Former Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn’s term as President Trump’s National Security Adviser came to an end today after less than a month in the position, facing a growing controversy surrounding his denial and later admission to a phone call with the Russia Ambassador regarding the Obama Administration’s sanctions against them.
Flynn called this shift on the content of the phone call “initially incomplete information” provided to the vice president in his letter of resignation, and praised President Trump for his loyalty. Early reports suggest that Trump had urged Flynn to stay, though later accountings said Trump had asked for his resignation.
The scandal was growing well beyond a simple oversight, however, with the Justice Department having warned the Trump Administration that Flynn was potentially vulnerable to Russian blackmail. This warning came from then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates, who Trump subsequently fired for refusing to try to defend his immigration ban in court.
There are questions about whether or not this means a broader shakeup at the National Security Council as well, with the unprecedented resignation just weeks into Trump’s term giving him a chance to change course if he chooses. There were reports, even before Flynn’s resignation, that there is considerable turmoil on the council.
There was questions at the time of the phone call by Gen. Flynn that it may have technically violated the Logan Act, though the Act has never been enforced, and Flynn’s status as an incoming official made any such violation a minor issue in and of itself.
Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, who has been serving as the National Security Council’s Executive Secretary, is said to be the interim National Security Adviser, and he is said by some to be among a handful of early potential candidates for a permanent successor.
Flyn did not have to be fired. Trump did so for policy reasons. Flynn has been an enormous asset because he is for rapprochement with Russia and knows details about the skulduggery in the CIA and other agencies to support ISIS.
BUT the Achilles heel of the rapprochement with Russia is the hostile US attitude to Iran. Flynn is a nut case hawk on Iran. Time for him to go. Behind Flynn’s hostility to Iran are neocon Israel Firsters. Their influence now falls – just in time for Bibi’s visit. Bibi must be pissed. He will get dinner and maybe a nice handshake – little else.
Hope you are right, and yes Flynn was a disappointment vis a vis Iran. Has Trump gotten the message that Russia and China will not abandon Iran?
That’s some spin there, anti-empire. Good job.
Flynn’s views on Iran have been out there for some time.
The other problem with your thesis is there are still Iran hawks in the administration, including one with more influence than Flynn- Bannon (who has a personal animus with the nation, to boot, from his Navy days).
The vast majority of the traditional Right are Iran hawks, so the departure of Flynn doesn’t really alter the chemistry on that particular matter, and I doubt they needed Flynn as “their guy in the administration” for that purpose.
PRO: The Trump admin has dropped its 2 biggest neocons (Woolsey & Flynn) and kept others like Bolton and Abrams out. This is a clear victory.
CON: Neocon-ism is a nasty strain of the wider Washington war-mongering. Trump has no principled stand against this – and so can be trapped/goaded/enticed into war as the deep state needs.
This has nothing to do with anything except ONE issue. He knows too much on all intelligence agencies, CIA INCLUDED.
The rest of them are lightweight. Trump is in trouble.
The whole works of this babbling by Trump’s lemmings is based on Trump having at least ‘some’ antiwar aspirations.
That’s their first big fatal mistake!
And now, knowing that, we can move on to discussing reality.
The first issue I’m asking you to consider is, Trump wants out of his phony commitment on improved relations with Russia very badly now. It’s killing him!
But the other side won’t let him get out from under it.They’re finding that they can destroy Trump with it.
It was only about half a million antiwar votes that Trump should have never went for. Only, in retrospect, he needed them to win!
It’s pretty well undeniable now Bianca, and it’s the reason why Raimondo is shaking in his boots over his impending fall from grace.
National Security Advisor tripped up by tapped phone call too funny
Flynn was a front man for Michael Ledeen, arch neocon, and Flynn’s co-author of Field of Fight, as I understand it, about the West’s coming War against Islam. Because he represented a slithering tendril of the Neocon cancer, I despaired his participation in Trump’s latest project. And it seemed Flynn was tight with Trump, so loyalty being what it is, the Flynn/Ledeen poison pill was firmly lodged in America’s throat. I thought.
Then son-of-a-gun, poof!, a gift from whatever gods may be, and crazy general Flynn is gone and with him really crazy, evil out-there crazy Ledeen. Today has been a very good day for humanity. MAGA scores big.
You miss that the “global conflict with Islam” guy Steve Bannon is still ensconced in the White House and the NSC?
I’m holding off judgement on Bannon. I paid no mind to the smears directed at him by the anti-Trump crowd, suspecting they might be ever-so-slightly biased. So, in an effort to take the measure of the man, went and listened to a lengthy speech he made. He had a judicious tone. Judicious relative to most folks on the right. So I’m hopeful, though uncertain. We shall see.
…or you could check out the petty smears and propaganda the man has been pushing for years over on Breitbart. Why let a simple speech by a master of spin and manipulation move you, when he has years of deception and half-truths he’s actually peddled in real life as evidence to the kind of person he is?
Am I to believe that you have personally and thoroughly read these “petty smears and propaganda”? Am I being unreasonable in suspecting that, since you’re evidently not a Breitbart fan, that you are not a regular consumer of those “petty smears and propaganda”, and that you are parroting these characterizations having heard them from other anti-Breitbart folks?
I prefer to make my assessment based on first hand observation of the man in action.
Calling these questions ‘for entertainment purposes’ for now.
Might Flynn have been a plant? Considering Flynn’s relation with Ledeen, and the bad blood between Trump and Neocons … e.g. just how much bs might Flynn have fed Trump that he repeated in good faith? Or e.g. considering that, the bizarre mudslinging against Russia, and Flynn taking a dive over improper comm’s with Russia … Might this be interpreted as scoring points against Trump’s interest in relations with Russia? Another thing: he seemed to me to come on the alt-media map with an apparent insinuation of a specific US relation to jihadists … Could this have been Trump’s attraction to him? Was Flynn bait?
reportedly fired for favouring diplomacy with Russia, liberals rejoice.
Timeline doesn’t suggest that. If not for the news media bringing out the story, Flynn would likely still be in his position seeing as the WH was warned weeks ago.
Trump also likely lied when asked on the plane. He said he was unaware of the story!
You said “reportedly”. What is your source?
Trump said he was “unaware” that Flynn had discussed sanctions with Russia. He didn’t lie when he said it.
Is McCain a Liberal? Why this bulls**t about only Liberals being against diplomacy with Russia? And believe it or not some of us Liberals are anti-war and desperately want diplomacy with Russia.
Unforunate that so few Liberals are really anti war and their political leaders are allies of the neo con menace. The vast majority of liberals voted for HRC, even after as SOS she advanced the cause of murder and mayham in the Middle East, North Africa and the Ukraine. A person is defined by what they do, not by what they claim to support. Likewise, an ideology is. Liberal/Progressive, and other statist political philosophies are based on coercion and force against others. Domestically to force others to pay for their political/social agenda. This opens the door to working with those that desire to impose their agenda on other nations, sometimes using such pretexts as R2P. Remember Libya?
Anti war is best based on the Non Aggression Principle. In fact that is likely the only effective path to true peace and liberty.
We held our nose to vote for Hillary, viewing her as less likely to blunder into a world war or remove all civil liberties after the next terrorist attack than Trump. Her hawkishness on war is why she lost to Obama.
And let us be clear. The vast majority of conservatives voted for Bush. Twice. Then they voted for the guy that mused about using nuclear weapons and killing the families of terrorists.
I voted 3rd party back then, rejecting both Bush the Lesser and Hillary. I rejected him twice, as well as the Democrat candidate. In 2008 and 2012, I voted 3rd party again. It was only this past November that I voted for the GOP candidate, Donald Trump, and I’m glad I did.
Dog luv ya Eileen! Stick with Trump right to the end. See if you can outlast Raimondo.
Then you opted to vote for a PROVEN war criminal while giving lip service to being anti war. A candidate that, as SoS, advanced policies that trashed womens rights in multiple nations. Who was married to another PROVEN war criminal and HRC was involved in setting policies that that her husband advanced. Including the sanctions against Iraq that caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. Those deaths largely occured AFTER the UN weapons inspectors confirmed all WMD and production facilities had been destroyed.
You state that you beleive that Trump would be more likely to cause a world war. But it was HRC that set policies into play that overthrew a elected government on the Russian border.
That leaves the claims of civil liberties. BUT is was under HRC and the Obama regime that NSA domestic spying was expanded.
True. The Bush regimes were also to blame. But note that those that voted for those warmongers didn’t claim to be antiwar.
And I for one didn’t vote for the Bushes, the Clintons, Obama OR Trump.. Neither do I support those that would use any pretext of ideology to impose social agendas on others by force. Including paying for such.
Guess what? I’m both libertarian, and conservative.
Note that while Trump might of mused about killing the families of terrorists, but Obama and HRC did exactly that. Including American children.
Trump got himself an American kid also so he’s doing more than musing.
True. But note that the operation was planned under Obama continuing the same policy set forth under that previous regime.
True, the so called Liberal of today is pro war but so is the so called Conservative. I didn’t vote for Hillary. No nose holding could have changed that.
Sadly this is indeed the case. I like the think that if a gun was held to my head and my vote would decide between Trump and Clinton, i would have the guts to take the bullet instead.
Lots of talk now about choosing between Trump and Clinton. I hope you Trump supporters understand that is telling us that you’re getting all antsy about Trump and his continuing train wrecks as they happen nearly every day.
I don’t see any more than the same ongoing train wreck that has been going on for a couple of decades. Many seem to have missed the 6 Trillions dollars flushed down the loo. But pehaps a better phrase might be buried with so many dead…. for nothing. Meanwhile, the unburied but brain dead continue to believe propaganda of “American exceptionalism”. It might be funny if the bodies lined up end to end wouldn’t stretch around the world a couple of times. Nothing funny about that. If only people would stop and think about all the lives not led and the anguish of those left to live behind. The nightmares of children. The ongoing fear of bombs falling. Fires in the dark. The terrible smells.
It sickens me. I don’t understand it. How can humans even look at those that revel in the filth of this destruction? How can one not recoil in horror? Instead many make excuses for supporting such creatures.
I share your feelings. Obama campaigned as an anti-war President in 2008. His war policies were a huge disappointment. But then in 2012 we had to choose between him and bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran McCain. So, a guy who drones people vs. a guy who gets us in a full scale war. It sucks but that was the decision we were left with (kill thousands or hundreds of thousands).
Hillary would have been a continuation of the Obama’s policies. But she was unlikely to get us into a full scale war given how beholden she is to corporate interests. Trump, on the other hand, is an absolutely incompetent mad man being led around by fourth turning ideologue Steve Bannon. So again, the choice is – thousands or hundreds of thousands (and maybe millions). You can throw your vote away as a protest. I respect your right to do that. But respect my right to vote for the lesser of two evils in an attempt to avoid a complete catastrophe. We’re all just guessing at the eventual outcome here and trying to make the best choice we can.
“Obama campaigned as an anti-war President in 2008.”
In what universe?
This one. Come on, man, really?
http://www.cfr.org/elections/obamas-speech-iraq-march-2008/p15761
This was the guy who said the Iraq war was a huge mistake, that torture was wrong, and that Guantanamo was going to be closed. He annihilated Clinton’s pro Iraq war vote/position with these statements.
Yes, he campaigned on Iraq being a “dumb war” — and explicitly promised to continue “smart wars” like Afghanistan and expand them into places like Pakistan.
Anyone who thought Obama was an antiwar candidate wasn’t listening to Obama.
Someone can both be psyched that he’s gone and not psyched about the way it happened/the emphasized reasons. I’m glad he’s gone for sure.
i am in this camp too, i was just lamenting how depressing it is that he had to go because he didn’t want a war with Russia and many liberals are over the moon. Should have gone for his warmongering over Iran (which actually contradicts the “russian agent” claim)
” who Trump subsequently fired for refusing to try to defend his immigration ban in court”
No, the leftist got fired for REFUSING TO DO HER JOB as acting attorney general, and openly smearing her boss, Donald Trump, in the media. Get the facts straight, Jason Ditzy.
Or maybe you think you should be able to go to work and insult your boss and refuse to do the tasks set before you, and still keep your job? In other words, maybe you are a liberal?
By the way, “try to defend”? Read the Constitution. It says very clearly that the president has the right to ban any individual or any group of people from entering the country. What is there to “try” to defend? Trump followed the exact law of the land. That a leftist judge (complete with adopted non-White children of course to show his fanaticism) appointed by fake-conservative, pro-“amnesty” Bush halts the legal executive order doesn’t mean it is illegal, it just means the American system of courts with activist judges is a joke.
Obongo banned immigrants from Iraq for six months in 2011. Bush banned immigrants from Iraq temporarily, and Jimmy Carter banned immigrants from Iran. The media were of course completely silent about that, as were you, Jason Ditzy. What a shame that you are lying by omission.
Applications to immigrate are still made. People are still vetted. Their history and stories are verified as best as possible. What has been annulled is only the widespread ban. The security aspect of the EO is nonsense considering the ban was partial and didn’t include certain countries. Security is not fickle like that. This blame “the left” dribble is really boring.
I am a liberal, go to work, don’t insult my boss, and don’t refuse to do the tasks set before me. I’ve been at my job for 15 years. We had a conservative young woman who recently was forced to resign for not doing her work and insulting her superior. She lasted 1 year here. Painting everyone you disagree with with the same moral brush is precisely how one group of humans have historically justified brutality against another group. Since you are commenting on antiwar.com I assume you are against war. Yet the way you view people on the other side of the political spectrum is precisely the kind of mentality that often leads to war.
“Read the Constitution. It says very clearly that the president has the right to ban any individual or any group of people from entering the country”
Is that right? Do quote me the part of the Constitution that states that explicitly.
This should be good. I suspect you have never read the Constitution in your life.
Typical
The whole national security state system was going after Flynn. He was not one of theirs. The phone conversations were the excuse, not the reason.
Flynn had some weird beliefs that I cannot support, but he was also “not one of them” and that is what took him down.
What we need is a better version of not one of them, and that is extremely unlikely now.
It’s like draining the swamp. It doesn’t matter if you drain it if you’re filling it with similar s**t.
“he had not discussed the Obama administration sanctions on Russia for its interference in the 2016 election,”
Notice there is no “alleged” before the “Russian interference”, and this is from the always reliable WaPo, and because the USA behaves in this way they assume Russia would blackmail Flynn-later in the pot it admits there is not a case.
blackmail Flynn for what exactly? I don’t get it. He spoke with Russia? Wtf?
Go ask your dad why Flynn resigned.
It was only alleged ‘before’ Trump cleared up the question rosie.
Should have fired the Israel-Firster Ambassador to the UN instead.
As long as the Bonkers Bolton, Elliott Abrams faction of the neocon wing of the Republican Party doesn’t replace Flynn, it won’t make much of a difference on who replaces him.
What on earth is a “liberal”?
Good riddance. Don’t let the door hit your anti-Iran a** on the way out.
The resignation of Flynn creates a potential problem for the president and Congress because if Flynngate hearings were to begin the president can no longer stall or even refuse to let Flynn testify under oath. Now when Flynn is called he must show up in Congress or a Federal Marshall will pay him a visit. That is the main reason why there will be no Congressional investigation of Flynngate.
It’s progress in that Trump is going to have to move away from his silly election promises on Russia that were never sincere and only meant to attract a small covey of antiwar people. Say a half a million votes tops.
And it may be an opportunity for Trump to pull away from the commitment which he desperately wants to distance himself from. Trump knows that sooner or later he’s going to have to fall into line with US foreign policy. He’s never been opposed to doing just that, but it was necessary during his campaign to offer up some raw meat for a few more votes.
Trump’s reaction over this smackdown will likely be extreme reaction, as it’s beginning to show that’s what is to be expected. What could be more extreme and please his frothing at the mouth supporters than Bolton?
Seeing NYT David Sanger who shilled for war with Iraq and later Iran on MS just now, it seems that Flynn must have rubbed the neo cons the wrong way. Not a surprise that Sanger floated a number of trustworthy loyal neo con names to replace Flynn. Americans should realize who and what is the real threats are. It isn’t Russia, China or Iran. Look closer.
Nah it’s TRUMP that rubbed the neocons the wrong way. They want to undercut his authority and bring him to heel. Looks like they are winning the battles.
Will Trump respond? Everybody has their breaking point
The interesting part is seeing how Raimondo is going to spin this tomorrow. (or whenever he does) There’s no doubt Flynn screwed up of course but the best part is in discovering if Trump was in the loop.
I would suggest now that Raimondo is going to promote the idea of Trump being a part of it because it can be spun as part of Trump’s intentions that Raimondo continues to imagine. But keeping in mind there’s danger in doing that because it condemns Trump to something approaching treason!
However, we must be careful of not buying into it and that’s because at the time the only real intentions coming out of Trump’s cakehole were ideas of trading off Russian nuclear capabilities for sanctions. A totally unrealistic idea that was never based on reality.
Hard to imagine that Flynn would be as ignorant as Trump on the subject, and so probably he wasn’t. Nevertheless, it’s most likely that Trump ordered an illegal pre-inauguration surprise because he is definitely dumb enough to try such a thing. Then Flynn had no option but to fall on his sword.
Just my preview folks. All the questions will be answered tomorrow by JR!
So the CIA and Pentagram continue to be the real government, and Trump is no JFK. When are Americans going to realize that secular representative democracy is a scam ? http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/02/14/neocons-deep-state-neutered-trump-presidency/
His case has spawned a novel way of determining whether a US law was or was not broken. According to Mr. Spicer that was conclusively done by the White House staff: not guilty. I had always understood that guilt or innocence about law violations are ruled on by our courts but I seem to have overlooked that our system has changed after November 2016. Can I now ask my sons to tell a court that they have determined after a careful in-house investigation that I had not violated a traffic law for which I got a ticket?
Flynn’s resignation letter.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/13/us/politics/document-Michael-Flynn-Resignation-Letter.html
What an honourable man he is and what wonderful and faithful service he has provided to his president and his country! LOL
I don’t like Flynn but something doesn’t quite smell right with this.
Oh do tell us what smells bad about it, if it’s not in your imagination comrade?
We’re all trying to read tea leaves amongst Trump’s nutso cabinet picks (and their replacements) in hope that somehow, someway, he’s actually going to avoid, weaken and shrink the warfare state.
Trump is a chameleon on many things, but he was absolutely hostile to Iran, Central/South Americans and China. The antiwar contingent have considered Trump to be a relief from Hillary’s ‘fight-russia’ rhetoric, but now we have near-definitive challenges laid down against Russia, and Trump seems to be finally ensnared by his rivals in media and politics.
It could get VERY VERY UGLY. There are multiple flashpoints just waiting to be exploited, and if the evil ones are able to wrestle control of their own black operations, Obama’s 5+-country death&destruction road-show could be easily surpassed.
Beyond Iran there’s Venezuela and North Korea, Yemen, Syria (Raqqa and the NE area), Mexico, Kashmir… The two main targets are obviously Russia and China, although asymmetrically. Then, of-course there’s the USA itself.
Russia seems to be very aware of potential mechanizations, as observed by their maneuvers today. The Saker IMHO nailed it with his instant reaction to the news – as of 2/15/17 at 00:23 at least.