• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are the so called liberals being hysterical concerning Ttump?

From the National Review...

"It was in this frenzied setting that General Flynn made a stupid mistake. He picked up the phone and called Russian Ambassador Kislyak.
It is hard to quantify how dumb this was. Flynn, a retired three-star Army general, is not just a long-time intelligence veteran. He was the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). How could he not have realized that, even in the best of times, Russian officials are routinely monitored under FISA — and this, far from the best of times, was a time of high suspicion? It seems inconceivable that Flynn did not consider the likelihood, the virtual certainty, that he was calling a wiretapped line, that his call would be recorded and reviewed by the intelligence community — a community he was part of and has made a business of antagonizing since being fired by Obama in 2014."

"Even if the call had been prearranged by text messages (the two men have known each other since Flynn’s DIA days), how could Flynn have gone through with it when Obama’s announcement of punitive measures that very day made it a certainty that Kislyak would mention them? It makes no difference that Flynn had no intention or authority to make a deal with Russia on Trump’s behalf. If Kislyak broached the subject of relief from Obama’s actions — something that Flynn would be powerless to prevent him from doing — it could then be reported, accurately if misleadingly, that they had “discussed the sanctions.”

Read more at: Michal Flynn & Russia -- Release the Tape of Call with Russian Ambassador | National Review

So they, the National Review, agree with you that the word 'discussed' could mean many things, but all that's needed is for one of those things to be accurate to make Flynn in jeopardy. Because all that's needed is sanctions to be mentioned by either party for Flynn to be stepping 'way out of line. I mean, what on earth possessed him to make that call, on that day? I still maintain that he must have been told to make it.

"all that's needed is for one of those things to be accurate to make Flynn in jeopardy. Because all that's needed is sanctions to be mentioned by either party for Flynn "

What is wrong with a member of a President elect team conversing with foreign diplomats ??
 
Last edited:
"all that's needed is for one of those things to be accurate to make Flynn in jeopardy. Because all that's needed is sanctions to be mentioned by either party for Flynn "

What is wrong with a member of a President elect team conversing with foreign diplomats ??

The President of the United States announced sanctions against Russia, and you're okay with Flynn calling him that same day and discussing it? To what end? If he was acting as a representative of Trump, it's even worse, isn't it.

This isn't simply "a member of a President elect team conversing with foreign diplomats" and you know it. You're just trying to trivialize this because it's your boy Trump and Obama. Had it been a Republican president it'd be different, wouldn't it.
 
The President of the United States announced sanctions against Russia, and you're okay with Flynn calling him that same day and discussing it? To what end? If he was acting as a representative of Trump, it's even worse, isn't it.

This isn't simply "a member of a President elect team conversing with foreign diplomats" and you know it. You're just trying to trivialize this because it's your boy Trump and Obama. Had it been a Republican president it'd be different, wouldn't it.

Actually you just did the trivializing for me with your comment, "To what end?".

Until the text of the conversations are made public there's no there there.
 
Actually you just did the trivializing for me with your comment, "To what end?".

Until the text of the conversations are made public there's no there there.

Actually I did not. I asked why Flynn would make that call, that day. Do you know what 'trivialize' means? When I asked the question I was pretty much opposite of trivializing it. I was giving it importance.
And I don't know what 'there there' means, unless you're comforting a kid with a scraped knee. But I agree the transcript of the conversation should be made public. Do you see that happening, any time soon?
 
We know he was paid by the Russian government owned TV. Supposedly for a speech, but he also sat next to Putin while there. He also violated the law by taking anything form a foreign government without getting permission from the military. that is part of the requirements when he retired.
 
Last edited:
What do you call firing the three people who were investigating the possible Trump-Russia connection.

Well, since this statement is utterly false, do you want to rethink?
 
Back
Top Bottom