After Election, Trump’s Professed Love for Leaks Quickly Faded
After Election, Trump’s Professed Love for Leaks Quickly Faded
© Stephen Crowley/The New York Times President Trump on Wednesday described leaks from intelligence agencies as a “criminal action,” despite praising groups like WikiLeaks during his campaign. WASHINGTON — As a candidate for president, Donald J. Trump embraced the hackers who had leaked Hillary Clinton’s emails to the press, declaring at a rally in Pennsylvania, “I love WikiLeaks!”
To the cheering throngs that night, Mr. Trump marveled that “nothing is secret today when you talk about the internet.” The leakers, he said, had performed a public service by revealing what he called a scandal with no rival in United States history.
Now, after less than four weeks in the Oval Office, President Trump has changed his mind.
Sign Up For the Morning Briefing Newsletter
At a news conference on Wednesday and in a series of Twitter postings earlier in the day, Mr. Trump angrily accused intelligence agencies of illegally leaking information about Michael T. Flynn, his former national security adviser, who resigned after reports that he had lied about conversations with the Russian ambassador.
“It’s a criminal action, criminal act,” Mr. Trump fumed at the White House. In a Twitter message, he asserted that “the real scandal here is that classified information is illegally given out by ‘intelligence’ like candy. Very un-American!”
But this is Washington, where leaks are common currency — and, depending what side you’re on, either sinister or patriotic. Democrats these days see the proliferation of leaks about the Trump administration as the acts of public servants revealing the misdeeds of a presidency. Republicans see them as the reckless actions of disgruntled bureaucrats eager to advance their own agendas and sabotage Mr. Trump.
Either way, Mr. Trump’s presidential flip-flop follows a landmark month for Washington leaks.
Drafts of his executive orders floated around the city for days before he signed them. Parts of the president’s conversations with foreign leaders have been published verbatim in news accounts. Agency memos and cables have been repeatedly cited by journalists to document anxiety among the city’s civil servants.
© Stephen Crowley/The New York Times The start of Donald J. Trump’s presidency has been a landmark month for Washington leaks. And an endless stream of articles about the connections between Trump advisers and Russia have been generated by leaks from intelligence and law enforcement sources. There are so many, in fact, that in one article about Mr. Flynn, The Washington Post cited an unusually large number of sources , beyond the customary two: “Nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls.”
Laura R. Handman, a lawyer who represents news organizations on First Amendment issues, said of Mr. Trump, “He will not be the first president who has decried leaks once they become president.”
“That does seem to be pretty much a constant in the Oval Office,” she said. “It’s definitely true that he embraced them when the shoe was on the other foot.”
Over the last several days, leaks about Mr. Flynn and the broader issue of communications with Russia have created the president’s first major scandal, forcing Mr. Flynn to step down and leading to calls on Capitol Hill for investigations.
But Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, said that too little attention had been paid to how the information about Mr. Flynn was made public in the first place.
“It was through a leak of classified information through the Department of Justice and presumably the intel community,” Mr. Spicer said. “Those are the only ones that have access to that information.”
“The idea that there’s been zero attention paid to an issue of that sensitivity should be concerning and alarming,” he said.
Mr. Trump’s Republican allies followed up on Mr. Spicer’s lead by demanding to know who in the government has been leaking to the news media.
Representative Devin Nunes, Republican of California and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told Fox News that his committee would be “asking the F.B.I. to do an assessment of this to tell us what’s going on here, because we cannot continue to have these leaks as a government.”
Other Republicans have been circumspect about whether they intend to support investigations into the Russian connections. Some, including Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, support an inquiry by the intelligence committees. But Mr. McConnell has rejected the need for a select committee to investigate the issue.
“We know how to do our work,” Mr. McConnell said on MSNBC. “We have an Intelligence Committee.”
In Mr. Trump’s remarks at the White House, the president appeared to press for an inquiry on how information about Mr. Flynn’s communications with the Russians became known publicly.
“It’s been going on for a long time before me, but now it’s really going on,” Mr. Trump said of the leaks, accusing those who spread the information of “trying to cover up” for Mrs. Clinton’s loss in the election last year. Mr. Trump added that there were “documents and papers that were illegally — I stress that, illegally leaked.”
If Republicans succeed in guiding those committees to focus more on leaks — rather than on the underlying information they reveal — they will be following a well-worn path.
President Barack Obama, a Democrat, waged a furious war against leaks during his eight years in office, prosecuting more whistle-blowers than all of his predecessors combined.
Joel Kurtzberg, a partner at Cahill, Gordon & Reindel in Washington who specializes in First Amendment cases, said Mr. Obama’s actions had served to discourage public officials from disclosing information that revealed wrongdoing or was embarrassing to the administration.
“I would be concerned that, this early on, there is a public call to start a leak investigation, and really chill the divulgence of newsworthy information,” Mr. Kurtzberg said. “It is a very important thing for the press to be able to report on truthful information.”
Journalists who work in Washington are often criticized for their use of anonymous sources and for publishing information that is sensitive or classified. That criticism often comes from those in power — which now includes Mr. Trump and his aides.
“It’s been the case in Republican and Democratic administrations that presidents have not liked it,” said Leonard Downie Jr., a former Washington Post executive editor who is now a journalism professor at Arizona State University.
Mr. Downie said he had been surprised by the volume of information leaked to reporters in just the first three weeks of Mr. Trump’s presidency, apparently from people inside the government that Mr. Trump now leads.
“I would be concerned if this administration followed suit and began to try to punish people” who are responsible for leaking that information or publishing it, Mr. Downie said.
For his part, the president appeared eager to do just that.
In his Twitter messages, Mr. Trump railed against the “fake news media,” which he accused of engaging in conspiracy theories and “blind hatred,” apparently directed against him or his aides.
“Information is being illegally given to the failing @nytimes & @washingtonpost by the intelligence community (NSA and FBI?),” Mr. Trump wrote in one post. “Just like Russia.”
Tags
Who is online
45 visitors
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, Trump thinks that it's a problem...
Looks like his position has "evolved". I think we've seen that before.
He evolved overnight, now that's what I call a quick evolution.
We might see another tomorrow. How is one to keep up with these multiple evolutions of our fearless leader..
I think that it was something to do with flying back and forth to Florida. Up, down, in and out can cause a loss of balance both mentally and physically.
Medic!!!!
LOL!
Did you see the article where they psychiatrists are telling us to stop saying that Trump is mentally ill? It seems that calling Trump mentally ill is denigrating to people who are really mentally ill... This psychiatrist says he's not mentally ill, he is just unpleasant...
Like Obama with gay marriage his views are evolving. We learned that is a good quality in leadership positions.
LOL, I'm sure that's the reason Dean...NOT
No takers?
It's always funny when it happens to someone else. When it happens to YOU, it's no laughing matter... (Buzz, it is a video of a guy falling off his front porch due to ice.)
Dowser my dear, are you sure your on the right article?
Kavika check Dowser's coffee. Hmmmmm smells ''different''...
Well, I haven't had my pain meds yet, so that may be a part of it...
Seriously, him suddenly not liking leaks is funny! He has sure benefitted from the leaks from the other side...
Without a doubt Dowser, I loved the leaks as long as they weren't about him.
I like your new avatar, by the way! Scary! But strong!
LOL, he's really a nice guy, not scary at all, Dowser.
It wasn’t that long ago that Clinton-bashers among us not only accepted every hacked, leaked anti-Clinton word, but repudiated me for “… not accepting the source of ‘the truth’ — even if it came from a hostile, foreign, corrupt government like Russia, and/or a conduit such as Wikileaks and its criminal head, Julian Assange."
I and others who expressed proper outrage towards those accepting, even PRAISING Vladimir Putin for essentially interfering in an American Presidential election, were called “whiners, sore losers and snowflakes” while implying that American Intelligence was either part of a conspiracy, or, possibly, not in any way involved in the connecting of Russia to the hacking of the DNC servers.
And now that there may be an inconvenient truth about Trump, and, the realization that the RNC was also hacked (but that the hacks were not leaked), suddenly, taking “information” on face value … is a no-no!
And one irony of all this, is that Trump calls the current allegations about him, FAKE news!
Every disparaging word about Clinton was taken as gospel … although, who more than Trump and his followers, have advanced their agenda as the greatest purveyors of fake news?
Wikileaks actually released the documents and allowed readers to judge their newsworthiness. There is no question about their accuracy.
The "leaks" about Trump are hearsay and obviously reflect the agenda of the leakers.
For your comparsion to be valid, the leaksers would have to release of the actual tape of Flynn talking to a Russian, not the anonymous characterizations we have now.
Wikileaks actually released the documents and allowed readers to judge their newsworthiness. There is no question about their accuracy.
And of course, hackers always share the accurate, unedited, truthful information … of course, if they hacked for insidious, evil purposes instead of pure altruism, I'd question your assertion … but hackers are truth-loving idealists, so, go with it, Sean.
Oh … I'm being sarcastic … you probably thought I'd had a revelation …
For your to be valid, the leaksers would have to release of the actual tape of Flynn talking to a Russian, not the anonymous characterizations we have now.
Stay tuned … it might likely come from foreign allies who also have the transcripts and tapped calls.
Did you ask for Trump's tax returns to see if those who have suspicions about them are mistaken … or … on target?
And, did you accept all the anti-Clinton bashing without demanding validation and verification?
hackers always share the accurate, unedited, truthful information
There is no debate that the wikileaks emails aren't genuine. None.
it might likely come from foreign allies who also have the transcripts and tapped calls.
Fine, when the tapes are released, then we can see if who defends Flynn as blindly as you did the Democrats and their stooges in the media.
nd, did you accept all the anti-Clinton bashing without demanding validation and verification
They were validated and verified, repeatedly.
According to the "fake" news media and to anyone who listened to the news conference the person pretending to be the President confirmed that the leaks are all real. It would seem he is more angry about them then what they are and not they don't just involved Gen Flynn, otherwise Vice-Admiral Robert Harward would not have turn down the NSA job because the Trump Administration is a "Shit Sandwich". Then one a couple of "fake" news cable networks this evening they were as much as confirmed by former CIA and DIA and FBI Agents (depending on which "fake" cable network you were watching). It would seem that, as they said, the investigation as being pushed be Senator's McCain and Graham is moving at a very high speed and should be at the level of an Independent Council by late spring and possibly a 9-11 Commission by mid-summer. The Intelligence Agencies responsible for doing so have already sad that they are not advising Trump of all of the information they normally would because they don't trust where it would end up. At the speed the investigations are moving and the fact that many establishment Republicans would just as soon get a loose cannon like Trump out of the way it only a matter of time before he is declared a "clear and present danger" to the United States National Security and moved aside in favor of a President Pence.
Now of course that depends on if the investigations decides that the entire Presidential election last year was fixed and invalid (which seems very likely), in which case we are going to find our nation in an area not really covered by the US Constitution. Then who would the President and Vice-President would be very much up in the air.
Sean, the fact of the matter is that Flynn was ''fired'' by Trump. He acknowledged that he spoke to the Russians and that he ''forgot'' parts of the conversations when he spoke to Pence.
What is really interesting is that Pence was out of the loop and defended Flynn when the administration knew from the DOJ that there was a problem with Flynn.
They left Pence swinging in the wind and looking like a fool.
Pence publicly defended Flynn on January 15. Trump wasn't briefed about FLynn's conversation that touched on sanctions until the end of the month.
every "insider" account I've read claims that Pence's position is much stronger now within the administration.
It still is... Selective memory, folks?
Wikileaks released actual emails showing collusion between Hillary's campaign, the DNC and, the media to rig the primary. Democrats ignored it on the grounds that the information came from the Russians even though no one disputed that the emails were legitimate.
Flynn talked to the Russians but lied about it to Pence. Although there's nothing wrong with talking to the Russians, lying to Pence could not be tolerated. So because lying can't be tolerated, the media and the democrats fill the air with innuendo to imply that communicating with the Russians and collaborating with them are the same thing.
When Trump complains that the innuendo against Flynn is based on inside leaks, democrats begin squeaking that Trump is a hypocrite. However, unlike in Hillary's case, the actual leak doesn't show that Flynn did anything wrong. This makes perfect sense . . . if you're high as a kite.
Wikileaks released actual emails showing collusion between Hillary's campaign, the DNC and, the media to rig the primary. Democrats ignored it on the grounds that the information came from the Russians even though no one disputed that the emails were legitimate.
One of the common tactic of hackers is to initially leak a verifiable piece of the hacked information; this id done to establish a "credibility" which then is relied upon when future leaked hacks are FAKE INFORMATION.
I don't believe that any Democrat is on the record declaring all the leaked e-mails were legitimate … if I am wrong, please provide the contradictory information.
Flynn talked to the Russians but lied about it to Pence. Although there's nothing wrong with talking to the Russians, lying to Pence could not be tolerated. So because lying can't be tolerated, the media and the democrats fill the air with innuendo to imply that communicating with the Russians and collaborating with them are the same thing.
YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY KNOW ONE-WAY-OR-THE-OTHER.
When Trump complains that the innuendo against Flynn is based on inside leaks, democrats begin squeaking that Trump is a hypocrite. However, unlike in Hillary's case, the actual leak doesn't show that Flynn did anything wrong. This makes perfect sense . . . if you're high as a kite.
What the leak ALLEGEDLY SHOWS is just that … ALLEGED!
Trump is a hypocrite who PRAISED AND RELIED ON LEAKS FROM A FOREIGN ENEMY WHEN IT SUITED HIS CAMPAIGN. Now that leaks are biting him in the ass, he suddenly has a complaint.
HE IS THE ULTIMATE HYPOCRITE.
Equating leaks from a private entity to leaks of sensitive government data... Hilarious.
Wikileaks released actual emails showing collusion between Hillary's campaign, the DNC and, the media to rig the primary. Democrats ignored it on the grounds that the information came from the Russians even though no one disputed that the emails were legitimate.
One of the common tactic of hackers is to initially leak a verifiable piece of the hacked information; this id done to establish a "credibility" which then is relied upon when future leaked hacks are FAKE INFORMATION.
I don't believe that any Democrat is on the record declaring all the leaked e-mails were legitimate … if I am wrong, please provide the contradictory information.
They have not denied the legitimacy of any of it.
Flynn talked to the Russians but lied about it to Pence. Although there's nothing wrong with talking to the Russians, lying to Pence could not be tolerated. So because lying can't be tolerated, the media and the democrats fill the air with innuendo to imply that communicating with the Russians and collaborating with them are the same thing.
YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY KNOW ONE-WAY-OR-THE-OTHER.
No and, because nobody knows, you have no basis to assume collaboration.
When Trump complains that the innuendo against Flynn is based on inside leaks, democrats begin squeaking that Trump is a hypocrite. However, unlike in Hillary's case, the actual leak doesn't show that Flynn did anything wrong. This makes perfect sense . . . if you're high as a kite.
What the leak ALLEGEDLY SHOWS is just that … ALLEGED!
All the leak establishes is that Flynn talked to Russia and there's nothing wrong with that.
Trump is a hypocrite who PRAISED AND RELIED ON LEAKS FROM A FOREIGN ENEMY WHEN IT SUITED HIS CAMPAIGN. Now that leaks are biting him in the ass, he suddenly has a complaint.
The Hillary leak showed an actual attempt to rig the primary. The Flynn leak doesn't establish a single thing.
What it did establish to date is that Trump appointed a liar to the position of NSA.
The next question is, why did he lie to Pence?
And Obama appointed him to other security positions previously.
And Obama fired him. Trump might have asked himself, is this the right guy? He didn't and that's on Trump.
The next question is, why did he lie to Pence?
Lying is what liars do.
Especially if they have something to hide.
Lying isn't a crime. If the FBI had evidence of a crime, then they'd charge him. If he hasn't committed a crime and he's been fired for lying, then who gives a shit why he lied?
Some people would be interested in why he lied to the Vice President. Because you don't doesn't mean other people aren't interested.
BTW, lying is a crime in some cases.
if inquiring minds want to know, pick up a tabloid in the grocery store.
Why would I pick up a tabloid in a grocery store. I'm looking for the true facts.
The tabloid might be fine for you. I chose a different approach.
Lying isn't a crime. If the FBI had evidence of a crime, then they'd charge him. If he hasn't committed a crime and he's been fired for lying, then who gives a shit why he lied?
Lying to the FBI is a FELONY. It's "perjury".
Because Flynn has to date, not been formally charged, does not mean he won't subsequently be charged.
Protracted investigations tend to uncover more and more information …
Again I say, I believe the other shoe will be dropped soon.
Lying to the FBI is a FELONY. It's "perjury".
And they always make sure you are aware of it. I have been interviewed by the FBI four times in my life and at the beginning of each one they told me my rights and warned me that, while I could refuse to answer a question, lying to them on a question was a felony and to keep that in mind. If Flynn lied to them he knew at the time he was committing a felony that could get him prison time.
Lying to the FBI is a FELONY. It's "perjury".
Lying to Congress is also perjury. I want to see them charge Flynn for perjury while letting Hillary go free.
Jeff Sessions is now the AG. Complain to him. He is the reason why Flynn will likely get away with lying to the FBI.
Trump is a hypocrite who PRAISED AND RELIED ON LEAKS FROM A FOREIGN ENEMY WHEN IT SUITED HIS CAMPAIGN. Now that leaks are biting him in the ass, he suddenly has a complaint.
And there are active investigations to see if it was more then just using leaks and that there was actual collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia Intelligence Agents to help Trump win. If it is shown that there was (and the evidence seems to point that way as reports say there was constant contact between the campaign and Russians officials) we will be presented with a Constitutional crisis of a kind we have never seen as that would make last year's election illegitimate. Then what?
There is no evidence of collusion at all. Since all of this is just speculation, I'll add mine.
Nobody thought Trump would win, including Trump. If the Russians gave the information to wikileaks, then they did it to embarrass Hillary. Some years back, Hillary caused civil unrest in Russia by accusing Putin of rigging the election. Disclosing evidence that Hillary tried to rig the primary would be the perfect revenge.
It had little effect on the election because the media buried the story with non-stop pussy grabbing allegations against Trump. Hillary lost because she is an awful candidate, not because Russia exposed another one of her shenanigans.
It's too early in the investigation to say there is no evidence of collusion, considering that there is evidence, including from the Russians themselves, that there was almost constant contact between them and the Trump campaign. I want to see a 9-11 type commission of an equal number of republicans and democrats who are not in any government office, to take a serious look at this as this strikes at the very heart of our democracy and the future survival of our nation.
It's too early in the investigation to say there is no evidence of collusion, considering that there is evidence, including from the Russians themselves, that there was almost constant contact between them and the Trump campaign.
Contact is not collusion yet the media is going non-stop on the issue without making the distinction and despite the fact that no one has produced any evidence of collusion whatsoever.
This whole leaking thing. It is a conundrum isn't it?
Anybody want another take on it? Depends on if your a democrat or not I suppose.
But here it is.......
When Trump took over, he was taking over an administration that was in power for eight years. One of the first things that administration did was quietly remove anyone they determined was less than loyal. (read: not democrat) Every position where they could discern in any manner possible a persons political leanings. I mean they surely didn't want any conservative types around now did they. They were going to transform America. (or at least American Government)
So what do you suspect that if they actually did such, and these leaks they claim are real, Trumps major problem is that he thought that all the people in government is loyal to the person in charge.
When in reality most of his staff, those remaining from the past administration, are actually loyal to the opposition ideology.
Well the media is claiming that they have all these leaks, (although we have no actual proof of any leaks yet) and Trump is whining about it. (strange since there is no real proof)
So lets suppose for a second that there are. where would they be coming from?
They are coming from eight years of carefully purifying the Administration ranks to the progressive ideological standard.
I've said it before, Trump needs to clean house....
Then we will know if said leaks are actually real or a figment of the democrat imagination. (a big lie to push an agenda)
But I suspect, knowing how Washington DC actually works, that there may be some of this going on, if there are actually leaks.
I believe the other shoe will be dropped soon … all of the calls from such officials are monitored and recorded by the FBI and foreign governments also are aware of such intercepts and taps.
I'll no longer debate this as the debates go nowhere.
Going forward, I'll wait for a bipartisan commission … one with subpoena power : and then we can watch where it goes. I appreciate the reasonable dialogue and disparate positions.
The one-liner-dismissive crap makes discussion a pain-in-the ass.
I agree on the one-liner crap, and I don't think a bi-partisan commission will ever happen, cause it will open up a pandora's box of unintended consequences. (but then it really seem like the Democrats don't care about the consequences of anything anymore, they just want a power change, any way they can get it)
One has to consider the FBI and CIA have been logging all telephone/e-mail/internet communications for over 14 years now. it's easy to search out those communications that would reveal the leaks and the when, where and to/from.
Could it be possible that they do not want to reveal just how much communications they are watching/recording/monitoring?
I mean, that has to be a distinct possibility, doesn't it?
Could it be possible that they do not want to reveal just how much communications they are watching/recording/monitoring?
I mean, that has to be a distinct possibility, doesn't it?
Of course … that doesn't mean it won't happen … especially if Trump seems to be more-and-more a liability to party and country … outrageously, in that order.
Well, I thought it was a scenario that wasn't being considered by either side in the one-liner debates going on....
and if it is true, gives the shadow government conspirists something to rail about.
Doesn't it?
''They are coming from eight years of carefully purifying the Administration ranks to the progressive ideological standard.''
That's a good way to get a discussion going. Seems that you have all this inside information re D.C. so why bother discussing it.
BTW, there have been leaks in all the administrations going back decades. I bet that each and every one was from those damn progressives.
I'd blame that damn FDR, the progressive/socialist that he was.
Like I said, the idea wouldn't be liked by Democrats....
And I have no current inside information. (at least not since the first 8 months of the Clinton administration when the remaining friends I had there were fired or released)
But that is the time period the ideological purity tests were unofficially instituted. Not that there isn't some evidence of such. I distinctly remember Hillary firing almost the entire white house staff so she could replace them with "Her People"
Reject the idea all you want,
But it is a truth no one wants to talk about.
PS: the two most important and powerful cabinet posts during the Roosevelt administrations were held mostly by republicans, Secretary of State and Secretary of War. But then, Roosevelt specifically rejected a political ideology test for holding appointed office in his administration, by executive order. He felt that running the nation was NOT a political job.
I'll have to go with your usual response...PROOF please.
Hillary's firings started with the Travel office, which weren't illegal by the way, but her covering her involvement up by lying to congress was. They learned from that episode, and the rest of the terminations were done under much more secrecy and a lot less flamboyance. And yes most of my knowledge is anecdotal, Communications from friends and co-workers some of who I stayed in touch with for a while afterwards....
You can choose to believe that or not, I really don't care.
Roosevelt's cabinet? Republicans?
We'll start with....
Henry A. Wallace Secretary of Agriculture 1933-1940; Vice President 1941-1945 , TR Republican, switched to the Democrat party in '28, switched to the progressive party in '45 after being dropped form the democrat ticket.
Henry L. Stimson Secretary of War 1940-1945 , Career Republican, served as Pres. Hoovers Secretary of State.
William H. Woodin Secretary of the Treasury Jan. 1933-Dec. 1933 , resigned due to poor health.
Harold L. Ickes Secretary of the Interior 1933-1946, Another TR Republican, Entered the Cabinet as a republican but eventually switched to the progressive party and then the Democrat party. You aught to read about Ickes if you think that civil rights was originally a democrat ideal.
William F. "Frank" Knox Secretary of the Navy 1940-1944, Was the Republican Vice Presidential candidate in 1936.
Is that enough? or should I go through the undersecretaries and senior military staff also also?
NWM, I don't care that you don't care.
As far as FDR goes, what is your point? A little historical digging will turn up all those in his cabinet. No great revelations there. I'm not sure what your trying to prove with the list of people that served in FDR's cabinet. That they were republicans, or progressives. And what does it have to do with anything?
Proof is in the pudding with your accusations, so far the pudding isn't there.
Pudding? Hell, It's not even close to Jello!
Course it won't be, not for a Democrat or a Trump hater, but then I already said that didn't I.
Very predictable....
And as far as the Roosevelt cabinet and his belief that the job of actually running the nation was not political, and on that basis he chose from both sides. (Although experience in politics is required in obtaining the job (you can't win it without such experience) and in part managing the job afterwards achieving it, there is a LOT more to being a president than politics)
Roosevelt understood that.
Absolutely proven.....
Shame the current crop of politico's don't believe that anymore....
I would suggest reading
On the Presidency: Teacher, Soldier, Shaman, Pol;
by Thomas Cronin, 2009 an excellent treatise (sample, chapter one) on what being a president requires....
One of the best modern books on the topic.
What is predictable is you making a lot of assumptions, NWM.
And you have a good evening too, sir.
What is predictable is you making a lot of assumptions, NWM.
Why can't he make assumptions for the purpose of discussion when the only thing anybody has to add to the discussion is speculation? We don't know anything other than Flynn talked to the Russians. Yet speculation is running wild on what that means.
What would they investigate? Simply talking to the Russians is not illegal. We already know he talked to them because he admitted it. The FBI has looked into the matter interviewed Flynn, and will either charge him with something or they won't. The Russians aren't going to testify. Trump and Pence have executive immunity along with everybody else in the White House so none of them will testify. Flynn resigned so it's not like the recommendation can be to fire him.
Lying isn't a crime. If the FBI had evidence of a crime, then they'd charge him. If he hasn't committed a crime and he's been fired for lying, then who gives a shit why he lied?
Lying to the FBI is a FELONY.
Because Flynn has to date, not been formally charged, does not mean he won't subsequently be charged.
Protracted investigations tend to uncover more and more information …
Again I say, I believe the other shoe will be dropped soon.
I believe that, especially with the FBI briefing to the Senate Intelligence Committee today and how tight lipped and grim every Senator was coming out of it, that the shoe is taking shape now and that it's going to be along the lines a of military issue combat boot. I also believe there is a closet full of shoes and boots coming that is just barely being held back, but just barely.
Lying to the FBI is a FELONY.
Lying to congress is perjury and Hillary's still free. I bet Comey doesn't walk himself into explaining how one is changed and the other is not.