Mike Flynn Offers to Testify in Exchange for Immunity - The Wall Street Journal

a reply to: alphabetaone

Your post is right on target.

I contemplate the times that I have used the shorthand in the past that anything that Fox or Breitbart or whatever was "fake" without going into the meat of the claim itself and disproving it ... and others doing the same thing that has brought this current craze on us.

By stating that everything is "fake news" ... what does that do? Everything becomes merely a matter of belief.

Which is a perfect environment for a charismatic autocrat to arise in.

I'm not referring to Trump here. Trump is merely divisive, for every acolyte he produces a heretic. I'm referring to someone who comes into a totally chaotic situation bringing reasonably, the promise of order, etc.

Someone that can capture 80% of the public, not 35%. That's the one you have to watch out for.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Indeed. And that's exactly true. Trump is not the problem here, he's not a solution either....he is merely a catalyst. There is already an underlying problem, and frankly no matter which side of the aisle we reside on, we all have exactly that same problem.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

I love that McCarthyism is invoked now but the peanut gallery was silent during the 8 or 9 investigations into Benghazi.

So do you think there was no fault with Benghazi? "what does it matter they are dead" mentality? The frustration with Benghazi is I guess it is not against the law to be totally inept in your job and Hillary truly showed us just how inept she was. In this case McCarthyism is fitting because it is all about smoke and mirrors Russia just like the original McCarthyism was, and not one of our ambassador who was sexually raped and savagely tortured before being killed as the Sec of State does nothing, or really cares.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Really? What on Trump's list has he actually accomplished besides the nomination of Gorsuch?

There you go...just like others yelling what has this President done !!, and not even 100 days in yet. Well his agenda is 100% in lined with what he said he would do in his campaign. Come on we gave Obama 8 years to do little, you think you would give this guy a couple.

To be honest the biggest complaint with the left and all the uproar is that he is actually working on exactly what he said he would work on right? If he was just doing nothing you all would be happy...lol

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Really? What on Trump's list has he actually accomplished besides the nomination of Gorsuch?

There you go...just like others yelling what has this President done !!, and not even 100 days in yet. Well his agenda is 100% in lined with what he said he would do in his campaign. Come on we gave Obama 8 years to do little, you think you would give this guy a couple.

To be honest the biggest complaint with the left and all the uproar is that he is actually working on exactly what he said he would work on right? If he was just doing nothing you all would be happy...lol

...as AB1 waits patiently for the inevitable "cmon, the guy is only 1359 days in, give hima chance" rhetoric.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xtrozero

You should study someplace other than Breitbart/ trump university.

That's all wrong.
Totally debunked bull.

🎶 sorry...

You all just want to believe your sacred Clintons didn't use their foundation as a money making/laundering scam. I fully understand factcheck etc sites and the only thing they push as false is the amount of the money....


No need to bring the conservatives into the mix, just look at the super liberal NYT article....

Here is a list of 11 questionable items forming a chain of events:

September of 2005: Canadian Frank Giustra visits Kazakhstan with Bill Clinton. Days later, his company UrAsia wins a major uranium deal with the country.
2006: Giustra donates $31 million to the Clinton Foundation.
February 2007: UrAsia merges with Uranium One and expands into the U.S..
June 2008: Russian atomic agency Rosatom begins talks to acquire Uranium One.
2008 to 2010: Uranium One and UrAsia investors donate $8.65 million to Clinton Foundation.
June 2009: Rosatom acquires 17% of Uranium One.
2010 to 2011: Millions more donated by Uranium One investors to Clinton Foundation.
June 2010: Rosatom requests Committee on Foreign Investment (of which the State Department is a member and its approval is needed) to approve a majority ownership in Uranium One, promising not to purchase 100% of it nor take it private.
June 2010: Bill Clinton receives $500,000 to speak at a conference held by the Russian investment bank involved in the Rosatom transactions.
October 2010: Committee approves Rosatom's request to acquire a majority share in Uranium One.
January 2013: Rosatom purchases remainder of Uranium One and takes it private.
The origins of the story were reported in the NY Times in 2008 by Jo Becker, a co-author of the recent NYT piece:

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xtrozero

You should study someplace other than Breitbart/ trump university.

That's all wrong.
Totally debunked bull.

🎶 sorry...

You all just want to believe your sacred Clintons didn't use their foundation as a money making/laundering scam. I fully understand factcheck etc sites and the only thing they push as false is the amount of the money....


No need to bring the conservatives into the mix, just look at the super liberal NYT article....

Here is a list of 11 questionable items forming a chain of events:

September of 2005: Canadian Frank Giustra visits Kazakhstan with Bill Clinton. Days later, his company UrAsia wins a major uranium deal with the country.
2006: Giustra donates $31 million to the Clinton Foundation.
February 2007: UrAsia merges with Uranium One and expands into the U.S..
June 2008: Russian atomic agency Rosatom begins talks to acquire Uranium One.
2008 to 2010: Uranium One and UrAsia investors donate $8.65 million to Clinton Foundation.
June 2009: Rosatom acquires 17% of Uranium One.
2010 to 2011: Millions more donated by Uranium One investors to Clinton Foundation.
June 2010: Rosatom requests Committee on Foreign Investment (of which the State Department is a member and its approval is needed) to approve a majority ownership in Uranium One, promising not to purchase 100% of it nor take it private.
June 2010: Bill Clinton receives $500,000 to speak at a conference held by the Russian investment bank involved in the Rosatom transactions.
October 2010: Committee approves Rosatom's request to acquire a majority share in Uranium One.
January 2013: Rosatom purchases remainder of Uranium One and takes it private.
The origins of the story were reported in the NY Times in 2008 by Jo Becker, a co-author of the recent NYT piece:

You go ahead fighting the last election. That should keep you busy while this current mess gets sorted out.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Let him testify, it'll just be another nail in the liberal coffin. Yet again, showing their insaneness and inability of rational idea forming.

I watched Tucker Carlson last night, what a train wreck. Love it!

a reply to: WhyDidIJoin

I watched Tucker Carlson last night, what a train wreck.

Yes. He is, isn't he?

originally posted by: WhyDidIJoin
a reply to: Gryphon66

Let him testify, it'll just be another nail in the liberal coffin. Yet again, showing their insaneness and inability of rational idea forming.

I watched Tucker Carlson last night, what a train wreck. Love it!

The only insane, irrational thing I see here is over-generalization to millions of individuals.

Tucker Carlson is infotainment. Sort of the right wing version of Rachel Maddow. Don't think Tucker has a PhD though.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Gryphon66

I love that McCarthyism is invoked now but the peanut gallery was silent during the 8 or 9 investigations into Benghazi.

So do you think there was no fault with Benghazi? "what does it matter they are dead" mentality? The frustration with Benghazi is I guess it is not against the law to be totally inept in your job and Hillary truly showed us just how inept she was. In this case McCarthyism is fitting because it is all about smoke and mirrors Russia just like the original McCarthyism was, and not one of our ambassador who was sexually raped and savagely tortured before being killed as the Sec of State does nothing, or really cares.

No fault with Benghazi? Have you ever heard me say anything like that? No, indeed, I think there was a lot wrong with Benghazi, and it started with Republican cuts to our diplomatic missions overseas.

No one said "what does it matter they are dead" and you know it. What she said was what does it matter WHY THEY WERE KILLED, what we needed to do was find out who did it and keep them from ever doing it again.

That's my problem with modern "conservatives" you can't make the simplest point without lying.

Mr. Trump said in 2013 that Clinton was the best Secretary of State we'd ever had, so I guess opinions vary, eh?

The original McCarthyism was trying to find Communists where they weren't ... you know, like the average right-wing post here.

All that said, try to get back on topic. The topic is Mike Flynn and his requests for immunity.

"General Misha" .... Why you lil ol' honeypot, you, General Misha....

The Guardian understands Flynn and Lokhova remained in email contact, conducted through an unclassified channel. In one email exchange described by Andrew, Flynn signed himself as “General Misha”, Russian for Mike.

Michael Flynn: new evidence spy chiefs had concerns about Russian ties

US intelligence officials had serious concerns about Michael Flynn’s appointment as the White House national security adviser because of his history of contacts with Moscow and his encounter with a woman who had trusted access to Russian spy agency records, the Guardian has learned.

US and British intelligence officers discussed Flynn’s “worrisome” behaviour well before his appointment last year by Donald Trump, multiple sources have said.

General Misha, perhaps you also have a video? Or an audio of interesting phone conversations with Lokhova? Or a file of interesting emails. Oh, yes, I'm sure she was just a helpful comrade. Yes, I'll bet you do have a "story to tell", a quite interesting story. General Misha.

a reply to: desert

Makes some things Jim Comey said seem a lot more reasonable.

LOVE watching the cult in full denial mode yet again. If this was a dem you would 100% be saying they're obviously guilty.

Tick tock guys. The walls are closing in.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well I started out watching Rachel Maddow and it was difficult to watch, her sentence formations didnt exactly flow. Then I switched to fox and Tucker was on, and the poor congressman said he had no idea what supposed evidence the Intel agencies have on russian collusion, that they've ask for the evidence, couldn't get any evidence.

This guy sits on the committee that watches over agencies like this, and the agencies wouldn't give the congressman any info.

This brings me back to when the NSA chief said that no they weren't spying on millions of Americans...

a reply to: fencesitter85

No doubt. Any hint of Russia where a dem is concerned would have the right wingers absolutely frothing at the mouth & convulsing on the floor.
Orange is the new red, though, and they're falling over themselves trying to point the finger elsewhere, obfuscate, muddy the waters, blame the media, etc.

The clock is indeed ticking, and the end of this game could very well come down to clock management. Trump & crew have already screwed things up so badly that they're desperate--the kind of desperation that comes before false flag attacks and the subsequent war drums.

Fingers crossed we can end the madness before it's too late.

originally posted by: Christosterone
I am a Texan.

Hillary was a terrible candidate.

I voted for Donald trump.

My reason for doing so hinged not upon anything Russian.

The sole reason I voted for him was he did not illegally have a server in his basement while serving as Secetary of State.

Furthermore my father, a lifelong yellow dog Democrat, did not vote for Hillary because she was/is a terrible person.

Russia had nothing to do with his assessment. He used his eyes.

Democrats were roundly defeated from coast to coast in both congressional and senatorial races because their liberal utopic vision of governance boils down to nothing more than progressive newspeak long since void of any tangible, real ideas.

[snipped]

Sorry y'all lost in the election...obama will be remembered as a parentheses in the history books..

-Chris

Well, since you responded in this thread, how does it feel to have voted for a Russian stooge? Look who's a badass now.

a reply to: Xtrozero

What does it matter never referred to the dead. It's a comment used totally out of context.

originally posted by: WhyDidIJoin
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well I started out watching Rachel Maddow and it was difficult to watch, her sentence formations didnt exactly flow. Then I switched to fox and Tucker was on, and the poor congressman said he had no idea what supposed evidence the Intel agencies have on russian collusion, that they've ask for the evidence, couldn't get any evidence.

This guy sits on the committee that watches over agencies like this, and the agencies wouldn't give the congressman any info.

This brings me back to when the NSA chief said that no they weren't spying on millions of Americans...

Yep, things are mysterious sometimes.

originally posted by: Gandalf77
a reply to: fencesitter85

No doubt. Any hint of Russia where a dem is concerned would have the right wingers absolutely frothing at the mouth & convulsing on the floor.
Orange is the new red, though, and they're falling over themselves trying to point the finger elsewhere, obfuscate, muddy the waters, blame the media, etc.

The clock is indeed ticking, and the end of this game could very well come down to clock management. Trump & crew have already screwed things up so badly that they're desperate--the kind of desperation that comes before false flag attacks and the subsequent war drums.

Fingers crossed we can end the madness before it's too late.

I've been following his twitter for a while now. I still can't work out whether the majority genuinely take his desperately defensive, paranoid deflection rampages as him 'sticking it to the man' or whether they're just desperately toeing the line hoping he stops being useless at some point so they can justify their vote to themselves. His meltdowns are so transparent - he's obviously panicking and just putting out propaganda to keep the lemmings on side.

Necessary caveat: I'm not pro hillary or a liberal so don't waste your memes.