Trump knew of Flynn Russia phone call issues 'weeks ago'
 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world/us_and_canada

I know I am picking on him .. but the self inflicted wound keep coming

Acting Attorney General Sally Yates had warned the White House about the contacts and that Mr Flynn might be vulnerable to Russian blackmail on 26 January, said Mr Spicer.

Thats the one they fired for not backing the Travel ban .. I guess she was doing her job

It makes one wonder if the Washington Post didn't break the story if he would have been fired. We still don't know if people in Pres. Trumps administration had any contact with the Russians before the election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We're doomed.

Thank God it wasn't Obama. John would need another server.

Think about what your reaction would be if this was the Hillary or Bernie campaign and they they won the election. Your head would explode
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But they aren't....because one was more heinous and her and her party screwed over the other one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We are doomed

I think you and I will witness a severe screwing over within the Republican Party soon. Flynn could sing like a song bird.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How good is your track record at predicting such things?

This is a black eye for Trump, a for-real black eye. He deserves to catch quite a bit of heat. Mistakes happen, regardless of the party that's in charge.

Trump needs to understand that he's going to be held to more media scrutiny than anyone before him, because they loved Obama, and they despise him. Accordingly, Trump would be wise to clean up his act.

It's a big deal. Not yet a huge deal, I don't think we know nearly enough.

God I wish Condi Rice was in his Cabinet to be a voice of reason and composure.

Preibus stripped the Republican Party of any real conservatives and is on his way to destroying the White House.....

This article was published in a very Liberal weekly, THE WEEK

America's spies anonymously took down Michael Flynn. That is deeply worrying.

by Damon Linker

The United States is much better off without Michael Flynn serving as national security adviser. But no one should be cheering the way he was brought down.

The whole episode is evidence of the precipitous and ongoing collapse of America's democratic institutions — not a sign of their resiliency. Flynn's ouster was a soft coup (or political assassination) engineered by anonymous intelligence community bureaucrats. The results might be salutary, but this isn't the way a liberal democracy is supposed to function.

Unelected intelligence analysts work for the president, not the other way around. Far too many Trump critics appear not to care that these intelligence agents leaked highly sensitive information to the press — mostly because Trump critics are pleased with the result. "Finally," they say, "someone took a stand to expose collusion between the Russians and a senior aide to the president!" It is indeed important that someone took such a stand. But it matters greatly who that someone is and how they take their stand. Members of the unelected, unaccountable intelligence community are not the right someone, especially when they target a senior aide to the president by leaking anonymously to newspapers the content of classified phone intercepts, where the unverified, unsubstantiated information can inflict politically fatal damage almost instantaneously.

"The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea etc?"--Donald Trump

President Trump was roundly mocked among liberals for that tweet. But he is, in many ways, correct. These leaks are an enormous problem. And in a less polarized context, they would be recognized immediately for what they clearly are: an effort to manipulate public opinion for the sake of achieving a desired political outcome. It's weaponized spin.

This doesn't mean the outcome was wrong. I have no interest in defending Flynn, who appears to be an atrocious manager prone to favoring absurd conspiracy theories over more traditional forms of intelligence. He is just about the last person who should be giving the president advice about foreign policy. And for all I know, Flynn did exactly what the anonymous intelligence community leakers allege — promised the Russian ambassador during the transition that the incoming Trump administration would back off on sanctions proposed by the outgoing Obama administration.

But no matter what Flynn did, it is simply not the role of the deep state to target a man working in one of the political branches of the government by dishing to reporters about information it has gathered clandestinely. It is the role of elected members of Congress to conduct public investigations of alleged wrongdoing by public officials.

What if Congress won't act? What if both the Senate and the House of Representatives are held by the same party as the president and members of both chambers are reluctant to cross a newly elected head of the executive branch who enjoys overwhelming approval of his party's voters? In such a situation — our situation — shouldn't we hope the deep state will rise up to act responsibly to take down a member of the administration who may have broken the law?

The answer is an unequivocal no.

In a liberal democracy, how things happen is often as important as what happens. Procedures matter. So do rules and public accountability. The chaotic, dysfunctional Trump White House is placing the entire system under enormous strain. That's bad. But the answer isn't to counter it with equally irregular acts of sabotage — or with a disinformation campaign waged by nameless civil servants toiling away in the surveillance state.

As Eli Lake of Bloomberg News put it in an important article following Flynn's resignation, Normally intercepts of U.S. officials and citizens are some of the most tightly held government secrets. This is for good reason. Selectively disclosing details of private conversations monitored by the FBI or NSA gives the permanent state the power to destroy reputations from the cloak of anonymity. This is what police states do. [Bloomberg]

Those cheering the deep state torpedoing of Flynn are saying, in effect, that a police state is perfectly fine so long as it helps to bring down Trump.

It is the role of Congress to investigate the president and those who work for him. If Congress resists doing its duty, out of a mixture of self-interest and cowardice, the American people have no choice but to try and hold the government's feet to the fire, demanding action with phone calls, protests, and, ultimately, votes. That is a democratic response to the failure of democracy.

Sitting back and letting shadowy, unaccountable agents of espionage do the job for us simply isn't an acceptable alternative.

Down that path lies the end of democracy in America.

The Right Rallies to Edward Snowden
 

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...dward-snowden/

I said it about the emails (russians ) and about the Benghazi hearings.. its all fun and games until the barrel of the gun points in your direction... and now Trumps on the defensive

Trump loved leaks before he hated them


“I love Wikileaks,” Trump said, while the crowd chanted, “Lock her up.”
“It’s amazing how nothing is secret today when you talk about the Internet,” he added, before reading the contents of emails stolen from the Clinton campaign and leaked to Wikileaks.

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-love...c7b#.k3lrkadge

Fine. The get-Trump miners finally received a gold nugget. And they picked off one of his guys. And, sure, the Flynn leak is a counterweight to Trump's sarcastic liking of WikiLeaks. But, as the article I posted just above your entry shows, there is a sinister difference. Though Flynn was the immediate target, he is, unwittingly and ultimately, only the "canary in the coal mine." There is a toxic substance in the caverns of our intelligence system. The Flynn leaks come anonymously from within our own intelligence community. Outing Flynn exposes that toxicity. Our intelligence agencies must have court orders to spy on Americans which it doesn't appear that they did. Their spying was on the Russians. As soon as an American citizen is involved they have to shut it down until they get a court order to continue. And when the information they get is classified, as it was in the Flynn case, they must not release it to unauthorized persons. We have, essentially, illegal spies who are endangering national security by releasing classified material to unauthorized media outlets. As the article from the leftist journal that I posted points out: " Those cheering the deep state torpedoing of Flynn are saying, in effect, that a police state is perfectly fine so long as it helps to bring down Trump." And that "Sitting back and letting shadowy, unaccountable agents of espionage do the job for us simply isn't an acceptable alternative. Down that path lies the end of democracy in America.

Rather than "sitting back," the Attorney General should immediately form an investigation to find out who the toxic elements are, and prosecute them as surely as the previous administration wanted to get Snowden and prosecute him.

I know you guys on the left here are happy about anything that hurts Trump, but you also love "Our Democracy." So I'm sure you'll cheer when and if they get the moles who leaked the stuff--even though you like the results.

police state is perfectly fine so long as it helps to bring down Trump

but what issues did you have

when Congressional Republicans who hounded the Obama administration and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over the 2012 attacks on American personnel in Benghazi two-year investigation, encompassing 33 hearings held in congressional investigations and four public hearings, at an estimated cost of $7 million .. to keep her from the white house and found nothing but the Flynn issue dosn't warrant a hearing or an investigation.... congress has a choice like in the Matrix

You take the blue pill—the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill—you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Seem's you have already taken the Blue pill

Pres. Trump was complaining last night how the press threat Flynn badly - not recognizing that he made the decision to fire Flynn.

I thought he resigned

Trump is a thin skinned narcissistic, corporate bully and that is the short list of negative qualities I see in this man, but what really concerns me is how we let the Russians influence and meddle in our election process. Now they are launching missiles and sailing spy ships to our coast, all while we have a government that can't get it's sh*t together. Much as I detest the man, I'd like to see him get his damn cabinet installed and I certainly hope it includes people that can give him better advice then what he appears to be getting at present. This is not a leader and team that give me confidence we are prepared to face a global issue in short notice.

The more he jabs the "fake media", the more they will dig, if ever there was a man intent on digging his own grave; Trump clearly is he. If it comes out his campaign staff or even himself were in contact with the Russian intelligence community during the election, I think he will be in serious trouble.

I need spring and the distraction of some largemouth bass or pickeral bending my line, maybe a few rounds of golf in warmer weather and they promise of our stripped friends soon to be arriving.

:humpty::humpty::humpty::humpty:

We all do! Inauguration day should be June 1st

He was asked to resign. ie fired.

I actually discuss, in my own words, my ideas and why, in detail, on most "issues" on topics that I respond to. And I actually discuss the topic, or argument, or video, or article, which is posted.

Here, again, you avoid talking about the article to which you are supposedly responding. Not one word of opinion about the article. As you have done with so many other of my threads or posts, you avoid their substance and deflect onto some other tangent, some comment on the messenger rather than the message, or how about this (my beef) rather than what you're saying type argument.

As for the blue pill/red pill stuff, I try having debates in a specific and substantive manner, with my own personal view founded on some guiding principal, rather than just spouting generalizations or mouthing political talking points. I try to directly discuss a topic presented rather than avoiding it and deflecting into another discussion. I don't take any pill before I enter a debate, and I try to present a rational and personal opinion.

I don't know what kind, or which, pill you take, but I find that when you respond to something you often wander onto something else.