Trump says Flynn's actions during presidential transition were lawful

[Andaman Al]

4 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Trump says Flynn's actions during presidential transition were lawful

I see POTUS can now put Jeff Sessions out to pasture. Who needs an Attorney General when you can make legal decisions yourself. What a talented Dotard Trump is.

[Destiny1990]

Yeah yeah so why u all lie about it first?

everyone from trump highest level associates was sneakily mingling with russians way before and after the elections how bizar is that!

 

 

 

[jcsmith]

3 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

I think it will be borne out that Pence and Trump DID KNOW about Flynn making back-room deals with the Russkies - during the transition.  The reason everyone is bleating that Pence didn't know - is to shield Pence.  Even the press corps is sucked into that one.  If it's proven that both the prez-elect and VP-elect knew, then they're in on the violation of the Hatch Act.  They're all 3 guilty.  Mark my words.

 

Quite possibly. Time will tell. 

What we definitely know though is that Pence knew about the foreign agent dealings and lied about it on TV. He was the head of the transition, and the transition team was notified about this fact both from congress, and from Flynn's lawyers himself. Then went out and acted shocked like he had no idea. 

Trump is the opposite. He's too dumb to cover it up. 

[boomerangutang]

2 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

The prime example being Reagan talking to the Iranians to orchestrate the hostage release with his inauguration.

Yes, but the most insidious part about that is: Reagan's people got the Iranians to DELAY the release of the US hostages until the day of Reagan's innauguration.  They set that up months prior - in order to weaken Carter's bid for re-election (and it worked).  So the American hostages were held captive for months longer than they would have been without Reagan's interference (before he was prez).  Also, when Reagan's people clandestinely flew to Iran to seal the deal, Cheney brought a chocolate cake in the shape of a Bible, as a yuk  yuk gift to the Ayatollah. Icing on the cake, Republican-style.  

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

No, not Bannon's musings he's just the one who took the heat for mentioning the book which is written by Neil Howe. The follow up book, The Fourth Turning is even better but rather frightening.

Actually, Bannon's favorite (and most influencing) book is; The Camp of Saints, written by a Frenchman in the 1970's.  It's a fictional account of hordes of brown-skinned people from India, trekking over to, and taking over Europe.  A close look at Bannon's utterings, will reveal they're peppered with unique phrases from that book.

[Morch]

19 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Yes, but the most insidious part about that is: Reagan's people got the Iranians to DELAY the release of the US hostages until the day of Reagan's innauguration.  They set that up months prior - in order to weaken Carter's bid for re-election (and it worked).  So the American hostages were held captive for months longer than they would have been without Reagan's interference (before he was prez).  Also, when Reagan's people clandestinely flew to Iran to seal the deal, Cheney brought a chocolate cake in the shape of a Bible, as a yuk  yuk gift to the Ayatollah. Icing on the cake, Republican-style.  

Actually, Bannon's favorite (and most influencing) book is; The Camp of Saints, written by a Frenchman in the 1970's.  It's a fictional account of hordes of brown-skinned people from India, trekking over to, and taking over Europe.  A close look at Bannon's utterings, will reveal they're peppered with unique phrases from that book.

 

Got to wonder if you actually check them pesky details before posting them as facts, or if you really don't care all that much. Pretty much like the usual object of your derision.

[Dustdevil]

Trump is so easy to see through. Whatever comes out of his mouth, just believe the exact opposite.

[Langsuan Man]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

So the American hostages were held captive for months longer than they would have been without Reagan's interference (before he was prez). 

As was the Vietnam war,  when Nixon's people discouraged the South Vietnam government from participating in the Paris Peach Talks prior to the election:

 

Quote

In 1968, the Paris Peace talks, intended to put an end to the 13-year-long Vietnam War, failed because an aide working for then-Presidential candidate Richard Nixon convinced the South Vietnamese to walk away from the dealings, says a new report by the BBC’s David Taylor. By the late 1960s Americans had been involved in the Vietnam War for nearly a decade, and the ongoing conflict was an incredibly contentious issue, says PBS:
.........Eventually, Nixon won by just 1 percent of the popular vote. “Once in office he escalated the war into Laos and Cambodia, with the loss of an additional 22,000 American lives, before finally settling for a peace agreement in 1973 that was within grasp in 1968,” says the BBC.

source: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vietnam-war-for-political-gainand-johnson-knew-about-it-newly-unclassified-tapes-suggest-3595441/

 

So 22,000 American lives were lost so Nixon could have his peace with honor 

[SheungWan]

32 minutes ago, Langsuan Man said:

As was the Vietnam war,  when Nixon's people discouraged the South Vietnam government from participating in the Paris Peach Talks prior to the election:

 

source: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vietnam-war-for-political-gainand-johnson-knew-about-it-newly-unclassified-tapes-suggest-3595441/

 

So 22,000 American lives were lost so Nixon could have his peace with honor 

Ah yes, the Paris Peach Talks.

[rudi49jr]

'Trump says Flynn's actions during presidential transition were lawful'

 

And this coming from a man who claimed he could shoot someone in broad daylight, and people see him do it, but he would still get away with it. Clearly the man doesn't seem to have a good grasp of what is lawful and what is not.

Edited December 3, 2017 by rudi49jr

[dunroaming]

7 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Of course they were lawful. 

Obama gave Flynn the go-ahead to speak to the Russians. 

Why did he lie to the Febbies? 

Big mystery... 

Whatever you are smoking I will have some too .  One thing for sure, BM never let's us down with his posts. 

[dunroaming]

2 hours ago, SheungWan said:

Ah yes, the Paris Peach Talks.

Isn't Paris Peach the colour of Trump's skin?

[spidermike007]

8 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

I think it will be borne out that Pence and Trump DID KNOW about Flynn making back-room deals with the Russkies - during the transition.  The reason everyone is bleating that Pence didn't know - is to shield Pence.  Even the press corps is sucked into that one.  If it's proven that both the prez-elect and VP-elect knew, then they're in on the violation of the Hatch Act.  They're all 3 guilty.  Mark my words.

 

When it is proven, it will be further grist that Trump is unfit to be president, but we have known that for over a year.  Perhaps more importantly, Pence will be shown to be unfit to take over from Trump.   Enter President Ryan.  Ugh.  The Republican harmful-to-America cabal is deep.

 

That's why Pence has been so quiet lately.  He knows anything he says about anything, will show him to be the anti-American dufus he is.

 

What? Are you saying the universe is really more than 6,000 years old? 

 

Of course they both knew. It is a top down operation. Trump ordered his staff to find dirt, just like he has operated as a developer for decades. The man does not know how to play fair, and he listens to no advice. So, why would he all of a sudden change his M.O. now? Not gonna happen. He is guiltier than Charles Manson was. Filthier than a depression era farmer, without running water. 

[Thakkar]

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Think this was pointed out long ago. Norms are being eroded and will continue to be, even if Trump is ejected from the White House. After all, that's a Yuge part of what Trump is all about. Can't say that the extreme partisan discourse is a great tool at convincing people seeing thing one's way, though. 

If there were genuine partisan discourse, I’d agree with you because I don’t like ideology—I go where the facts take me.

 

There is no discourse of ANY kind even possible when one side adheres to (or pretends to adhere to) magical thinking. The completely debunked trickle down theory is a case in point. Maths, data and three decades of experience have conclusively shown that it doesn’t work, yet, with the new tax bill, the GOP have doubled down on the same BS. It’s clear from the way this bill has worked it’s way through Congress that they don’t believe their BS any more than the Democrats do, though publicly they continue to spout it. What kind of non-partisan discourse is even possible under such conditions?

 

“Respect for life” is another GOP inconsistency. They want to force women to have unwanted children but refuse to fund health, nutrition, safe drinking water and education for the child after it is born. They refuse to allow sex education, which is proven to drastically reduce unwanted pregnancies. They refuse to fund or even allow the promotion of contraception even though it definitely prevents unwanted pregnancies. They promote abstinence which is a *proven* failure. They loudly and sanctimoniously talk of respecting life while calling for the death penalty. They speak of forgiveness and the saving grace of Jesus while defunding training and other programs *proven* to  reduce recidivism among criminals. Do they even believe what they are spouting against all available evidence, or are they merely using these emotional wedge issues to gain power and money? Either way, where to even begin any kind of rational, good-faith, non-partisan discourse?

 

They talk about freedom and the constitution while actively, and with precision, disenfranchising specific class of voters who they know are unlikely to vote for them—all in the name of non-existent voter fraud. The evidence shows there is no appreciable voter fraud, but against all evidence they insist there is. What meaningful discourse can be had when facts are thrown out the window?

 

The partisanship is entirely one-sided. They are Alice, going down the rabbit hole and want all of us to follow. If we don’t, *we* are being partisan.

 

Sorry for the tirade. I’m in a mood and I’ve run out of my favorite beer.

[Morch]

46 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

If there were genuine partisan discourse, I’d agree with you because I don’t like ideology—I go where the facts take me.

 

There is no discourse of ANY kind even possible when one side adheres to (or pretends to adhere to) magical thinking. The completely debunked trickle down theory is a case in point. Maths, data and three decades of experience have conclusively shown that it doesn’t work, yet, with the new tax bill, the GOP have doubled down on the same BS. It’s clear from the way this bill has worked it’s way through Congress that they don’t believe their BS any more than the Democrats do, though publicly they continue to spout it. What kind of non-partisan discourse is even possible under such conditions?

 

“Respect for life” is another GOP inconsistency. They want to force women to have unwanted children but refuse to fund health, nutrition, safe drinking water and education for the child after it is born. They refuse to allow sex education, which is proven to drastically reduce unwanted pregnancies. They refuse to fund or even allow the promotion of contraception even though it definitely prevents unwanted pregnancies. They promote abstinence which is a *proven* failure. They loudly and sanctimoniously talk of respecting life while calling for the death penalty. They speak of forgiveness and the saving grace of Jesus while defunding training and other programs *proven* to  reduce recidivism among criminals. Do they even believe what they are spouting against all available evidence, or are they merely using these emotional wedge issues to gain power and money? Either way, where to even begin any kind of rational, good-faith, non-partisan discourse?

 

They talk about freedom and the constitution while actively, and with precision, disenfranchising specific class of voters who they know are unlikely to vote for them—all in the name of non-existent voter fraud. The evidence shows there is no appreciable voter fraud, but against all evidence they insist there is. What meaningful discourse can be had when facts are thrown out the window?

 

The partisanship is entirely one-sided. They are Alice, going down the rabbit hole and want all of us to follow. If we don’t, *we* are being partisan.

 

Sorry for the tirade. I’m in a mood and I’ve run out of my favorite beer.

 

We'll have to disagree, I guess.

 

Even if what you posted was fully correct (and it isn't, and I suspect you know that), it still wouldn't explain how the position presented is helpful in making the opposition (or enough of them to matter) to see things the way you (and for the most part, myself) would like them to.

 

Take a look at these topics. It's bashing all the way down, and then some. Doesn't matter if it's well deserved, spot on and whatnot. It may satisfy some people's sense of righteousness, but it just doesn't do anything much but make people dig in their views.

 

What beer would that be? Not a whole lot of options here in LoS.

[ballpoint]

1 hour ago, Thakkar said:

Sorry for the tirade. I’m in a mood and I’ve run out of my favorite beer.

You're not the only one.  A lot of people are waiting on the delivery van.

 

[Thakkar]

25 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

We'll have to disagree, I guess.

 

Even if what you posted was fully correct (and it isn't, and I suspect you know that), it still wouldn't explain how the position presented is helpful in making the opposition (or enough of them to matter) to see things the way you (and for the most part, myself) would like them to.

 

Take a look at these topics. It's bashing all the way down, and then some. Doesn't matter if it's well deserved, spot on and whatnot. It may satisfy some people's sense of righteousness, but it just doesn't do anything much but make people dig in their views.

 

What beer would that be? Not a whole lot of options here in LoS.

I’m partial to dark Lao beer. It’s one of the few beers here that don’t give me a headache.

 

youre not wrong in that my attitude (as displayed above) is not helpful if what we are looking for (and, surely we are?) is some kinds of compromised solutions to the myriad of contentious issues. That isn’t possible till every one can base their arguments on facts and agree to have honest debates. People should also be able to disagree without being disagreeable.

 

Sadly, there is no agreement on facts, there is no honesty on what the actual contentions are, and there is no civility. I’d love to be able to say that the blame is on both sides, but on issues like guns, abortion, healthcare, taxes, gender equality, LGBTQ rights and a host of other issues, the blame is disproportionately on one side.

 

I’m off to knock on the door of a friend rumored to keep stocks of Lao.

[Jingthing]

'Trump says Flynn's actions during presidential transition were lawful'
 
And this coming from a man who claimed he could shoot someone in broad daylight, and people see him do it, but he would still get away with it. Clearly the man doesn't seem to have a good grasp of what is lawful and what is not.

He creates his own reality. Everyone should get that by now. If any parts of his reality are true strictly a coincidence. He's gotten away with this till now. His reality is that he'll get away with it for life.

TBD.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Jingthing]

Trump is so easy to see through. Whatever comes out of his mouth, just believe the exact opposite.

You surely won't go broke playing that bet.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[lannarebirth]

8 hours ago, Thakkar said:

 

 Either way, where to even begin any kind of rational, good-faith, non-partisan discourse?

 

 

 

How about we start with a discussion about Campaign Finance Reform and Term Limits. That should be a non partisan issue.  I think a lot of the awful legislation that gets passed is because legislators are being paid by their sponsors not to do what they know to be the right thing.

 

How about a discussion on how a retirement system that rewards its participants in the short term if they rubber stamp the corporatocracy's goals against their long term interests and certainly those of ther children.

 

How about a discussion about the loss of social cohesion and how if it is not regained a once great nation becomes a footnote of history.

 

That ought to get us through the holiday season. 

Edited December 3, 2017 by lannarebirth

[simple1]

13 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

<SNIP>

Actually, Bannon's favorite (and most influencing) book is; The Camp of Saints, written by a Frenchman in the 1970's.  It's a fictional account of hordes of brown-skinned people from India, trekking over to, and taking over Europe.  A close look at Bannon's utterings, will reveal they're peppered with unique phrases from that book.

Thanks for the reminder...

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/steve-bannon-camp-of-the-saints-immigration_us_58b75206e4b0284854b3dc03

Edited December 3, 2017 by simple1

[Trouble]

17 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

It is unlawful. Why are you not aware of this?

It is not necessarily unlawful.  All transition teams have made contact with representative of foreign governments prior to the new President taking office. That is the way business has been done. Trump seems correct when he says Flynn's discussions were not illegal. Many have referenced the Logan Act as being the underlying law making Flynn's actions possibly illegal but no one has ever been prosecuted under the act passed in 1799. Mueller did not take Flynn to task for his discussions, only with lying to the FBI. To date nothing has been said regarding those discussions and "collusion" with the Russians regarding the campaign since the discussions apparently happened after the election. That being said, one has to wonder, since Flynn was Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, why he used the telephone to have  conversations with the Russian Ambassador when he surely should have known those calls would be monitored. One can assume did not think he was doing anything illegal or untoward but only getting conversations started that might improve relations with the Russians once Trump took office. Further, one would have thought it better to say nothing than lie about the conversations when he should have known the intelligence agencies were probably monitoring everything the Ambassador was doing.

 

Seems like the FBI and Mueller investigations have trapped some people for lying to them rather than actually finding that illegal campaign activity took place. First off, collusion is not actually a Federal crime except in anti-trust law.  So whether the Trump campaign got help from the Russians would only be illegal if Election Laws were violated. This idea of collusion and the way the press markets this topic is off course to begin with when specific election, computer, wire fraud laws, and making false statements would be the real crimes. That is where they got Flynn and others. To date and after almost a year of multiple investigations by the Senate, House, FBI, and Mueller, no one has been brought up on violation of any of the real crimes that would have to be proven to show real involvement in election fraud. Law enforcement is good on bringing people up on charges of lying but when looking at the underlying possible crimes it all falls apart.  My prediction is that when all is said and done there will be a couple more people fall for things like lying but there will unlikely ever be any prosecutions from actual violation of election laws, etc. 

 

For Trump supporters, this investigative effort is a waste of time and money and for his opponents it represents an opportunity to show Trump and his campaign as illegitimate.  In the end the effort will have been a disappointment for everyone because it will probably be inconclusive. 

[sirineou]

18 minutes ago, Trouble said:

It is not necessarily unlawful.  All transition teams have made contact with representative of foreign governments prior to the new President taking office. That is the way business has been done. Trump seems correct when he says Flynn's discussions were not illegal. Many have referenced the Logan Act as being the underlying law making Flynn's actions possibly illegal but no one has ever been prosecuted under the act passed in 1799. Mueller did not take Flynn to task for his discussions, only with lying to the FBI. To date nothing has been said regarding those discussions and "collusion" with the Russians regarding the campaign since the discussions apparently happened after the election. That being said, one has to wonder, since Flynn was Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, why he used the telephone to have  conversations with the Russian Ambassador when he surely should have known those calls would be monitored. One can assume did not think he was doing anything illegal or untoward but only getting conversations started that might improve relations with the Russians once Trump took office. Further, one would have thought it better to say nothing than lie about the conversations when he should have known the intelligence agencies were probably monitoring everything the Ambassador was doing.

 

Seems like the FBI and Mueller investigations have trapped some people for lying to them rather than actually finding that illegal campaign activity took place. First off, collusion is not actually a Federal crime except in anti-trust law.  So whether the Trump campaign got help from the Russians would only be illegal if Election Laws were violated. This idea of collusion and the way the press markets this topic is off course to begin with when specific election, computer, wire fraud laws, and making false statements would be the real crimes. That is where they got Flynn and others. To date and after almost a year of multiple investigations by the Senate, House, FBI, and Mueller, no one has been brought up on violation of any of the real crimes that would have to be proven to show real involvement in election fraud. Law enforcement is good on bringing people up on charges of lying but when looking at the underlying possible crimes it all falls apart.  My prediction is that when all is said and done there will be a couple more people fall for things like lying but there will unlikely ever be any prosecutions from actual violation of election laws, etc. 

 

For Trump supporters, this investigative effort is a waste of time and money and for his opponents it represents an opportunity to show Trump and his campaign as illegitimate.  In the end the effort will have been a disappointment for everyone because it will probably be inconclusive. 

Talking to governments during a transition is not illegal but what was said might be, In the same token, it is not the collusion but what they colluded about that is the crime.

You can talk all you want,  I can talk all I want, and Trump can tweet all he wants, but there is only one that is not talking .  Mueller  he will take this where the truth take it.and then he will talk

If these people were innocent they will not be lying   they will be cooperating and telling the truth to get this over with and get to the business of governing,

But they know what the truth is and they don't want to get to it at all cost.

 

[Scott]

Another "...but, but, but Hillary" post has been removed.   It's off-topic.  

 

[craigt3365]

2 hours ago, Trouble said:

It is not necessarily unlawful.  All transition teams have made contact with representative of foreign governments prior to the new President taking office.

 He violated the Logan Act. In and of itself, no biggie. He then lied to the FBI. A biggie. If he told the truth, he'd still be the National Security advisor. Probably.

 

[craigt3365]

2 hours ago, sirineou said:

Talking to governments during a transition is not illegal but what was said might be, In the same token, it is not the collusion but what they colluded about that is the crime.

You can talk all you want,  I can talk all I want, and Trump can tweet all he wants, but there is only one that is not talking .  Mueller  he will take this where the truth take it.and then he will talk

If these people were innocent they will not be lying   they will be cooperating and telling the truth to get this over with and get to the business of governing,

But they know what the truth is and they don't want to get to it at all cost.

 

Obama's team specifically told Trump's team not to get involved until they were officially in office. It was a difficult time due to the Russian interference. Trump and team did, Flynn was caught via surveillance talking to the Russians. And then lied about it.

 

Shut and closed case. Kinda worked out relatively well. Quite a few who lied are now in hot water. With more to come.

[Morch]

15 hours ago, Thakkar said:

I’m partial to dark Lao beer. It’s one of the few beers here that don’t give me a headache.

 

youre not wrong in that my attitude (as displayed above) is not helpful if what we are looking for (and, surely we are?) is some kinds of compromised solutions to the myriad of contentious issues. That isn’t possible till every one can base their arguments on facts and agree to have honest debates. People should also be able to disagree without being disagreeable.

 

Sadly, there is no agreement on facts, there is no honesty on what the actual contentions are, and there is no civility. I’d love to be able to say that the blame is on both sides, but on issues like guns, abortion, healthcare, taxes, gender equality, LGBTQ rights and a host of other issues, the blame is disproportionately on one side.

 

I’m off to knock on the door of a friend rumored to keep stocks of Lao.

 

I think that with regard to many of the issues, your assessment of the difference in respective outlooks is correct. But not all. Some views are pronounced as moral judgements, truisms and such. And while I may agree with most, this presentation does not leave a whole lot of room for discussion. Gets even worse when anyone not tagging the party line is promptly labeled. Once the labels are in place, no one listens anymore - in either direction.

 

There aren't much chances of bringing the @Boon Mee's to switch or even alter their point of view. Not only is it futile, but it leads to characterizing all of the opposition according to its extreme or vocal representatives. Finger pointing, assigning blame and auto-labeling is all very well, and can certainly be gratifying at times, but not all that effective (if not counterproductive) when it comes to affecting change.

 

Hear ya on the Dark stuff, usually a crate at hand, liberated from Macro's stores.

[mrwebb8825]

On 12/3/2017 at 5:20 PM, spidermike007 said:

He is guiltier than Charles Manson was.

Charles Manson didn't actually kill anyone.

[spidermike007]

1 minute ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Charles Manson didn't actually kill anyone.

 

Trump would actually say the same thing. I did not actually do anything. 

 

It is quite unfortunate, for those not mature enough to accept blame, and responsibility, that directing people to commit crimes, is the same under the law, than committing those crimes on your own. But, it is a fortunate thing for society. Something that Trump is about to learn, hopefully. 

[mrwebb8825]

8 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

 

Trump would actually say the same thing. I did not actually do anything. 

 

It is quite unfortunate, for those not mature enough to accept blame, and responsibility, that directing people to commit crimes, is the same under the law, than committing those crimes on your own. But, it is a fortunate thing for society. Something that Trump is about to learn, hopefully. 

You mean like Al Capone who only went to prison for tax evasion as nothing else could ever be proven?

[ilostmypassword]

On 12/4/2017 at 2:50 AM, lannarebirth said:

 

How about we start with a discussion about Campaign Finance Reform and Term Limits. That should be a non partisan issue.  I think a lot of the awful legislation that gets passed is because legislators are being paid by their sponsors not to do what they know to be the right thing.

 

How about a discussion on how a retirement system that rewards its participants in the short term if they rubber stamp the corporatocracy's goals against their long term interests and certainly those of ther children.

 

How about a discussion about the loss of social cohesion and how if it is not regained a once great nation becomes a footnote of history.

 

That ought to get us through the holiday season. 

Campaign finance reform won't happen as long as the Republicans get to appoint justices to the Supreme Court.

Not sure what you're referring to about retirement.

Most of the social cohesion problem stems from rising inequality in income. Republican plans will make that worse.