It seems that the Far Right media is much more interested in covering the 911 call / caller than the crime. CNN FOX & Breitbart Seek to Distract The Trump organization:
And apparently FOX thinks the leaks are more important than the fact that Trump and crew were cavorting with one our country's biggest enemies.
Go figure...
- Communicated with Russians during the campaign
- Selects Flynn as the NSA Lead
- Learns Flynn is being investigated weeks ago
- Neglects to tell Pence what is happening
- Allows Pence to go on news shows
- Has the White House in chaos
Go figure...
58 comments:
Let's see, private citizen talks to Russian official. Foreign intelligence service listens in on American citizen and then leaks classified info to the media. There must be an actual crime in there somewhere....
Let's see, private citizen talks to Russian official. Foreign intelligence service listens in on American citizen and then leaks classified info to the media.
Maybe the intelligence services lacked confidence in the Justice Department and Congress to investigate the matter fully. But it's now time to get past that. Mr. Trump and his associates have the opportunity to fully disclose the nature of their dealings with foreign intelligence services. They really do owe the American people an explanation and an accounting.
--Hiram
Let's bear in mind that not so long ago we were all desperately concerned with the somewhat remote possibility that Mrs. Clinton's emails would be hacked. After the public release of tens of thousands of them, what we know now is that there was virtually nothing in them worth hacking.
The situation now is that Trump campaign officials have had dealings with senior officials of the Russian intelligence services. Don't we have a right to know the nature of those dealings? What conceivable reason could there be for Mr. Trump and his associates not to be perfectly open and candid about everything they discussed with the Russians?
--Hiram
Jerry,
Don't you mean US intelligence service was listening in on a foreign diplomat.
And inadvertently picks up on a US Private Citizen, who is a top advisor to the President Elect, negotiating with a Foreign Public Official.
Worse yet, saying things that are in direct opposition to the sitting President.
And since some people in the Justice Dept, the White House, the FBI, etc, we don't know who the whistle blower / criminal was that released the info.
All we know is that the now sitting President did not take immediate action on it when he learned of it.
It is not looking good for Trump.
What I find amusing about this is that the Trump org and the Far Right media seem very concerned about where the information came from.
This less than 6 months after they were so focused on the content of the Democratic emails... While down playing the importance of where they came from and for what reason.
Apparently to them it is better to have the Russians as whistleblower than to have concerned US citizens doing it.
What I find amusing about this is that the Trump org and the Far Right media seem very concerned about where the information came from.
It's pure deflection in a situation where panic has taken over. Trump is trying to kill the messengers, but there are simply too many messengers coming from too many different directions.
--Hiram
Let me read between the lines for you. First, it is a federal crime to release classified information to the press. Second, it is NOT illegal for anybody to talk to a Russian diplomat, and in fact it is a really, really good idea if you are averse to WWIII. Lastly, there is zero proof that the Russians hacked Hillary's emails, the damage was done by documents from Kaine and Schultz, and the real criminal activity by Hillary, having the server in the first place, got slid under the rug. PS, there is absolutely ZERO evidence that there was anything improper about Flynn's conversation, because the IC refuses to release the actual transcript, preferring, obviously, to smear and destroy by raw innuendo.
First, it is a federal crime to release classified information to the press.
Was the information classified? Was the information on the tapes Flynn was making available to Russian intelligence secret within the meaning of whatever criminal statute you are referring to?
--Hiram
Second, it is NOT illegal for anybody to talk to a Russian diplomat, and in fact it is a really, really good idea if you are averse to WWIII.
It really depends on what was being said to the "Russian Diplomat". Flynn and Trump certainly are free to disclose to the American people the nature of the discussion. Why wouldn't they?
--Hiram
I am not sure why the source of the information matters or at least should matter to us, unless the accuracy of the information itself is disputed. Neither Flynn nor Trump have the right to keep information about their dealings with "Russian Diplomats" from the public.
--Hiram
CNN Did Flynn Break Law
"Flynn is guilty of violating the Logan Act if he (1) had communication with a foreign government; (2) with the intent to influence that foreign government, (3) while being a U.S. citizen without the authority to engage in diplomatic discussions on behalf of the United States. If Flynn violated this law, he would be guilty of a felony and face up to three years in prison."
"The Logan Act is not the only law that Flynn may have broken. Federal law also prohibits someone from making a false statement when discussing a matter within the jurisdiction of the federal government if there is an intent to deceive a government agency about an important matter. Making a false statement is a felony that carries up to five years in prison. Unlike the Logan Act, prosecutions under the false statements statute occur all the time. "
There are certainly a lot of laws that might have been violated. But the legal code should not be mistaken for a code of ethics. And the insistence in looking at stuff from a legal perspective is inherently deflective. We certainly don't have enough facts to form a conclusion as to whether anyone has violated any law. Mr. Trump has made that accusation but he isn't a lawyer, and for someone who has devoted his lifetime to litigation, he seems remarkably unversed in the law.
Two things Republicans were always right about in their criticism of Democrats. First, they were always right in their anger with the Clinton attitude which was often to the effect that if it was legal, it was ok. Second, they were always correct in their fury with President Obama's occasional tendency to prejudge criminal cases in public. Now that Republicans control all branches of government, one thing I hope and expect is that they won't retreat from the view that they were right about when they were in the opposition.
--Hiram
Latest report says the FBI finds absolutely nothing about Flynn's conversation of interest, including the notion he lied to investigators. Unconfirmed reports are that the conversation took place the day after Obama's expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats, and THAT was brought up by the Russians, to which Flynn replied casually, with no commitment and absolutely no "quid pro quo." Chances are that Flynn knew at least some of these folks through his work with DNI. That leaves the question of why SIGINT was leaked to the press, in violation of the Espionage Act.
Also reports now that Flynn was about to release details of the Iran agreement, which the Obama holdovers did NOT want to see known, to the public.
Latest report says the FBI finds absolutely nothing about Flynn's conversation of interest, including the notion he lied to investigators.
I am not sure why this matters. The question is whether it's of political interest, something that should be outside of the FBI's purview.
Mr. Trump and his associates have the information, and they can share it if they want. If they don't, what will happen is that others will fill in the vacuum they chose to create.
--Hiram
"The question is whether it's of political interest,..." That is indeed a silly question. It's only of political interest if the Democrats can somehow screw up or distract the Trump administration from working for the benefit of the country. That is NOT a good reason to do carry on ad nauseum about something that didn't happen and wouldn't matter if it did.
"Mr. Trump and his associates have the information..." According to most reports, the "leakers" steadfastly refuse to release the information, to Trump or anybody else. No doubt it would prove Flynn completely innocent or they would be happy to let at least those with security clearance hear it. Somebody should have their career in jeopardy, here, and soon.
That is indeed a silly question. It's only of political interest if the Democrats can somehow screw up or distract the Trump administration from working for the benefit of the country.
I don't think politics is limited to the topic "stuff having to do with Democrats screwing up the country". It's a broader concept than that. By the way, the implication, that what Democrats do is political, and that what Republicans do is not, is new to me. That simply had never occurred to me before.
Obviously, Trump and Flynn know what was discussed. Presumably both kept notes which they are free to share with the American people or not. By the way, however questionable the practice of leaking might be, there is nothing wrong with reporting leaks. That's what the news media is supposed to do.
--Hiram
"...there is nothing wrong with reporting leaks." Sorry, but the Espionage Act disagrees with you. Leaks of classified information, and SIGINT is by definition classified, is punishable both for the leak AND for the publication. The press has been irresponsible, again.
And from my exalted perch I think "politics" as practiced today is pretty much all coming from the Democrats. Trying to govern is what the Republicans are trying to do in the face of rabid, unreasoning and unrelenting opposition.
"Presumably both kept notes" You know what happens when you presume. You let the press make fools of u and me. Do you keep notes of all your phone conversations? How about conversations that you were never a part of?
Well presumably Trump and Flynn spoke to the Russians and didn't take notes.
"...there is nothing wrong with reporting leaks." Sorry, but the Espionage Act disagrees with you.
The Constitution however, agrees with me.
--Hiram
Why would they take notes? Their conversations, if they were important at all, fall within the purview of the President to conduct foreign policy, or within the private citizen's right to talk to anybody they want so long as they do NOT conduct foreign policy. There is ZERO evidence of anything wrong on either side of that argument, regarding either Trump or Flynn, and those leaks do NOT constitute such evidence.
And since the Espionage Act is Constitutional, I think your argument is a bit flawed. Why is anybody excited about this? It's a big nothing-burger. And who is distracting whom? Fox & Breitbart aren't the ones saying this Flynn matter is "worse than Pearl Harbor, Watergate, and 9/11."
Why would they take notes?
Because they were leading political figures.
And since the Espionage Act is Constitutional,
Well, it it's an issue, someone should call the cops.
--Hiram
Since the communications were with our adversaries, the Russians, it really couldn't be the case that they were kept secret from them. The Russian intelligence officers are known for taking copious notes. So who are the adversaries from whom Trump and his associates want to keep information? Blue state voters?
--Hiram
What information was being kept from voters? Only the classified information that the CIA was spying on a private US citizen and wiretapping a foreign embassy. And the "cops" are members of the Trump administration, trying to root out crime in the holdover Obama regime.
And isn't it interesting how quickly Democrats have switched from admiration of Soviet and Cuban communism to paranoid apoplexy that we are even talking to them? Somebody get these people some psychiatric counseling!
It is amusing how happy he was with leaks and rumors when they served his wants...
But now... Not so much so...
CNN Trump on Leaks: Then and Now
What information was being kept from voters?
I am sure we will learn that from Congressional and Justice Department investigations. I know that Trump wasn't very forthcoming yesterday.
" Only the classified information that the CIA was spying on a private US citizen and wiretapping a foreign embassy."
Did we not know this? And if course, if it was spying on the private citizen, I am sure that's something that will come out. But my guess is that that General Flynn, for some strange reason, was the only intelligence professional in America who didn't know that Russian intelligence officers are routinely surveilled. He must have out that day when it was discussed.
--Hiram
Now I agree that the media is in a feeding frenzy, but of course it is hard to feel sorry for Trump since he brought most of it upon himself. The continuous unjustified bragging, unrealistic promises, lack of transparency, flouting tradition, calling them liars, etc...
My biggest concern is that he seems to keep throwing rocks instead of learning and improving. Of course if being a braggart, liar and a bully has worked for you for 50+ years, it is hard to change at ~70 years of age.
After that news conference yesterday, I think he has gained a lot of support by poking fun at the "fake news" media. Sometimes somebody just has to "tell the truth about 'em, and they think it's hell" as Truman famously said. Trump's approval is higher than the press' and the more they persist, the greater the difference will become. The old paradigm where the media controlled the narrative and took down anybody they didn't like is dead, long live the new paradigm.
One of the remarkable things about Trump is that despite of lifetime of litigation, he has learned and knows virtually nothing about the law.
Concerning leaks. Trump says they are illegal. Well, the correct view of that is that he simply doesn't know. For one thing, leaks have existed in federal government throughout our history, and if you notice, leakers are hardly a significant element in the population of our federal prisons. That should tell us something. All crimes are statutory, there is no such thing as common law crimes in American criminal justice, and the statutes concerned are at best oblique where questions of leaking to the press are concerned. The Constitution, on the other hand, is pretty clear on the issue of freedom of the press.
And the fact is, this is a democratic society. Some things should be kept secret. I won't expect to see the formula for the atomic bomb in the papers. But it is pretty much always open season on political people doing political things. Mr. Trump wants a world where, for example, he can withhold news about his negotiating strategy with respect to North Korea from the American people. Well, that's not the world he lives in. International diplomacy these days is like a chess game, and perhaps the most notable thing about chess is that all of the pieces are on the table visible for anyone to see.
--Hiram
Jerry,
For better or worse I think Trump is losing his war on the media... I have gotten so tired of listening to him that I avoid him. But I have been wrong before.
Just as Charlie don't surf, the media don't vote. Trump is throwing red meat to his base, and that's all he really wanted out of yesterday's press conference.
--Hiram
It is fascinating though since I think his base is maybe only 30% of Americans. And yes I realize that they are die hard true believers...
But to continually says things that alienate the other 70% seems unwise.
I think you're spitballing. Gallup says current Trump approval is 55%, and this sort of thing is what got the guy elected. And I think it is wise for him to challenge the media. If you can fertilize the notion, already wide-spread, that the media are a pack of fools, liars and worse, then YOU get to set the narrative in your favor. Already I believe he is succeeding, and the "snowflake riots" are only adding fuel to the fire. So long as this doesn't distract him from fulfilling his promises quickly and effectively, he will wear down the obstruction and criticism coming from the media and Democrats (not to be redundant). You cannot stay at "peak outrage" for very long.
Where do you get this stuff?
"President Donald Trump's approval rating reached a new low Saturday, according to a poll from Gallup, as the new administration has struggled to find its footing nearly a month into the term.
The daily tracking poll found that just 40% of Americans approve of President Trump's job as president so far, compared to 55% who say the disapprove. The negative 15-point spread is the highest recorded in the poll since Trump took office January 20."
And here are the Real Clear Politics Numbers
RCP Average 1/31 - 2/16
Approval 44.7
Disapproval 50.3
Sorry, it was Rasmussen. And how many times have we seen the news media take a poll, report that poll extensively, and then take another poll to gauge how much effect their poll has had on the common perception?
I am sort of well known in my little as a poll skeptic. Something of a bore on the subject actually. But apart from my technical objections to polls, I am also critical of how polls are used, often as authorities on the issues polled. A Rasmussen poll shows that more than half of Americans approve of the Trump presidency, somehow is interpreted as meaning that the Trump presidency should be approved of. Here is the deal with polls. They tell you nothing about the issue being polled, what they tell you about is how people react to the issue being polled.
--Hiram
I think what you are saying is that "public opinion polls" as currently operated are pretty much worthless, at least the most-publicized ones. Some are seriously scientific, but the "margin of error" is, I believe, substantially understated, and must be. Asking 500 people what 120 million voters think is not always an accurate assessment. Heck, even asking 120 million people what they think doesn't get you the right answer every time! The media wields a very biased and disproportionate influence. I still believe there is only about 10% of the population, including those few here, that actually take time to study the issues. BEFORE coming to the wrong conclusions. :-)
I think what you are saying is that "public opinion polls" as currently operated are pretty much worthless, at least the most-publicized ones.
They are what they are. Among other things, people to read into them things they would like to believe.
Margin of error has to do with the variation in poll results. It has nothing at all to do with the margin the poll might actually be in error. That's one of the problems I have with the way polls are covered.
" Heck, even asking 120 million people what they think doesn't get you the right answer every time! "
Part of the problem with the way polls are conducted is that very few people who are polled are actually responsive. Only about 20% of people polled will answer the pollsters questions, and that response rate is trending down.
--Hiram
My biggest objection to these opinion polls is that they are taken of a small, ill-chosen group of the largely uninformed, by surveyors untrustworthy, and then used to supposedly drive public policy. It's a perfect justification for why we have a representative republic, rather than a direct democracy. Not that our elected "representatives" are swayed any less by crass political bias or ignorance (sometimes willful) than, it seems, the general population.
Jerry,
What is your rationale for doubting these logical results?
"The daily tracking poll found that just 40% of Americans approve of President Trump's job as president so far, compared to 55% who say the disapprove."
I mean over half the population voted against him and he is quickly alienating rational suburban moderates like myself who only voted for him because Hillary went far Left.
How do you think he could have over a 50% approval rating?
I dispute that the result is logical. First, they are based on the same public opinion polls that showed he could not win, and which are flawed from the get-go, as I say. Second, since half the people voted for him based on hoping he would do as he promised, and that he has delivered, those folks are obviously still supporting him. Then, there are the practical never-Trumpers and Democrats who have accepted the reality of his election, been turned off by the rabid protests and Democrat obstruction, and appreciate the positive agenda. There aren't that many of them, but it should be enough to raise his approval to about 55%, which is what Rasmussen found. It is also rational, I think, to believe that any press to the contrary should be viewed with suspicion.
Apparently the Rasmussen Poll is different from the others because they focused on people who they think are more likely to vote. That would bias it to older, wealthier, Whiter, etc, so of course the number came out higher.
Now I can understand that most everyone has agreed that he is legally our President, but that in no rational way can be extended to 55% of all adult legal citizens "approving of his actions". As if the people who voted against him and his agenda have somehow started to agree with him??? Or if the poor, young and / or minority non-voters have started to support him all of a sudden...
My point is that he is obsessed with the continuing the adulation of his true believer base, and is doing ZERO to earn the approval of the other citizens. So of course he will stay below the 50% approval rating indefinitely.
Hold the phone a moment. Are you saying that, having won by promising certain things, that the proper course of action is for him to NOT do those things because it will upset the people that did NOT vote for him, or did not vote at all? How about the alternative proposition, that those who do not like what Trump is doing (supposedly) agree with the 40% of us who DO and appreciate his keeping his campaign promises? I know, it's vastly different, but different is good in this case. Or, how about agreeing with the policies, or just with the good intentions, as we allow all other politicians to do? How do we know that part of this "disapproval" isn't in the "faster, please" category?
Please, don't force Trump into the usual spineless Republican mold of backing off what is right just because the Left is going to criticize ad hominem and ad nauseum and ad infinitum. They will do that regardless, so just get on with it and hope the "forgotten/silent majority" gives you the credit.
So apparently you think the GOP should have stopped fighting Obama and capitulated? I don't think you would support that.
Now as I propose in Low Approval Equals Lost Seats, Trump can continue as he is... But their will be a significant consequence to the GOP. Choices choices...
I really do believe that it should matter WHAT policy is proposed or opposed. Now whether that is actually the case when there is so much obstruction for obstruction's sake, I don't know. If what is is what should be, then it is the Democrats who will pay the price.
History has shown that not be the case, just as the GOP supporters were excited by the GOP obstructing for obstructions sake... I am thinking the Dem supporters will be excited by the Dems obstructing for obstructions sake.
Please remember that ~50% of the population disagrees with your perception of "what should be". And they are just as certain that they are correct as you are...
That is why it is important for Trump to do a "Scott Walker." That is, to rapidly put through his changes so that, by the next election, people see that it was good policy, and realize that Democrat obstruction was at least an excessive reaction, if not downright stupid-- obstruction for obstruction's sake. In short, it makes a big difference what you are obstructing and, in Wisconsin for example, how you are obstructing.
And yet Trump keeps wasting time on unimportant things when he should be focused and getting things done...
I mean no one is going to see benefits from the immigration ban since there is no problem today. And yet he has people wasting time on it.
Ah, but one of the "benefits" is that we expose the serious situation that exists, and the treachery of the left demonstrating in favor of giving an 8-time illegal immigrant murderer a pass. And if no problem exists, and it continues not to exist, who gets the credit?
Let me repeat... Few people care about that topic...
They want:
- plenty great jobs that pay well
- affordable health care / insurance
- secure social security and medicare
- a strong middle class with a good standard of living
Did you miss that from the election?
And yet Trump is distracting people with everything but that.
You were the one who suggested that fewer illegal aliens meant more jobs for Americans. It is also true that medical services for illegals reduce the amount available, and some of their diseases are affecting our people. Trump has said he won't "touch" SS and Medicare-- in my opinion a mistake-- but Obamacare repeal and replace may provide a template, as will tax reform, and a growing economy will help.
And I think Trump and crew (if the Democrats ever get out of the way and give him a cabinet) can deliver on all these promises simultaneously. Hopefully Congress can do likewise and, if Senate Democrats would get the #$%^ out of the way we could see real opportunities for the middle class AND everybody else.
Now if Trump said... We are going to get rid of the illegal workers that would be one thing. But instead he says we are going to get rid of the violent criminals... Then he kicks out a few working Moms and leaves their kids here.
He needs start saying what he means and doing what he says... Not this say one and do another.
Let's see, if he deports the $1 million known illegal immigrant criminals, and in the process deports "a few working moms" (assuming they aren't just "working girls"), would that unfortunate situation, on balance, be desirable? Or do you believe it preferable to leave those 1 million criminals in this country?
And what he has said is that he is NOT going after "illegal workers," i.e. those doing their jobs "that Americans won't do." Presumably that will come later, and from Congress.
If Trump is up for deporting Moms away from their families, then let him say so.
Unfortunately he seems to want to be loved by all so he says. "We are focusing on the Bad Dudes." Then he goes after everyone.
Come on Man... Get a spine and say you are implementing that deportation force...
Post a Comment