Forums at Modded Mustangs - Reply to Topic
Thread: What I Expect A Trump Administration Will Do Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Forums at Modded Mustangs forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
February 18th, 2017 04:55 AM
RDY4WAR
February 18th, 2017 02:03 AM
Sixpointslow
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle2000GT View Post
I watched the press conference live. It was entertaining.
That's an understatement.
February 17th, 2017 09:30 PM
socialist
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novanutcase View Post
True but what I see as ultimately revealing is that Trump, knowing that what Flynn did was illegal, admits that he would have told him to do it anyways! Trump is admitting that he would have directed Flynn to do an illegal act!!!!

John
That too, of course.
February 17th, 2017 08:59 PM
Novanutcase
Quote:
Originally Posted by brtnstrns View Post
Not that the nonsensical bullshit that he spews surprises anyone anymore, but this statement makes literally zero sense whatsoever.

"he did something right...here are the things he did wrong so I fired him"

True but what I see as ultimately revealing is that Trump, knowing that what Flynn did was illegal, admits that he would have told him to do it anyways! Trump is admitting that he would have directed Flynn to do an illegal act!!!!

John
February 17th, 2017 07:50 PM
socialist
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novanutcase View Post
“I don’t think he did anything wrong, if anything, he did something right,” Mr. Trump said. “He didn’t tell the vice president of the United States the facts and then he didn’t remember, and that just wasn’t acceptable to me.”
Not that the nonsensical bullshit that he spews surprises anyone anymore, but this statement makes literally zero sense whatsoever.

"he did something right...here are the things he did wrong so I fired him"

February 17th, 2017 07:38 PM
Novanutcase Whats even more disturbing is Trumps response at his latest news conference in regards to Flynns actions.

“I don’t think he did anything wrong, if anything, he did something right,” Mr. Trump said. “He didn’t tell the vice president of the United States the facts and then he didn’t remember, and that just wasn’t acceptable to me.”

He added that he “would have directed him” to discuss sanctions with Russian officials if he hadn’t done it anyway.


So even if Trump hadn't directed Flynn to talk to russian officials he “would have directed him”. It has already been established that if Flynn talked to the russian diplomat about sanctions that would be a violation of the Logan Act. Trump just said that even if he didn't he would have directed him to. What Trump is saying is that he would have directed Flynn to break the law. If that is how he feels then how outlandish is it to say that he DID direct Flynn to talk to them about loosening sanctions? He already feels there is nothing wrong with doing that regardless of the fact that it is expressly against the law.

John
February 17th, 2017 07:37 PM
socialist Oh
February 17th, 2017 07:35 PM
Eagle2000GT
Quote:
Originally Posted by brtnstrns View Post
Wait, General Shares-Classified-Information Patraeus is being considered for Secretary of State?

Harward, Petraeus, Kellogg: Meet potential Flynn replacements - CNNPolitics.com

LOL, BUT THOSE EMAILS!
I hope not. He completely dishonored himself through his actions. He was lucky that the $100,000 fine and two years probation was all that he got. But at least he was punished. Clinton skated free.
February 17th, 2017 07:35 PM
socialist Yes
February 17th, 2017 07:29 PM
Eagle2000GT Do you just make this stuff up?
February 17th, 2017 07:28 PM
socialist Wait, General Shares-Classified-Information Patraeus is being considered for Secretary of State?

Harward, Petraeus, Kellogg: Meet potential Flynn replacements - CNNPolitics.com

LOL, BUT THOSE EMAILS!
February 17th, 2017 05:13 PM
Novanutcase
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle2000GT View Post
Just curious, I don't subscribe to the Wall Street Journal but according to other news agencies they have reported that current and former intelligence officers say they are holding back information from Trump. (I wonder if it the same anonymous intelligence officers that leaked Flynn's phone call.) CIA Director Pompeo denies it.

Whose right?

US spies reportedly keeping intelligence from Trump | Fox News
CIA Director Pompeo denies agency hides intelligence from Trump | Fox News
From what I can gather it's coming mostly from John Schindler, who has been an outspoken critic of Trumps and a former NSA official. Not sure how credible his claim that he got an email from a high positioned intelligence officer with the first sentence saying "He will die in jail" is so I am going to wait and see how this develops but if it's true the only thing I see on the horizon for Trump is an impeachment hearing and, if the allegations are true, prison along with his cohorts. Until now, the Republican dominated congress would never have impeached Trump, regardless of how tasteless or morally unethical he is, mostly to save face but if the allegations start to solidify they will be forced to and it sure looks like that is the way things are going.

My guess is that if things get stickier Trump will resign siting the "out of control' media and intelligence community of not allowing him to execute "the peoples" agenda. He and Bannon, along with Ailes, will move their alt right media business plans forward and use it as a mouthpiece for Trump to continue pointing the finger whenever it's found out what an asshole he is.

My feeling is that Trump is used to playing fast and loose in the private sector since scrutiny isn't as severe. Any faux pas would, at worst, end up in a law suit that he could effectively, and quietly, settle out of court but this isn't the private sector anymore. Now that he is under such scrutiny he's realizing that he can't play fast and loose without there being backlash so he points the finger at everyone BUT himself for the mistakes, and possibly treasonous acts, he and his staff are making. This is the problem that I've talked about several times in regards to business vs public administration. They are two totally different animals yet americans were duped into thinking that they are one in the same.

John
February 17th, 2017 04:13 PM
socialist
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Lee. 30 View Post

Shamelessly stolen from elsewhere:

Quote:
Reporter: "What is 2+2?"

Donald Trump: "I have to say a lot of people have been asking this question. No, really. A lot of people come up to me and they ask me. They say, 'What's 2+2?' And I tell them look, we know what 2+2 is. We've had almost eight years of the worst kind of math you can imagine. Oh my god, I can't believe it. Addition and subtraction of the 1s the 2s and the 3s. Its terrible. Its just terrible. Look, if you want to know what 2+2 is, do you want to know what 2+2 is? I'll tell you. First of all the number 2, by the way I love the number 2. It's probably my favorite number, no it is my favorite number. You know what, it's probably more like the number two but with a lot of zeros behind it. A lot. If I'm being honest, I mean, if I'm being honest. I like a lot of zeros. Except for Marco Rubio, now he's a zero that I don't like. Though, I probably shouldn't say that. He's a nice guy but he's like, '10101000101', on and on, like that. He's like a computer! You know what I mean? He's like a computer. I don't know. I mean, you know. So, we have all these numbers and we can add them and subtract them and add them. TIMES them even. Did you know that? We can times them OR divide them, they don't tell you that, and I'll tell you, no one is better at the order of operations than me. You wouldn't believe it. That I can tell you. So, we're gonna be the best on 2+2, believe me. OK? Alright. Thank you."


---------- Post added at 12:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:10 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle2000GT View Post
Whose right?
Whoever confirms your biases.


JK



Kind of...



Not really...
February 17th, 2017 04:06 PM
Eagle2000GT Just curious, I don't subscribe to the Wall Street Journal but according to other news agencies they have reported that current and former intelligence officers say they are holding back information from Trump. (I wonder if it the same anonymous intelligence officers that leaked Flynn's phone call.) CIA Director Pompeo denies it.

Whose right?

US spies reportedly keeping intelligence from Trump | Fox News
CIA Director Pompeo denies agency hides intelligence from Trump | Fox News
February 17th, 2017 01:57 PM
Novanutcase
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle2000GT View Post
There is disagreement over what Flynn talked about. Of the nine intelligence officers only two said that Flynn discussed sanctions. And a white house official who is reported to have seen the transcripts said that when the Russian ambassador brought up sanctions Flynn side stepped the question. There is so much disinformation and spin flying around I doubt that anyone will ever know the truth. It really doesn't matter anyway. Flynn is out.

I never said the content of the discussion was classified but the sources, methods, and revealing that we successfully obtained the information is.
Again, you're neglecting to talk about the bigger implications of all this. Just because Flynn is out doesn't mean it ends there. Discovering Flynns transgressions is only the beginning. Three of Trumps advisers have had to be fired because of ties to Russia. Paul Manafort, Trumps first campaign manager, Carter Page and now Michael Flynn. This is a disturbing pattern when you pair Trumps adulation of Vladimir Putin. Don't even get me started with douche bag extraordanaire Stephen Miller. I thought there was no more punchable a face than Ted Cruz's. I was wrong. Also, they were fired only when the press had gotten wind of their connections with Russia. Had their connections not been found out and exposed they would still be operating within the White House. Again, a disturbing pattern. How many russian operatives are now roaming the halls of the White House simply because their affiliations haven't been exposed to the media yet? Why does Trump, knowing that these people have Russian connections, hold onto these people knowing full well the implications that could ensue?

What about all the lower positions like cabinet member advisors, etc. that have access to classified and top secret material that may have gotten in through the nepotism that is rampant within this adminsitration paying back political favors much like he did with the nomination of Betsy DeVos? What happens when they get found out to be russian operatives?

How coincidental that RT, Russias propaganda channel, has suddenly turned down the time it devotes to fawning over how great a president Trump is now that the spotlight is on them with the scandal and all. Their excuse is that the russian people are getting tired of hearing about him. Interesting since RT is broadcast to mainly western markets so I'm not sure how the russian peoples viewing habits play into that decision.

As far as "the sources, methods, and revealing that we successfully obtained the information" is concerned, none of the actual sources has been revealed by name, the methods are well known throughout along with the revelation that we successfully obtained the information. All governments monitor communications between their people and foreign officials so it's not some grand secret that has been exposed for the world to see and compromises our own security.

The Hill, one of the most respected(and most read in washington) online sites is suggesting the very thing I'm talking about.

For Trump and Russia, the fall of Michael Flynn is only the beginning | TheHill

For Trump and Russia, the fall of Michael Flynn is only the beginning

By Paul Schiff Berman - 02/16/17 12:00 PM EST

The most important under-investigated story of the presidential campaign could ultimately become the greatest political scandal in U.S. history: how the Trump administration may have conspired with top Russian intelligence officials, and perhaps Vladimir Putin himself, to interfere in the election, get Donald Trump elected President, and undermine U.S. foreign policy. As revelations about these Russian contacts slowly leak out, some legal scholars are beginning to suggest that Trump campaign officials might have broken the law or even committed treason.

That sounds like partisan hyperbole, but it may eventually become an inescapable legal conclusion that Democrats and Republicans alike will need to face. Consider what we now know.

According to The New York Times, phone records and intercepted calls show that senior members of the Trump campaign, his transition team, and his associates were in regular contact with Russian intelligence officials throughout 2016. This should not surprise anyone, given that National Security Advisor Michael Flynn is actually the third top Trump staffer who has had to resign because of ties to Russia, following former campaign manager Paul Manafort and campaign advisor Carter Page.

Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence agencies definitively concluded weeks ago that the same Russian intelligence operation that was communicating with the Trump campaign deliberately hacked the emails of the Democratic National Committee and senior members of the Clinton campaign and leaked those emails to the public. Moreover, according to our intelligence agencies, this effort was ordered by Putin himself with the explicit aim of helping Trump win the election.

We also now know that Flynn continued speaking with Russian officials after the election, providing back-channel information to the Russians in order to undermine then-President Obama’s sanctions on Russia for the very same hacking that was orchestrated on Trump’s behalf.

To be sure, there is, so far, no proof that any of these communications happened under Trump’s orders or with his knowledge. Yet, it is hard to believe that so many interactions by such high-level members of Trump’s campaign or his administration could possibly have occurred without Trump’s knowledge or his tacit or explicit consent.

In addition, we now know that when Acting Attorney General Sally Yates reported on Flynn’s illegal conversations, Trump not only did not fire Flynn, he instead fired Yates, four days later. And even now, the White House states that Flynn was fired for being untrustworthy with his superiors, not for breaking the law by conspiring with the Russians in the first place.

These ongoing Russia connections might also help explain other mysteries of the past year. For example, why has Trump continued to refuse to release his financial records? Would those records, as Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) suggested on Wednesday, provide evidence of deep financial ties to Russia, or even direct payments? And why has Trump himself been so strangely unwilling to criticize Putin despite being given many easy opportunities to do so?

We don’t have the answers to these questions. But they clearly require bipartisan investigation and an independent counsel with no ties to Attorney General Jeff Sessions or the administration. After all, if the Trump campaign used back channels to secretly conspire with the Russians to impact the election and undermine the sitting president of the United States, it is not only improper, it is the definition of treason. Moreover, it suggests that this administration might now owe more allegiance to Putin than to the U.S. Constitution it is sworn to protect and defend.

Such an allegation is chilling, particularly at a time when Russia is deploying missiles in violation of its treaty obligations, leaving a compromised Trump administration without a credible response. Indeed, any allegation of treason seems almost unfathomable. Yet, that is the unfortunate state we are in. The fall of Michael Flynn is only the beginning of the slow unraveling.


John
February 17th, 2017 01:01 PM
Eagle2000GT I watched the press conference live. It was entertaining.
February 17th, 2017 10:36 AM
T-Lee. 30
February 17th, 2017 07:10 AM
Eagle2000GT There is disagreement over what Flynn talked about. Of the nine intelligence officers only two said that Flynn discussed sanctions. And a white house official who is reported to have seen the transcripts said that when the Russian ambassador brought up sanctions Flynn side stepped the question. There is so much disinformation and spin flying around I doubt that anyone will ever know the truth. It really doesn't matter anyway. Flynn is out.

I never said the content of the discussion was classified but the sources, methods, and revealing that we successfully obtained the information is.
February 17th, 2017 12:40 AM
Novanutcase As much as you all are trying to spin this with classified information leaks and the such what you aren't talking about is that this information was not "leaked" in the sense of what the actual content of the conversation was. The fact that he talked to a russian diplomat about relaxing sanctions isn't classified. What is is what they actually talked about. In Clintons email issue the actual text was published publicly and, as some have claimed, classified information was exposed within those emails. The information was from transcripts that are routinely collected in regards to conversations with foreign diplomats. What blows my mind is Flynn knew about the protocol and continued to talk knowing full well that the call was wiretapped. Maybe he figured it would get lost in the thousands of transmissions that are documented daily or, much like Kevin McCarthy and the witchhunt that was the "Select Committee on Benghazi", he forgot and actually spoke honestly.

No specific text has been released. I'm sure Trump and company saw the transcripts and realized that Flynn fucked up big. The other thing that isn't being talked about is that Trump knew what Flynn had said weeks earlier but didn't say anything. That's called a cover up.

Ex acting US Attorney Sally Yates had made both Trump and his team aware of the danger of putting Flynn up for a cabinet position weeks ago. Their arrogance is what has put them into the position they now find themselves.

The other thing y'all are neglecting to talk about is that, while releasing classified information is bad, what Flynn talked about is equally if not more bad. The moment someone starts talking about Flynns actions the conversation by conservatives gets sidetracked into how the leak is the real problem and Flynn's actions are no big deal regardless of the fact that he broke the law(Logan Act).

John
February 16th, 2017 05:00 PM
Eagle2000GT I'll say this one more time. There is a huge difference between the DNC hacking and leaks and the current leaks of classified information by US intelligence officials.

I worked with classified information most of my military career. If military operations information is leaked people die. If classified information concerning weapon systems is leaked our adversaries implement countermeasures. Our very expensive weapon systems become less effective and have shorter lifespans. If human intelligence information is leaked people die. If sources of signal intelligence is leaked then our adversaries implement countermeasures effectively stopping the flow of information.

Leaking of classified information is a crime. These nine intelligence officers leaked classified information. They leaked the fact that the communication used by the Russian ambassador was being recorded. First Clinton stores classified on a non-secure server and now intelligence officers feel free to anonymously release it at will. Those people needed to be hunted down and prosecuted.

I have heard people on TV sometimes say they read it in a newspaper so it must not be classified. That is incorrect. Often bits and pieces of unclassified material when grouped together can result in classified information. Sometime an investigative reporter is able to put those pieces together. That does not make the information unclassified. It is still classified. It is someone's suspicion. The worst thing that someone can do is confirm the information to be true. That takes away the doubt and our adversaries then know how to implement countermeasures.

I do not know why people want to infer that the two are the same. They are not.
This thread has more than 20 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome