Printable View
...and Flynn is out. Thank God. After Bannon, Flynn is probably the administration staffer who most concerned me. We already know Trump likes to buy into conspiracy theories (when they fit his agenda, of course), the last thing we need is a National Security staff that propagates them.
Of course this raises even more questions surrounding Trump's relationship with Russia. I doubt that we have heard the end of this.
Forgive me as I have been skipping this last few days of Trump's reign, explain the Flynn thing to me. If I have it right, he told a Russian Ambassador in December that Trump would lift all sanctions. Is that correct?
First, I would guess that it would not be legal for him to do so in December. Second, why would he make that call at all? Is my timing off here? What did I miss? I skipped it to take a break.
He probably told him something to that effect in December, when he was a private citizen.
But his relationship with the Russian goes back a few years, and he might have been talking with him during the campaign.
That will be more problematic.
By the way, something bi-partisan happened. That's actually news these days.
David Shulkin was unanimously confirmed by the Senate to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs.
He is actually a decent pick. We'll see if Congress will give him the new laws he needs to really fix things. Congress needs to move the VA (the VHA specifically) out from under the exorbitant protections that exist for employees of Federal agencies. If Congress would write new legislation to the United States Code to re-create the VHA as the first only, at-will, non-union Federal agency, the agency could begin fixing itself immediately. If each facility had the ability to eliminate staff that were a drain on productivity without the multiple appeals and grievance processes, the VA would be better off immediately and could begin to hire people who would know they would be held accountable. Do that and you'll see a different system immediately.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoMuskies
Correct. That is what's being reported. Also that he lied about the frequency, extent, and substance of his conversations with the Russian Ambassador to DOJ and, allegedly, to Mike Pence as well. It's being reported that his lies were discovered because the ambassador's calls were being intercepted by US Intelligence, and that the Trump Admin was briefed on this in January (by then-Acting AG Sally Yates of all people) but the Admin sat on it for at least 3 weeks until WaPo reported it this weekend. Only then (the reporting, not the entanglement) did it become an issue meriting the Admin's action...Quote:
Originally Posted by ArizonaXUGrad
Stephen Miller should not do any more interviews. I guess you could say I'd like to see Steve Miller banned.
Is anyone concerned that the CIA leaked these clandestine calls, involving a U.S. citizen, to the media, which is completely illegal?Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Muskie
In short, these were American spies, spying on an Americans and leaking what they found to the media, for the purpose of undermining this American because they don't agree with him politically. Is anyone bothered by that?
Did anything say that the unnamed source didn't agree with him politically? There's a good chance it's just a case of someone reporting a major intelligence issue up the chain, only for it to be ignored, so turning to the public was seen as a last resort. I mean, unless you consider it politically motivated for someone to think, "I don't think it should be ignored that a senior government official has so many ties to Russia and has lied about them."Quote:
Originally Posted by XU 87
It's illegal!!!!! Whoever(s) did this committed a felony. Are you arguing that it's ok for government intelligence people to use classified information obtained via govt. eavesdropping to undermine political opponents?Quote:
Originally Posted by XUFan09