"While initial reporting is portraying Flynn's guilty plea as a major breakthrough
Mueller's investigation of potential Trump campaign collusion with the Russian
regime, I suspect the opposite is true." nationalreview.com/article/454269... via
The argument is this—the statement Flynn made has zero to do with Russia collusion, therefore there is no Russian collusion issue because if Flynn had something to say, it would be in public court testimony already.
My response? Nuts and wishful thinking.
There is no reason for the prosecutor to lay out his case. Based upon what has been reported, Flynn has done a tremendous amount of lying for his own self-promotion including being on more than one bankroll without telling the mother country—US.
You can bet Flynn is now talking and you can bet Mueller is keeping what he now knows close to the vest.
Donald Trump's lightweight tweets, Sarah Huckabee Huckabee's fakes are killer brands to his administration's health--Sarah Huckabee, SEnator Gillibrand
McConnell vs. Bannon--Uncivil War erupts for Republican Party control--Mitch McConnell, Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, Republican Party
Also, NBC News has reported that the person who ordered Flynn to talk with countries including Russia during the transition was none other than Jared Kushner. That for very obvious reasons, very bad for the President.
For one, Flynn, just during the transition and his short term as National Security Council has many points of contacts that involve many key White House leaders—Mike Flynn, Kushner, Reince Priebus, Stephen Miller, just to name a few.
Here is a list of those areas of contact points, I have located on the Internet and this only touches upon the events post-election:
12/23: Kislyak calls Flynn to say Russia won't vote against it.
12/28: Obama announces new sanctions against Russia.
12/29: Flynn speaks with a senior transition official at Mar-a-Lago about what to communicate to Kislyak about the sanctions. Flynn calls Kislyak to ask that Russia not escalate the situation, and then calls the transition official back to report on the call with Kislyak.
12/30: Putin announces Russia will not retaliate against the US.
12/31: Kislyak calls Flynn to tell him about Russia's response. Flynn speaks with senior members of the transition team about it.
1/24/17: Flynn lies to the FBI about his interactions with Kislyak.
1/26: Former acting attorney general Sally Yates said she warned the White House about Flynn’s actions.
1/27: Trump asked former FBI Director James Comey for “loyalty."
1/30: The president fired Yates.
2/13: Flynn resignes after reportedly misleading the vice president about his conversations with Russian officials.
On top of all of this, the news from last night, Donald Trump contacted a key US Senate committee leader and others to move the investigation along.
The spinsters are claiming so what? Their argument is--he is just asking them to move it along for the good of the country.
Really? Let’s look at some facts. President Donald Trump has threatened lawmakers that if they don’t do what he wants them to do, he is going to go after them on the campaign trail. The more popularity, the more power a President has, the more he can convince Congress to do what they are being told. In Godfather’s language, “an offer you can’t refuse”.
Whether the Executive branch is separate from the legislative, nobody wields the power of the President. When a President calls lawmakers and during the conversation turns to the topic of the Russia probe, you know they better start lining up or else.
Just ask Jeff Flake, what happens if and when you cross Donald Trump.
We are now hours, if not minutes away from the Republican Senate passing the tax reform bill. All of us are for tax reform and simplification. Making more money available for the middle class is essential because income has not risen in years, if not decades. The issues I have related to whether giving the rich major tax breaks is in our best interest. I favor corporations getting tax cuts to be more competitive. But, how do we know that the rich and the corporations are going to put the money back into the economy to help raise wages and build more opportunities? If they don’t, then, what have we gained, while at the same time, potentially busting the deficit even more?
And, yes, you bet I have a problem with Donald Trump getting substantial tax benefits when he promised us that it would hurt him and that the middle class would get the advantage. There is no way the tax bill as we currently know it hurts Trump and others like him. The fact that he won’t release his taxes like all other modern day presidents have done is every reason to believe he does not want us to know something. What is it? Russian money? Tax loopholes? Something ranks.
However, the most significant problem relates to the legislation itself. I am very sorry to say that right now, the Congressional members of the GOP are acting hypocritical, not a word, I enjoy using in public. The members of Congress were right when the dems shoved Obamacare down American throats. However, by comparison, at that time, there were hearings, the legislation was out there for almost two years in one rendition or another. We recall the cries, “how can you vote on legislation of this magnitude, you have not even read the bill?” Well, let me ask this—even WORSE--how can anybody vote on legislation they have not ever seen? This is what is going on in the name of saving Donald Trump and the Republican Party.
What the GOP should be doing is working with the Democrats to fashion a bipartisan plan, like Ronald Reagan did. It is simply ludicrous that after Obamacare, this is not occurring. Right now, all we have a promise and a hope that the legislation once passed will put the economy in overdrive, however, there are no government or other disinterested bodies corroborating this proposition. Instead, if anything, the latest is the deficit will explode by one billion and the GDP would grow less than 1 percent over ten years.
Hypocrisy strikes deep and into our minds it creeps.
JJeff Crouere has written a column today tthat in so many reasons is right on. The conservative columnist notes that much is being said about Flynn's lying but what about the FBI as it relates to Loretta Lynch. I suggest you read his column. Congress should probe into Lynch Clinton meeting. The facts simply don't add up, the timing of the Loretta-Bill meetup and the circumstances were just too suspicious. One point of disagreement, Crouere said, Hillary was questioned by the FBI but not under oath, but Flynn is charged with lying to the FBI. .Surely, if the FBI felt Clinton was lying, she would be under the same scrutiny as Flynn. It is against the law to lie to the FBI, whether under oath or not.