investigator was demoted for anti-Trump bias. Hmm, so yeah, if he'd been demoted for a pro-Trump bias, I bet the conclusion would be the same.

Afa Nunes, is he the guy who went to the WH to meet with someone the president didn't know?

[origami_itto]

I think that "anti trump bias" is just another way of saying "insufficient pro-trump bias", kind of like how letting gay people exist peacefully infringes on the rights of christians.

[Michael]

Nunes has asked to see the texts, so that might shed some light on the reasoning for the demotion. I hope he wasn't demoted for something that just means expressing his opinion, but he was also part of the investigation into the Clinton e-mail scandal, so, just guessing since I read the article and a similar one in the NYT, and not just the URL, maybe (and probably) the texts were not just "I hate Trump", but more specific to how such bias affected those investigations.

[Michael]

I think that "anti trump bias" is just another way of saying "insufficient pro-trump bias", kind of like how letting gay people exist peacefully infringes on the rights of christians.

Tj, you said it's good to be biased toward the president and he should be executed, and this is your admitted anti-trump bias. But now it's not anti-trump bias, but insufficient pro trump bias to want him executed, which is like intolerance for gays.

Does any of this make sense? It sounds pretty mixed up.

[Steve James]

but more specific to how such bias affected those investigations.

Then, the article should have explained that. Either he was demoted because of an affair, or he was demoted because of what was in his texts. If he said something illegal in his texts, that's another issue. The fact that Nunes thinks that the timing of the release was politically inappropriate isn't really relevant.

If, for example, someone admitted that he was going to lie or had lied in the investigation, that would be reason for more than a demotion.

[Michael]

If you had read the article you would realize that you are just guessing at the wrong things.

The texts have not been revealed and Mueller nor the FBI have explained the reasons for his demotion.

[Michael]

Trump critic Jimmy Dore, also frequent contributor to The Young Turks, goes over the Flynn plea deal and calls it another failure at collusion, suggests Dems get off this train and focus on much more important policy issues from Trump admin that need to be opposed. He references Johnathan Turley's (contributor to Washington Post) one page article and others that conclude this is not the smoking gun.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUuoE7DcZDY