America's spies anonymously took down Michael Flynn. That is deeply worrying.

originally posted by: xuenchen
The whole thing was manufactured by the MSM/BS complex.

Which........must be why he was #canned.

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Is it illegal to communicate with the Russian Ambassador for starters? It has already been determined and reported that nothing illegal happened in the conversation between Flynn and the Ambassador.

It has already been determined and reported that he most likely did discuss sanctions, which is, in fact, potentially illegal.

The FBI has already cleared Flynn of doing anything illegal.

Was Flynn's phone call recorded? If so, wouldn't that mean the Obama administration used the government to spy on the opposition party, like Nixon did in Watergate?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yes it is a common tactic to fall back on generalities when one has no specific information.

Leaks exposing Flynn as a liar could arguably be an attempt to assist Mr. Trump in rooting out problems in his administration.

As you said, your evidence for some grand nefarious plot is based only your own opinion.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Is it illegal to communicate with the Russian Ambassador for starters? It has already been determined and reported that nothing illegal happened in the conversation between Flynn and the Ambassador.

It has already been determined and reported that he most likely did discuss sanctions, which is, in fact, potentially illegal.

The FBI has already cleared Flynn of doing anything illegal.

Was Flynn's phone call recorded? If so, wouldn't that mean the Obama administration used the government to spy on the opposition party, like Nixon did in Watergate?

It was, but technically, wouldn't it be fairly standard practice to monitor the communications of foreign agents like the Russian Ambassador, even when they are communicating with someone like Flynn?

But because of the nature of the communication, such a call should also have strict legal protection to - high classification. It's not like someone ought to just be running around leaking out random details to any press agent they want to. That's a weakness in the government structure. And if this had been Hillary in the White House right now, the very same people who are clucking and shaking their heads or salivating over the blood in the water would be screaming bloody murder like they were over the Wikileaks.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yes it is a common tactic to fall back on generalities when one has no specific information.

Leaks exposing Flynn as a liar could arguably be an attempt to assist Mr. Trump in rooting out problems in his administration.

As you said, your evidence for some grand nefarious plot is based only your own opinion.

Again, there is procedure for this. You take your suspicions to the intel committee in Congress which is bipartisan for very good reason.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The FBI was listening to the Russian Ambassador.

Do you have any evidence that Obama directed the FBI to perform surveillance on Flynn?

That might merit some comparison to Watergate.

Nothing presented here does so.

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Is it illegal to communicate with the Russian Ambassador for starters? It has already been determined and reported that nothing illegal happened in the conversation between Flynn and the Ambassador.

It has already been determined and reported that he most likely did discuss sanctions, which is, in fact, potentially illegal.

The FBI has already cleared Flynn of doing anything illegal.

Then why is he still under investigation?

a reply to: ketsuko

I was responding to a specific statement not making a general claim as you are.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Is it illegal to communicate with the Russian Ambassador for starters? It has already been determined and reported that nothing illegal happened in the conversation between Flynn and the Ambassador.

It has already been determined and reported that he most likely did discuss sanctions, which is, in fact, potentially illegal.

The FBI has already cleared Flynn of doing anything illegal.

Was Flynn's phone call recorded? If so, wouldn't that mean the Obama administration used the government to spy on the opposition party, like Nixon did in Watergate?

Or, it would mean the IC was spying on foreign officials and happened to catch a fish when they realized Trump admin officials were in communication with Russian officials/intelligence.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The FBI was listening to the Russian Ambassador.

Do you have any evidence that Obama directed the FBI to perform surveillance on Flynn?

That might merit some comparison to Watergate.

Nothing presented here does so.

That would be the CIA's job. They deal with foreign intelligence. FBI is domestic. If it was the FBI who had this, then it could have been illegal surveillance.

a reply to: queenofswords

I saw a report that said he was not forthcoming.
FYI not forthcoming is the same as lying.

originally posted by: ketsuko
It was, but technically, wouldn't it be fairly standard practice to monitor the communications of foreign agents like the Russian Ambassador, even when they are communicating with someone like Flynn?

It is. The exact law/program isn't coming to mind off the top of my head but the NSA at least (maybe other spy agencies?) have pretty broad powers to tap communications as long as one party isn't a US citizen. So citizens speaking with other nations ambassadors would fall under that clause. If I remember correctly, it's something the Patriot Act authorized.

Even if it weren't, I'm pretty sure this type of activity falls under what the CIA is supposed to be doing.

a reply to: queenofswords

And Obama fired him for being unstable.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: queenofswords

And Obama fired him for being unstable.

Perfect set up for a future deep cover operation.

a reply to: ketsuko

Where was the Russian Ambassador?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes it is a common tactic to fall back on generalities when one has no specific information.

Leaks exposing Flynn as a liar could arguably be an attempt to assist Mr. Trump in rooting out problems in his administration.

As you said, your evidence for some grand nefarious plot is based only your own opinion.

Better my own opinion than adopting that of someone else's. Of course, you never addressed my reasoning, only begging for sources.

a reply to: mobiusmale

There are a lot of holes in your theory.

One being is that the FBI helped get Trump elected.


Sure, there is an eastern faction and western faction (which Trump is connected to) with their own attributes of power if This “police state" you speak of is so powerful then Hillary would have been elected.


They wanted Trump to win in order to make a faction of them look good in comparison to a fool like Trump.

TRUMP IS A TEMPERARY FLACK EXISITNG TO MAKE CERTAIN FACTIONS, NEOCONS, FOR INSTANCE, ACCEPTABLE AGAIN

a reply to: ketsuko

It was, but technically, wouldn't it be fairly standard practice to monitor the communications of foreign agents like the Russian Ambassador, even when they are communicating with someone like Flynn?

But because of the nature of the communication, such a call should also have strict legal protection to - high classification. It's not like someone ought to just be running around leaking out random details to any press agent they want to. That's a weakness in the government structure. And if this had been Hillary in the White House right now, the very same people who are clucking and shaking their heads or salivating over the blood in the water would be screaming bloody murder like they were over the Wikileaks.

I'm not sure. I'm not aware of the technicalities, but thank you for answering. I suppose leaking the phone calls of a private citizen is the egregious crime here.

a reply to: mobiusmale

Nice try. The American intelligence community is sworn to serve not the President of the United States, but the people of the United States, and to uphold its Constitution. If they inform the President that a staff member is colluding with a hostile foreign government, and the President attempts to cover that up... that suggests that the President is consciously collaborating in treason. It is their duty to see to it that the American people are protected from such a dangerous travesty.

a reply to: ketsuko

And how many on the right think Hillary said at this point what difference does it make in reference to dead soldiers in Benghaz?.