BobE
Guv'nor
Offline
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Moose, do you have a list of acceptable websites and authors we can reference so that we don't read propaganda and engage in wrongthink in the future?
Find oneFigures you would resort to rage and insults rather than just acknowledge that you did not comprehend the article you brought to us.
Find one
If you can.
Hi Moose, you linked the NY Times opinion section which has a far-left slant to it. (https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart) I just wanted to make you aware that what you linked may less than accurate due to it's bias as well.
The article I linked is from The Hill, which is rated as completely neutral. While you may take issue with the author of the opinion piece, note that their neutral rating should help eleviate some of your concerns regarding what he was allowed to write and publish.
Find one article defending Barr's actions that is not an opinion piece.Find one what? An article that you will read? Hell, you didn't read the one that you linked so I don't know that is possible.
I'm guessing you had no idea that is a left wing group that was created to oppose Trump. Yawn.2000 former and current DOJ employees have called for Barr's head for this says way more than the absolute hacks you keep posting.
Find one article defending Barr's actions that is not an opinion piece.
What? Wouldn't any article that defended (or criticized) Barr's actions necessarily be an opinion piece in fact if not in name?
I must be misunderstanding something. Surely you are not suggesting that an incoming National Security Advisor discussing U.S. policy with a foreign ambassador during a transition is somehow evidence of a "threat to national security" or something else illegal.In truth, the FBI was trying to determine whether Flynn was "being directed and controlled by and/or coordinating activities with the Russian Federation in a manner which may be a threat to the national security and/or possibly be a violation of [FARA] or other related statutes." Sure, the CI probe encompassed exploring whether Flynn was a "clandestine Russian agent," but it also encompassed whether he was simply coordinating activities with Russia in a way which might be illegal or impact national security. Which he was.
The call with Kislyak wherein Flynn secretly negotiated US foreign policy appears to me to fall squarely within the scope of what the CI probe was trying to uncover. The discussions with Kislyak seeking non-retaliation on sanctions and seeking to influence their UN vote appear to constitute "coordinating activities with the Russian Federation" in a manner which was potentially a threat to national security and/or illegal. So it is unsurprising that the emergence of the call affected the government's analysis about whether to continue the CI probe into Flynn and interview him about the call.
I think you are just trying make my argument look silly by removing all the context and re-framing it. So let me put the context back to clarify what I'm saying.I must be misunderstanding something. Surely you are not suggesting that an incoming National Security Advisor discussing U.S. policy with a foreign ambassador during a transition is somehow evidence of a "threat to national security" or something else illegal.
Apparently, Judge Sullivan has told everyone "not so fast" regarding Flynn's case dismissal. There seems to be others that want to file amicus briefs in opposition to the actions of the DOJ. So more drama erupts in a case where the defendant faced a maximum of six months in jail.
I think you are just trying make my argument look silly by removing all the context and re-framing it. So let me put the context back to clarify what I'm saying.
Flynn's secret phone calls with Russians wherein he negotiated foreign policy as a private citizen that was contrary to the sitting administration's foreign policy were relevant to a counterintelligence investigation into whether Flynn was "being directed and controlled by and/or coordinating activities with the Russian Federation in a manner which may be a threat to the national security and/or possibly be a violation of [FARA] or other related statutes."
The context for Flynn (in addition to the additional context below) was that (1) Russia had recently been determined by the US intel community to have committed cyber-war against our country, and Trump was publicly claiming they hadn't, despite him and Flynn having been briefed that they had; (2) Flynn appeared to be signaling to Russia that the penalties Obama had just imposed for those cyber-crimes would be lifted; (3) Flynn had a personal financial stake in the lifting of sanctions that was unrelated to US foreign policy interests; and (4) Flynn was already at that time in violation of FARA because he was literally an agent for Turkey.
What phone calls are you talking about? The phone calls to the Russian Ambassador that Flynn made while incoming National Security Advisor during the transition? If so, its hard not to make your argument look silly if you are characterizing those calls as "secret" and between a "private citizen."
Incoming Administrations don't start from zero. That is what a transition is for. And incoming Administrations have the right and duty to set their foreign policy and that requires some communication - just because the WaPo doesn't get a transcript of the conversations does not make them "secret."
A more fair criticism would be that Flynn was acting "rogue" or something. Hence, his later firing by the Administration. But to adopt that position would seemingly diminish the idea that the Administration and Trump himself were beholden to Russia. But I don;t think you can have it both ways.
The problem here is that intelligence conclusions can and often are made by political actors. The idea of using intelligence against members of and/or closely connected members of an opposition party campaign and opposition party transition team is beyond concerning.
Even beyond that - I am not sure how "context" somehow diminishes the concern that a Democratic Presidential Administration's FBI was treating a phone call by the named National Security Advisor of a Republican incoming Administration with a foreign ambassador as evidence of a threat to national security.
The calls were secret. Trump tweeted about how smart Putin was for not retaliating without acknowledging that it was at his own team's request. Flynn did not want it known that he was discussing sanctions with the Russians, which is why he excluded that from his text to McFarland summarizing the call, and why he lied to Pence and Spicer about discussing sanctions. Flynn had many secret discussions with Kislyak from 2015 through the transition.What phone calls are you talking about? The phone calls to the Russian Ambassador that Flynn made while incoming National Security Advisor during the transition? If so, its hard not to make your argument look silly if you are characterizing those calls as "secret" and between a "private citizen."
I don't think Flynn was acting rogue. I think this went to the very top. Flynn was fired only after it had become clear that he was a PR nightmare. Trump ignored weeks of warnings from Obama officials about him. And whatever you think of the Kislyak call, remember he was a secret agent for Turkey throughout all this. Trump did not fire Flynn for going rogue; he fired Flynn to protect himself.A more fair criticism would be that Flynn was acting "rogue" or something. Hence, his later firing by the Administration. But to adopt that position would seemingly diminish the idea that the Administration and Trump himself were beholden to Russia. But I don;t think you can have it both ways.
I share your concerns about the power of a sitting administration to use its own intelligence against an opposition party. It has the potential to be a very slippery slope. But they should not have to ignore this many red flags to avoid the appearance of influencing politics. There has to be a threshold.The problem here is that intelligence conclusions can and often are made by political actors. The idea of using intelligence against members of and/or closely connected members of an opposition party campaign and opposition party transition team is beyond concerning.
Because you do not seem open to considering the possibility that there was a legitimate, non-political reason for the FBI wanting to know what Flynn was up to. Believe it or not, I spend a great deal of time considering the alternatives to my point of view on all of this. It is how I have become confident in the things I choose to write about. I am not a fan of how the federal justice system operates, for a number of reasons. But I find it really, really hard to come up with an innocent explanation to the sum of what I detailed in my prior post. And I don't really see any Trump defenders addressing those concerns head on (e.g., Trump Tower Moscow negotiations, sharing polling data with Russians, etc.) without resorting to blaming law enforcement and intelligence. It is the same thing with Flynn.Even beyond that - I am not sure how "context" somehow diminishes the concern that a Democratic Presidential Administration's FBI was treating a phone call by the named National Security Advisor of a Republican incoming Administration with a foreign ambassador as evidence of a threat to national security.