Support NeoGAF

[Lord Frieza]

Ends justify the means has never been a valid argument to me.

It is very possible for this kind of stuff to make things much much worse.

The way to fight against trump is for congress to take back its constitutional authority. To actually grow a spine for once, they have the power, fucking use it.

Not for unelected spies to push things the way they want, that shit is dangerous.

For the love of fuck, they aren't trying to push things the way they want, they are trying to tell you that the commander-in-chief is out of his fucking mind and we're heading headfirst for a wall. What the hell are you even talking about!? You're either trolling or seriously need to read about what is actually happening and not whatever bullshit you're trying to pedal. This is as much for us as it is for Congress, that's what the thread is goddamn about.

 

[FunkyMunkey]

Ends justify the means has never been a valid argument to me.

It is very possible for this kind of stuff to make things much much worse.

The way to fight against trump is for congress to take back its constitutional authority. To actually grow a spine for once, they have the power, fucking use it.

Not for unelected spies to push things the way they want, that shit is dangerous.

leaking information is not the same as creating a narrative, its releasing the truth. what's your opinion on watergate btw? like i posted above im assuming it was an unfair and unbalanced attack on poor nixon?

 

[kirblar]

The Russia stuff is not a manufactured narrative by the IC, this stuff has been stinking them up ever since they brought Manafort on.

 

[EatinOlives]

Ends justify the means has never been a valid argument to me.

It is very possible for this kind of stuff to make things much much worse.

The way to fight against trump is for congress to take back its constitutional authority. To actually grow a spine for once, they have the power, fucking use it.

Not for unelected spies to push things the way they want, that shit is dangerous.

Great, so wait for 2018 and hope we still have a country then so we can maybe elect enough Democrats to Congress?

Something tells me you're not thinking this through.

 

[Bravoexo]

They're probably fishing out the leakers hence the facade of being silent.

 

[IggyChooChoo]

These aren't whistleblowers. This is the national security establishment rebelling against the elected government. These are career spies using their power to wield influence over the political process to push foreign policy in the direction they want it to go, rather than the direction that the voters chose.

I've heard Greenwald argue this, but I don't buy it. The CIA has never overthrown a US president via leaks before -- you seriously believe they'd rise to that level over the desire for a proxy war with Syria? That seems totally bonkers to me given how petty Syria is in the grand scheme of the great game* for the IC to react so strongly.

If Trump is either compromised by a) having Russian investments/investors, or b) some kind of blackmail, then this is most definitely valuable information for the public to have and definitely should be considered whistle-blowing.

*I'm not saying the suffering of Syrians is petty by any means.

 

[iamblades]

leaking information is not the same as creating a narrative, its releasing the truth. what's your opinion on watergate btw? like i posted above im assuming it was an unfair and unbalanced attack on poor nixon?

If they are leaking the truth, they need to leak the truth. We need to actually see the evidence, as we did in Watergate.

As it is, we have no evidence that Flynn did anything that hasn't been done plenty of times.

If they have evidence that Flynn actually made some sinister backroom dealings with Russia, we need to know about it. None of the leaks so far actually provide that evidence though. The leaks provide just enough to make it look bad for the administration and not enough for us to have any real idea what is going on behind the subterfuge.

 

[Tovarisc]

If they are leaking the truth, they need to leak the truth. We need to actually see the evidence, as we did in Watergate.

As it is, we have no evidence that Flynn did anything that hasn't been done plenty of times.

If they have evidence that Flynn actually made some sinister backroom dealings with Russia, we need to know about it. None of the leaks so far actually provide that evidence though. The leaks provide just enough to make it look bad for the administration and not enough for us to have any real idea what is going on behind the subterfuge.

And now imagine what could happen if GOP members didn't just sit on their dicks, but instead stood up and united with Dems for strong independent investigation. That isn't happening. Instead GOP is pushing hard for narrative of ignoring everything that was leaked, but instead how they need hunt down leakers.

 

[Escape Goat]

Pee pee tape is real.

 

[Lord Frieza]

If they are leaking the truth, they need to leak the truth. We need to actually see the evidence, as we did in Watergate.

As it is, we have no evidence that Flynn did anything that hasn't been done plenty of times.

If they have evidence that Flynn actually made some sinister backroom dealings with Russia, we need to know about it. None of the leaks so far actually provide that evidence though. The leaks provide just enough to make it look bad for the administration and not enough for us to have any real idea what is going on behind the subterfuge.

You're either trolling, or you really, seriously, have no idea what the fuck is really going on right now. You also need to look up what actually happened with Watergate and the events leading up to the final stretches of what became known as the scandal. You seriously need to educate yourself.

 

[iamblades]

You're either trolling, or you really, seriously, have no idea what the fuck is really going on right now. You also need to look up what actually happened with Watergate and the events leading up to the final stretches of what became known as the scandal. You seriously need to educate yourself.

In Watergate we had actual evidence that Nixon's lackeys committed specific crimes and that Nixon tried to cover it up.

What evidence do we have that Flynn broke any law at all? I am not seeing any, and if there is any, plenty of other people are on the hook for that, including people like John Kerry.

I am enjoying the accusations and the ad hominems that simply because I don't trust spies to be honest that I am somehow trolling or uneducated though.

 

[GAF A60-Rim A]

They're probably fishing out the leakers hence the facade of being silent.

Explain this more.

 

[Lord Frieza]

In Watergate we had actual evidence that Nixon's lackeys committed specific crimes and that Nixon tried to cover it up.

What evidence do we have that Flynn broke any law at all? I am not seeing any, and if there is any, plenty of other people are on the hook for that, including people like John Kerry.

We eventually got that evidence. Eventually. Watergate was not an overnight break-through scandal. Seriously, educate yourself.

 

[iamblades]

We eventually got that evidence. Eventually. Watergate was not an overnight break-through scandal. Seriously, educate yourself.

We had the evidence of the actual crime pretty damn quick. What took time was tying it up the chain to Nixon.

So far I haven't seen evidence of a crime even.

 

[Lord Frieza]

We had the evidence of the actual crime pretty damn quick. What took time was tying it up the chain to Nixon.

So far I haven't seen evidence of a crime even.

Not really. We didn't have that evidence publicly available as quickly as you seem to think. It's something that took quite awhile to actually shape to full terms, and really, we only got bits and pieces of it before the truth was out in the open. It's really not that different from what's happening now, the main difference is there's so much more news coverage now than then, and there's far more people within the IC against Trump than there was for even Nixon at that time.

 

[Aylinato]

We had the evidence of the actual crime pretty damn quick. What took time was tying it up the chain to Nixon.

So far I haven't seen evidence of a crime even.

You need to read up on watergate, you clearly didn't and are making a fool of yourself saying this isn't the same. It took at minimum a year, and a senate investigating and pushing back against the imperial president to get the necessary information. He even won reelection during that time too.

 

[IggyChooChoo]

We had the evidence of the actual crime pretty damn quick. What took time was tying it up the chain to Nixon.

So far I haven't seen evidence of a crime even.

If the crime is that Trump is using the presidency to enrich himself, then yes, there are tons of instances. So the "Trump is compromised via Russian investment" angle is already in play since we know it's an ethical/legal line he has no trouble crossing and could easily clear up by making a standard full financial disclosure.

If the issue is Trump is compromised by there being a Russian underage prostitute tape, then you're right, we need more evidence. But by the same token, because the SCARY SCARY DEEP STATE hasn't produced anything concrete on that front, there's not much to the Greenwaldian worries about them, either.

 

[GAF A60-Rim A]

You need to read up on watergate, you clearly didn't and are making a fool of yourself saying this isn't the same. It took at minimum a year, and a senate investigating and pushing back against the imperial president to get the necessary information. He even won reelection during that time too.

Maybe they teach this sort of critical thinking in charter schools?

 

[iamblades]

Not really. We didn't have that evidence publicly available as quickly as you seem to think. It's something that took quite awhile to actually shape to full terms, and really, we only got bits and pieces of it before the truth was out in the open. It's really not that different from what's happening now, the main difference is there's so much more news coverage now than then, and there's far more people within the IC against Trump than there was for even Nixon at that time.

Huh? They were caught in the act by DC police. The crime was known about almost immediately, it maybe wasn't front page national news until the coverup, but it was known to have occurred:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2002/05/31/AR2005111001227.html

You need to read up on watergate, you clearly didn't and are making a fool of yourself saying this isn't the same. It took at minimum a year, and a senate investigating and pushing back against the imperial president to get the necessary information. He even won reelection during that time too.

Nonsense, I just posted an article from 2 days after the break-in. I don't care about what Trump knew and when did he know it yet. What I want to know is if Flynn did anything wrong, and I'm not going to just fucking trust the CIA.

 

[BlastProcessing]

I am no fan of having a conspiracy theorist nutjob as a national security adviser, and I am certainly not a fan of the Trump administrations attitudes towards Russia, but the way this all went down is pretty damned terrifying.

We are effectively no longer a democracy if the CIA and the NSA can undermine an elected government by selectively leaking classified information to the press.

This is not a good precedent for the future.

Government agencies have always selectively leaked information to journalists and democracy has done just fine. Bob Felt's Watergate leaks did not mean that we didn't have a democracy. Did Watergate terrify you?

The news media is the Fourth Estate and this is the function they are supposed to play in a healthy democracy.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

If they are leaking the truth, they need to leak the truth. We need to actually see the evidence, as we did in Watergate.

As it is, we have no evidence that Flynn did anything that hasn't been done plenty of times.

If they have evidence that Flynn actually made some sinister backroom dealings with Russia, we need to know about it. None of the leaks so far actually provide that evidence though. The leaks provide just enough to make it look bad for the administration and not enough for us to have any real idea what is going on behind the subterfuge.

Why did Flynn lie to Pence and the FBI if he didnt do anything wrong? Why did the russians immediately back off after claiming they would retaliate to the sanctions? Why did Flynn get fired? Why did Trump lie and claim he was never briefed on the situation? Why is this the THIRD person Trump has had to get rid of because of russian connections?

 

[Aylinato]

Huh? They were caught in the act by DC police. The crime was known about almost immediately, it maybe wasn't front page national news until the coverup, but it was known to have occurred:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2002/05/31/AR2005111001227.html



Nonsense, I just posted an article from 2 days after the break-in. I don't care about what Trump knew and when did he know it yet. What I want to know is if Flynn did anything wrong, and I'm not going to just fucking trust the CIA.

I'm reading words put together. But all it's telling me is that you haven't paid any attention to Flynn having to resign for talking to a foreign power under sanctions, which was barred, as a civilian not representing the government. Then lying to the FBI, another crime, about actually having that conversation. Which is a felony, and we knew about this within the timeframe that it happened. The investigations have started giving information that Russia has been actively speaking with trump camapaign aides for months, which is illegal as they didn't respresent the government. Do you notice a pattern yet or do you need it explained more?

 

[Byakuya769]

Silence is golden?

Hahha. I like you. Stay out of trouble.

 

[GAF A60-Rim A]

I'm reading words put together. But all it's telling me is that you haven't paid any attention to Flynn having to resign for talking to a foreign power under sanctions, which was barred, as a civilian not representing the government. Then lying to the FBI, another crime, about actually having that conversation. Which is a felony, and we knew about this within the timeframe that it happened. The investigations have started giving information that Russia has been actively speaking with trump camapaign aides for months, which is illegal as they didn't respresent the government. Do you notice a pattern yet or do you need it explained more?

I think it's simply that he's conflating the "break-in caught by police" with "TRUMP CALLUDED WITH RUSSHA!" when he should be comparing it with Flynn being overheard instantly by the IC, doing their job, listening in on foreign calls with Ambassadors (which, by the way, is 100% legal).

It's also incomparable, because Trump colluding with Russia would involve so many other lesser crimes rolled into one, and it's treason, whereas Nixon's subterfuge has nothing on that.

 

[iamblades]

I think it's simply that he's conflating the "break-in caught by police" with "TRUMP CALLUDED WITH RUSSHA!" when he should be comparing it with Flynn being overheard instantly by the IC, doing their job, listening in on foreign calls with Ambassadors (which, by the way, is 100% legal).

It's also incomparable, because Trump colluding with Russia would involve so many other lesser crimes rolled into one, and it's treason, whereas Nixon's subterfuge has nothing on that.

I am actually more likely to believe that Trump colluded with Russia than I am that Flynn did anything wrong merely by talking to the Russian ambassador, and that should be where the investigations are focused.

So far the way I see the Flynn debacle is one of two ways.

1. The intelligence agencies used their powers to remove someone who they have ideological differences with from power though they do not have enough evidence to prosecute him for his crimes, which is horrible.

2. The intelligence agencies actually have evidence of Flynn being a nefarious actor and refuse to share it with us. This latter seems less likely because Flynn must have known that the Russian ambassadors phones were being monitored, but given the competence level of the Trump administration so far, who can tell?

Neither of these give me good feelings about the future of transparency and honesty in government.

 

[wandering]

I am actually more likely to believe that Trump colluded with Russia than I am that Flynn did anything wrong merely by talking to the Russian ambassador, and that should be where the investigations are focused.

So far the way I see the Flynn debacle is one of two ways.

1. The intelligence agencies used their powers to remove someone who they have ideological differences with from power though they do not have enough evidence to prosecute him for his crimes, which is horrible.

2. The intelligence agencies actually have evidence of Flynn being a nefarious actor and refuse to share it with us. This latter seems less likely because Flynn must have known that the Russian ambassadors phones were being monitored, but given the competence level of the Trump administration so far, who can tell?

Neither of these give me good feelings about the future of transparency and honesty in government.

Uh, the whole issue with Flynn is that he lied about the contents of his conversation, making him susceptible to blackmail. You'll notice that it was the DoJ who informed the White House thusly, not the IC.

 

[Tovarisc]

I am actually more likely to believe that Trump colluded with Russia than I am that Flynn did anything wrong merely by talking to the Russian ambassador, and that should be where the investigations are focused.

So far the way I see the Flynn debacle is one of two ways.

1. The intelligence agencies used their powers to remove someone who they have ideological differences with from power though they do not have enough evidence to prosecute him for his crimes, which is horrible.

2. The intelligence agencies actually have evidence of Flynn being a nefarious actor and refuse to share it with us. This latter seems less likely because Flynn must have known that the Russian ambassadors phones were being monitored, but given the competence level of the Trump administration so far, who can tell?

Neither of these give me good feelings about the future of transparency and honesty in government.

Point 1. doesn't hold water. If IC made up bullshit in order to force Flynn to resign, but WH knew that it was bullshit they would have put up a fight instead of Trump firing Flynn. Even Flynn lying to Pence could have been smoothed over if that was only thing causing legit smoke and rest being pure bullshit by IC.

 

[IggyChooChoo]

I am actually more likely to believe that Trump colluded with Russia than I am that Flynn did anything wrong merely by talking to the Russian ambassador, and that should be where the investigations are focused.

So far the way I see the Flynn debacle is one of two ways.

1. The intelligence agencies used their powers to remove someone who they have ideological differences with from power though they do not have enough evidence to prosecute him for his crimes, which is horrible.

2. The intelligence agencies actually have evidence of Flynn being a nefarious actor and refuse to share it with us. This latter seems less likely because Flynn must have known that the Russian ambassadors phones were being monitored, but given the competence level of the Trump administration so far, who can tell?

Neither of these give me good feelings about the future of transparency and honesty in government.

The IC didn't remove anyone. Trump fired him, for reasons he hasn't really explained. What's your explanation for why Trump fired Flynn?

 

[Aylinato]

I am actually more likely to believe that Trump colluded with Russia than I am that Flynn did anything wrong merely by talking to the Russian ambassador, and that should be where the investigations are focused.

So far the way I see the Flynn debacle is one of two ways.

1. The intelligence agencies used their powers to remove someone who they have ideological differences with from power though they do not have enough evidence to prosecute him for his crimes, which is horrible.

2. The intelligence agencies actually have evidence of Flynn being a nefarious actor and refuse to share it with us. This latter seems less likely because Flynn must have known that the Russian ambassadors phones were being monitored, but given the competence level of the Trump administration so far, who can tell?

Neither of these give me good feelings about the future of transparency and honesty in government.

Explain why trump fired Flynn.

 

[Ether_Snake]

It's not new that elected officials would speak with ambassadors, but it's Flynn's specific conversations that were apparently troubling enough for him to try to hide and lie about what was said, even to the VP.

People are assuming that it was just for talking to the ambassador, and that therefore there's no indication he said anything he shouldn't have. That's stupid, talking to an ambassador was not unusual. It's what was said that was a problem.

 

[GAF A60-Rim A]

Explain why trump fired Flynn.

Because of the fake news, of course! Do you not see?

talking to an ambassador was not unusual. It's what was said that was a problem.

Talking to an ambassador during transition IS unusual, though not unprecedented, and it is also "technically" illegal under the Logan Act, but due to reasons I don't understand it's not realistically prosecutable.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Because of the fake news, of course! Do you not see?



Talking to an ambassador during transition IS unusual, though not unprecedented, and it is also "technically" illegal under the Logan Act, but due to reasons I don't understand it's not realistically prosecutable.

No it is not. It's illegal to negotiate or conspire with foreign governments. Flynn wasn't in the wrong for talking to an ambassador, and that's not why he quit, he quit because of what he talked about.

 

[iamblades]

Uh, the whole issue with Flynn is that he lied about the contents of his conversation, making him susceptible to blackmail. You'll notice that it was the DoJ who informed the White House thusly, not the IC.

This is not really clear though.

The IC didn't remove anyone. Trump fired him, for reasons he hasn't really explained. What's your explanation for why Trump fired Flynn?

I think mostly I think that he was an easy sacrifice, and that there are some deep ideological wars going on within the administration(which was expected from the start). If half the members of your own administration are going to fight against someone, then maybe it's easier to toss them out.

 

[Not]

Oh wow.

 

[KHarvey16]

This is not really clear though.

Sure it is. Flynn discussed sanctions with the ambassador and then lied about it. He was undermining the sitting president.

 

[theCalamity]

This is not really clear though.

Flynn in FBI interview denied discussing sanctions with Russian ambassador.

It's crystal clear. Trump's stated reason for firing him is because Flynn lied to Pence.

 

[FunkyMunkey]

Flynn in FBI interview denied discussing sanctions with Russian ambassador

sorry unless i get audio recordings and scanned social security cards of the sources and a stamp of approval from the trump team, this might be fake /s

ffs

 

[Ether_Snake]

Flynn in FBI interview denied discussing sanctions with Russian ambassador.

It's crystal clear. Trump's stated reason for firing him is because Flynn lied to Pence.

Haha, did you read it past the title?

In a recent interview with the Daily Caller, Flynn said he didn't discuss ”sanctions" but did discuss the Obama administration's expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats it said were ”intelligence operatives." The move was part of the sanctions package it announced on Dec. 29.

Earlier, in an interview with The Post, he denied discussing sanctions but later issued a statement saying ”that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn't be certain that the topic never came up."

 

[RPGCrazied]

The tape is real and they saw it. They are probably discussing how to move forward now I'm sure.

 

[faisal233]

My belief that Comey has been running an ongoing counter intel investigation of team Trump has solidified lately. I think they have all the SIGNT they need already, and this is to establish the movement of money, which takes longer but is much more damning.

Comey wrote the Clinton letter because the (non-counter intel) NYC branch was threatening to leak it.

 

[Ether_Snake]

My belief that Comey has been running an ongoing counter intel investigation of team Trump has solidified lately. I think they have all the SIGNT they need already, and this is to establish the movement of money, which takes longer but is much more damning.

Comey wrote the Clinton letter because the (non-counter intel) NYC branch was threatening to leak it.

I think Comey had no choice. He was put in a situation where the investigation had to be reopened, we don't know if that wasn't a setup done internally. The moment people came to him with reasons to re-open the investigation, he had to do so, otherwise it would come out that he refused, either then or after Hillary would be elected. And once it was reopened, he couldn't hide it, for the same reasons.

People say how Trump associates bragged ahead that they had something on Hillary coming, but it is likely that this came from those who had pushed that info to Comey, not Comey himself.

So Comey decided to announce they were re-opening the investigation. It was closed again soon after, because chances are Comey pushed to go through this quickly; if something did arise then so be it, but he probably doubted the legitimacy of it, and figured nothing would come about and it could be closed, and nothing did come up.

Doesn't mean it was the right thing to do, but I think Comey's hand was forced by people in the FBI, and it was going to screw Hillary now, or after she won.

 

[Silas Lang]

My belief that Comey has been running an ongoing counter intel investigation of team Trump has solidified lately. I think they have all the SIGNT they need already, and this is to establish the movement of money, which takes longer but is much more damning.

Comey wrote the Clinton letter because the (non-counter intel) NYC branch was threatening to leak it.

I've wondered this about Comey. He releases that Clinton letter, stays in Trump's good graces and with FBI, and then gets to continue investigation right under Trump's nose. Would be hell of a counter intel move. Either that or he was compromised and is now covering his ass.

 

[Dead Man]

My belief that Comey has been running an ongoing counter intel investigation of team Trump has solidified lately. I think they have all the SIGNT they need already, and this is to establish the movement of money, which takes longer but is much more damning.

Comey wrote the Clinton letter because the (non-counter intel) NYC branch was threatening to leak it.

I wish I could believe this. The universe is not so tidy though.

 

[Dr.Acula]

Better yet, how did they intercept the call? Was it a mistake? Was Flynn under surveillance? Was there a super-secret warrant authorized by a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court?

Even so, why was the U.S. wiretapping one of its own citizens? FISA law expressly prohibits such eavesdropping. Were the participants on the call “unmasked” because spooks were listening for something else and stumbled upon Flynn on the line?

They "stumbled upon" Flynn? Theorising that Flynn was the subject of super-secret surveillance? They made a goddam mistake? Motherfucker, maybe they were tapping the fucking Russian embassy?

 

[Sweeney Tom]

Flynn in FBI interview denied discussing sanctions with Russian ambassador.

It's crystal clear. Trump's stated reason for firing him is because Flynn lied to Pence.

 

[Plover]

There's a series of blog posts by Louise Mensch which detail a theory tying a lot of this peculiar shit together. If it's even slightly true, this is a deep and complicated web.

https://patribotics.wordpress.com/2...n-lets-play-chess-louise-mensch-trump-russia/

It makes a lot of sense, I hope that her theories on Comey's actions end up being true too. In any case they make for very interesting reading.

 

[andrerobot]

Maybe they found out that the La Li Lu Le Lo is real?

 

[yanipheonu]

Maybe they found out that the La Li Lu Le Lo is real?

I N E E D S C I S S O R S! 61!

 

[Dai Kaiju]

I am no fan of having a conspiracy theorist nutjob as a national security adviser, and I am certainly not a fan of the Trump administrations attitudes towards Russia, but the way this all went down is pretty damned terrifying.

We are effectively no longer a democracy if the CIA and the NSA can undermine an elected government by selectively leaking classified information to the press.

This is not a good precedent for the future.

Desperate times, desperate measures. I'm 100% ok with it and I thank God that the CIA and NSA are taking initiative rather than blindly taking orders from some maniac. Donald Trump is a threat to global stability and to our future as country.

 

[Mariolee]

The real twist at the end of this post for me was it was being reported by Fox News.