elainebenis
Junior Member
Posts: 50
Jul 3, 2014 23:26:11 GMT
|
Post by elainebenis on Feb 17, 2017 15:38:49 GMT
If you believe the intelligence leaks, there are transcripts of these phone calls. And the fact he is going after the leaks not the information in the leaks is surely spurring the media to dig deeper, and trying to get him on record issuing a flat denial. Whoever leaked the information should just go ahead and put it all out there now. They should go ahead and share the transcripts. Why make us all wait, and leave everyone to speculate about what exactly was said? And when. And by whom. What's the purpose of sharing some of it, and not all of it? If he's directly involved, and it's on tape, let's get it over with. Why wait to see if they can catch him in a lie? The incremental leaking is the IC trying to corner congressional Republicans into doing their sworn duty and investigate Trump/Russia/election interference. There was plenty of this damning info out there prior to the election, as well as between the election and inauguration. Congress hasn’t done anything about it - the opposite, in fact: Sessions got DOJ, Yates got fired, Chaffetz is, well Chaffetz, NBD on Flynn/Russia/sanctions, etc etc so the leaks are going to keep coming until Somebody Does Something. The IC doesn't want to be the Praetorian Guard picking the president, but when they come out and say that they believe Russia has eyes and ears inside the Oval Office and nobody shits their pants (looking at you, Paul Ryan) then they’re going to act. Hence, the leaks. Pop some popcorn and buckle up. Save |
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Feb 17, 2017 16:00:36 GMT
question: Trump was rambling yesterday about how Flynn 'did nothing wrong' and 'was just doing his job' when he was talking to Russian officials. And that the REAL reason he was let go was misleading the Vice-President about it, NOT because of what he DID.
So, my question: When Michael Flynn was talking to the Russians, it was before the inauguration- right?? And at that time, President Obama was still the President, right?? So, then, what Michael Flynn did WASN'T legal, was it? He shouldn't have started discussing sanctions / policy until after the Inaguration, when Trump was actually President.
(I mean, I really believe Flynn only did it because Trump told him to- BUT-- I think what Trump said yesterday about the whole situation was NOT TRUE. )
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 22:35:21 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2017 16:33:02 GMT
question: Trump was rambling yesterday about how Flynn 'did nothing wrong' and 'was just doing his job' when he was talking to Russian officials. And that the REAL reason he was let go was misleading the Vice-President about it, NOT because of what he DID. So, my question: When Michael Flynn was talking to the Russians, it was before the inauguration- right?? And at that time, President Obama was still the President, right?? So, then, what Michael Flynn did WASN'T legal, was it? He shouldn't have started discussing sanctions / policy until after the Inaguration, when Trump was actually President. (I mean, I really believe Flynn only did it because Trump told him to- BUT-- I think what Trump said yesterday about the whole situation was NOT TRUE. ) From what I think I understand by reading and listening to various news reports, Flynn talking to Russia as just a citizen is not against the law. However, discussing policy/sanctions, etc. before Trump took office, and before Flynn was appointed, is the question; i.e., what exactly was discussed, and when. |
|
twinsmomfla99
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,987 
|
Post by twinsmomfla99 on Feb 17, 2017 17:01:06 GMT
Whoever leaked the information should just go ahead and put it all out there now. They should go ahead and share the transcripts. Why make us all wait, and leave everyone to speculate about what exactly was said? And when. And by whom. What's the purpose of sharing some of it, and not all of it? If he's directly involved, and it's on tape, let's get it over with. Why wait to see if they can catch him in a lie?The incremental leaking is the IC trying to corner congressional Republicans into doing their sworn duty and investigate Trump/Russia/election interference. There was plenty of this damning info out there prior to the election, as well as between the election and inauguration. Congress hasn’t done anything about it - the opposite, in fact: Sessions got DOJ, Yates got fired, Chaffetz is, well Chaffetz, NBD on Flynn/Russia/sanctions, etc etc so the leaks are going to keep coming until Somebody Does Something. The IC doesn't want to be the Praetorian Guard picking the president, but when they come out and say that they believe Russia has eyes and ears inside the Oval Office and nobody shits their pants (looking at you, Paul Ryan) then they’re going to act. Hence, the leaks. Usually, it isn't the story so much as it is the cover-up/lie that occurs after the deed is done. That is what got Nixon and Clinton in trouble. Nixon probably could have gotten away with plausible deniability on the Watergate break-in because there wasn't much to show his involveent at that point. However, the cover-up was extensive, and there was no way to deny that he knew about that. Likewise, Clinton probably could have survived the BJ in the Oval Office scandal, because it was nothing more than scandal, but the "lie" under oath is what got him into legal trouble. Here is my conspiracy theory on the current situation: The "leakers" have evidence that someone on Trump's campaign team colluded with Russian hackers, but there is no proof that Trump ordered them to do what they did. If so, no "crime" on Trump's part. However, they also have evidence that Trump became aware of the problem at some point. Not good, but not necessarily something he had a duty to report. However, if he can be nailed down in very public lies about having knowledge that his campaign was involved, it becomes a coverup, and while it might not be enough to rise to criminal conduct worthy of a jail sentence, it could be one of those "high crimes or misdemeanors" mentioned in the Constitution as a basis for impeachment. I think whoever is the source for these leaks to the press has told reporters to pursue this line of questioning to get Trump on record. I find the way he answers those questions to be very evasive, like he might be trying to hide something. |
|
