Monday, February 13, 2017

Democrats Want Michael Flynn Gone

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Despite being a Trump employee, Mike Flynn is a Democrat.  That doesn't matter.  He was picked by the hated Trump, so Flynn is now a target.  Flynn was Trump's national security adviser during the campaign, and then was picked by President Trump to do the same officially.  However, now the Democrats are calling for Flynn to be removed from his post because he allegedly discussed sanctions with a Russian ambassador before taking office.

While I believe this to be a reach, remember, it is the Democrats who believe Russia loves Trump, and influenced an election to get the billionaire into office.  It doesn't matter if it is a bunch of made-up, cartoonish fantasy, it sounds so good to the Democrats that they've gotten to the point that they even believe their own lies.

The problem goes beyond what Flynn may have done, but that he may have lied to Congress about doing it, as well.  The reports that he had discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador to Washington before taking office are contrary to his earlier adamant denials.

Lying is a big deal to Democrats, unless you are a Democrat and lie about getting a hummer in the Oval Office by Monica Lewinsky.  Of if you lie about email servers, or Benghazi, or if you'll lose your doctor, or ...

The evidence against Flynn comes from leaks from current and former officials, and suggests that the former general and Russian officials were talking  long before the November election that put Donald J. Trump in the White House.
Both the Washington Post and the New York Times reported that Flynn talked to the Russian ambassador, Sergei Kisilyak, about forthcoming sanctions from the Obama administration in response to Russian electoral meddling. The allegations led to calls from Democrats for Flynn to be dismissed while some prominent Republicans were tepid in their support.
... Because, we know we can trust the Post and the Times to pursue journalistic integrity when reporting about people they don't like, right?

“The allegation that General Flynn, while President Obama was still in office, secretly discussed with Russia’s ambassador ways to undermine the sanctions levied against Russia for its interference in the presidential election on Trump’s behalf, raises serious questions of legality and fitness for office,” said Adam Schiff, the Democratic ranking member of the House intelligence committee, in a written statement.

Senator Mike Rounds, a Republican from South Dakota, told CNN that it was up to Trump what happened with Flynn, saying that if the country had been misled, “we would expect the president to take appropriate actions”.

When asked by reporters aboard Air Force One about the report, Trump replied: “I don’t know about that. I haven’t seen it. What report is that? I haven’t seen that. I’ll look into that.”

We need evidence.  Is it hearsay, or solid fact?  While I am not suggesting Flynn is completely innocent, I can't say he is guilty, either.  Rather than jumping the gun and trying to influence public opinion before the facts are all known, let's investigate, and then go from there.

The denials, after all, are still in place.  It worked for Bill Clinton, it worked for Hillary Clinton, and it worked for Barack Obama - deny, deny, deny... yet we are supposed to hammer Flynn as guilty without all of the facts being known?

The reports say the conversations were monitored.  Flynn, a former Defense Intelligence Agency chief, knew his discussion would be monitored.  While he says it was an exchange of Christmas greetings, the allegations say that though Flynn had not gone as far as pledging the sanctions would be reversed, he had raised that possibility. If true, the conversation could be a breach of the Logan Act, a 1799 law prohibiting private citizens from negotiating with countries with which the U.S. is in dispute.

An investigation is still under way by several intelligence agencies into Russian hacking of the election and possible collusion between the Trump camp and Moscow, so why not throw this Michael-Flynn-log on the fire, too?  After all, the Democrats are looking at any and every way they can to squeeze in and sabotage the Trump presidency.

Susan Hennessey, a former NSA lawyer now at the Brookings Institution, said: “The FBI doesn’t really investigate Logan Act violations. If there’s an ongoing inquiry two months on, it’s a counter-intelligence investigation.”

“We are very discouraged that week after week goes by and that panel … has not been convened,” Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, said. “A lot of us wonder if it is just an effort to delay and delay and delay until no one is interested in this any longer.”

While the Democrats try to create doubts and chaos around the Trump administration, and have done what they can to make sure that his cabinet secretaries continue to fight for confirmation, and only a few deputy secretaries have even been nominated, Trump is trudging along.  It is war, in the minds of the Democrats, and they will do anything to be obstructionists. . . after accusing the Republicans of being the same over the last four years, and calling them unpatriotic for being so.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

No comments: