Whistleblower: Flynn told colleague Russia sanctions would be 'ripped up'

a reply to: theantediluvian

Great post outlining the facts.

Expect to be punished for objectivity and posting actual documents and links to support facts.

a reply to: Arnie123

You seem easily triggered by factual reporting.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Yeah Ill get out all of the cursory it still needs to be verified, could be anon sources, etc.

Now if this is true.

Yeah I think it should be looked in to.

To start with, it doesnt say Trump was involved.

But still that doesnt mean its not important.

We have an official, possibly making decisions on russia, to benefit partners and possibly get money.

Even if the sanctions were never lifted, I feel this is still worth looking into.

TRUST me if this had Clintons name on it, we would have 4X the reaction here....LOL.....Honestly I think there are PAID Shills on this very website....

It appears this is what Flynn planned. Did any of it happen?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
It appears this is what Flynn planned. Did any of it happen?

Not for lack of trying.

If you recall at the time Trump said he would repeal sanctions and congress freaked out and passed legislation preventing him from doing so with a veto proof majority.

The Senate voted overwhelmingly Thursday to pass a bill increasing sanctions against Russia, Iran and North Korea, establishing veto-proof majorities for the measure that also allows Congress to block President Trump from easing sanctions against Moscow.

The 98-to-2 vote sets up the president with a pivotal choice: veto the bill knowing that lawmakers are prepared to override, as his communications chief Anthony Scaramucci suggested this morning on CNN that he might, or sign the legislation that binds his hands when it comes to altering sanctions policy against Moscow

www.washingtonpost.com... d3a2d304_story.html?utm_term=.7a8a06328db7

I think the whistleblower's allegations should be taken seriously and investigated.

1) From the description in the story, it seems this was all planned well in advance. The business plan to build nuclear reactors in the middle east, partnered with Russia was already good to go before the 2016 elections; clearly indicated from Flynn's statements to the whistleblower.

2) I wonder where Russia had planned to get all the uranium they'd be fueling those reactors with. Clearly Russia would have a business plan in place to secure that much uranium, way before they started building....

I think it should be looked into.

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

2) I wonder where Russia had planned to get all the uranium they'd be fueling those reactors with. Clearly Russia would have a business plan in place to secure that much uranium, way before they started building....

I think it should be looked into.

Heh heh. Looks like we'll never hear another word about this on the MSM.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

2) I wonder where Russia had planned to get all the uranium they'd be fueling those reactors with. Clearly Russia would have a business plan in place to secure that much uranium, way before they started building....

I think it should be looked into.

Heh heh. Looks like we'll never hear another word about this on the MSM.

Since we know Mueller knew about this from June or earlier and Flynn is now a cooperating witness?

Nuclear Energy companies in the Middle East?
THAT is a license to print Money (both Rubles and Dollars)
With backing by Criminal Russian Oligarchs that the US has sanctioned and forbid banks to work with?

If Flynn got assurances sanctions would be lifted then by whom? It would have to be POTUS.

No way Trump watches Flynn cash in getting a piece of middle east energy companies without demanding a cut.

THAT is why Mueller is going after Trumps banking records. He is looking for the down payment. I would have been sometime after election day and before inauguration.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: soberbacchus

why only charge flynn with lying to the fbi if he did this?

In trade for bigger fish, bigger crimes.

It's the way it goes.

This is to protect flynns son in actuality. they suddenly stopped investigating his son. Mueller is writing evidence to implicate People with his powers. Flynn is lying for his sons sake. mueller has a history of shady prosecutions under his belt.
I dont like trump but i hate shady prosecuors more. Still i took trump over hillary anyday.

originally posted by: kurthall
TRUST me if this had Clintons name on it, we would have 4X the reaction here....LOL.....Honestly I think there are PAID Shills on this very website....

Clinton brand is all over this.
Russia.... Uranium.... Money.... If there were some starving homeless Haitians in this mix somewhere, why it would be a grand slam.

a reply to: soberbacchus

So the sanctions never were destroyed. making his charge he said she said with no proof of anything but his word,of a known liar of course.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Could it be that, no matter what happens during his presidency, people like you (die hard-Trump folks, apparently) have your mind made up that he's not a massive criminal and can do no wrong, regardless of waiting for evidence or not?

originally posted by: Eshel
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Could it be that, no matter what happens during his presidency, people like you (die hard-Trump folks, apparently) have your mind made up that he's not a massive criminal and can do no wrong, regardless of waiting for evidence or not?

This is not the Mud Pit.

If you want to contribute something intelligent to the discussion at hand (the story in the OP), I'd be happy to discuss it, but since the story itself and everything written in it has zero to do with Trump himself, I find it hard to find credibility in anything you just responded to me with.

And just to set you straight, I didn't vote for Trump, campaign on his behalf, nor do I excuse his stupidity and immaturity (which there is plenty of) when it occurs. You might want to refrain from building ideological walls that are not there--it adds nothing in defense of your intelligence in this discussion.

ETA: What you may not understand about me is that, having a legal background (paralegal, now I work in a criminal investigation unit), I have a different standard and better understanding of investigations and legal issues than the average person, and I tend to do the intelligent thing and actually wait for hard evidence versus rhetoric and suspicion before I make up my mind on a topic.

It's actually a pretty smart, appropriate way to handle things, but unfortunately, most people are incapable or unwilling to do the same.

(this does not make someone a pro-[insert name here] person, it makes them be able to set aside logical fallacies and ideologies and embrace reality instead)

a reply to: SlapMonkey

If you want to contribute something intelligent to the discussion at hand (the story in the OP), I'd be happy to discuss it, but since the story itself and everything written in it has zero to do with Trump himself, I find it hard to find credibility in anything you just responded to me with.

See, now the funny thing is, this is a quote from a post you had made earlier. With just a couple changed words, it proves my point. When people say things like this, it's ok. When faced with your own accusations, you get a little triggered. So, before you begin calling people "unintelligent" or question someone's credibility, perhaps a mirror would be valuable.

There is definitely something up with the Trump team and the questionable actions they have taken. Although I don't know the full facts, I am almost certain there'll be some high level repercussions. No idea how high level, we'll just have to wait and see on that.

If this turn out without anyone being convicted of some shady acts, then I'll gladly eat my hat.

And for those that make that claim that "nothing has been found by now - it should be closed". Keep in mind, it took 6 years for Starr to impeach Clinton. It's not a fast moving process. I, myself, prefer thoroughness to expediency.

Since when did Flynn speak for Trump? Trump made it very clear Trump will lift sanctions on Russia as soon as Russia returns Crimea to Ukraine.

from March www.cnn.com...

from December www.cnn.com...

Since when did Flynn speak for Trump? Trump made it very clear Trump will lift sanctions on Russia as soon as Russia returns Crimea to Ukraine.

from March www.cnn.com...

from December www.cnn.com...

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: soberbacchus

why only charge flynn with lying to the fbi if he did this?

In trade for bigger fish, bigger crimes.

It's the way it goes.

This is to protect flynns son in actuality.

That is what Flynn's family is claiming to sell the idea that he would otherwise have taken the fall, but Flynn himself was in the most severe legal jeopardy from what we now know.

That is also under the column of what Flynn got.
What Mueller got was a bigger fish.

Mueller is writing evidence to implicate People with his powers.

That appears a lie invented to defend crimes.

mueller has a history of shady prosecutions under his belt.

Mueller is one of the most respected people ever to serve the FBI.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: soberbacchus

So the sanctions never were destroyed. making his charge he said she said with no proof of anything but his word,of a known liar of course.

???

Nope. It is illegal to sell US Nuclear Policy and Sanction Policy.

The offer or acceptance of anything of value is what constitutes the crime.

The fact that congress leapt in to pass a veto-proof sanctions bill heading off the Presidents plan to repeal sanctions is irrelevant.

When someone hires someone to kill their husband, but the guy talks to the police instead? That woman goes to jail. The Husband doesn't have to die for a crime to have been committed.

originally posted by: chinesefatman
Since when did Flynn speak for Trump? Trump made it very clear Trump will lift sanctions on Russia as soon as Russia returns Crimea to Ukraine.

from March www.cnn.com...

from December www.cnn.com...

Bizarre.

Your link is to what TILLERSON SAID, not Trump.

Trump during the campaign said that Russia wasn't even in Crimea.