- Joined
- Apr 20, 2018
- Messages
- 10,257
- Reaction score
- 4,161
- Location
- Washington, D.C.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Part I of II:
Most English verbs have substantively the same meaning in their transitive and intransitive forms. "Compromise" is not one of those verbs. The difference in meaning is essential to connecting the dots regarding the Trump team's campaign and subsequent dissembling, for the instant one lies, one is compromised with regard to others who know the truth and who are willing to abide and abet one's misrepresentation of it.
Yesterday morning I created a thread, "The Dots are Getting Connected," and therein I showed that Trump, in 2015 & 2016, sought to erect a Trump Tower Moscow (TTM) property and he aimed to do so with financing provided by VTB Bank, which is a state-run Russian bank that had been, pursuant to an executive order, sanctioned, thus prohibiting Trump from lawfully accepting a >90-day loan from VTB.
Alas, there were ways to overcome that impediment:
It's important to note that Russia didn't much care what means removed the sanctions; they just want them gone, and understandably so, for they knew then what has come to pass....the sanctions would have the desired effect.
Sounds far-fetched, but let's consider the nexus of activities pertaining to VTB Bank, Russian Sanctions, and Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
...But Flynn and McFarlands dissembling followed the election. What about before?
(continued due to character limit)
Most English verbs have substantively the same meaning in their transitive and intransitive forms. "Compromise" is not one of those verbs. The difference in meaning is essential to connecting the dots regarding the Trump team's campaign and subsequent dissembling, for the instant one lies, one is compromised with regard to others who know the truth and who are willing to abide and abet one's misrepresentation of it.
Yesterday morning I created a thread, "The Dots are Getting Connected," and therein I showed that Trump, in 2015 & 2016, sought to erect a Trump Tower Moscow (TTM) property and he aimed to do so with financing provided by VTB Bank, which is a state-run Russian bank that had been, pursuant to an executive order, sanctioned, thus prohibiting Trump from lawfully accepting a >90-day loan from VTB.
Alas, there were ways to overcome that impediment:
- Convince Russia to withdraw from and return Crimea to Ukraine --> This is the only option to which Russia would likely object.
- Convince Ukraine and most NATO nations to "get over" Russia's annexation of Crimea
- Convince the then-extant Administration to rescind the sanctions
- Apply one's own resources to becoming the POTUS and then remove the sanctions
It's important to note that Russia didn't much care what means removed the sanctions; they just want them gone, and understandably so, for they knew then what has come to pass....the sanctions would have the desired effect.
- This time, sanctions on Russia are having the desired effect
- Sanctions after Crimea: Have they worked?
Sounds far-fetched, but let's consider the nexus of activities pertaining to VTB Bank, Russian Sanctions, and Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
- Michael Flynn (the assertions below are found in the Flynn charging, statement of offense and plea agreement documents)
- Flynn lied to the FBI about, and later pled guilty to doing so, whether he'd had discussions with Russian officials about the nature and extancy of US sanctions.
- Flynn pled guilty also to lying about having bid the Russians not to retaliate against the Dec. 2016 sanctions and diplomat ejections, and the reason he implored them not to retaliate was because the Trump Admin would dissolve the sanctions. (Note: We'll likely learn more about the nature of the lie/conversations this coming Tuesday at Flynn's sentencing hearing.)
- Why would Flynn, or anyone who was the incoming head of the NSC lie about having had such discussions as well as about their nature?
- As the incoming NSC head, he wouldn't be prosecuted under the Logan Act because there's a prima facie reason for such a person to have such discussions. Accordingly, it strains credulity to think he'd lie about it were the talks' nature pursuant to some aspect of US national security/policy. Thus there must be some other reason to need to keep secret from the FBI and the American people the very existence of the talks and their nature.
- KT McFarland: Ms. McFarland, like Flynn also lied about having knowledge of the sanctions talks. She lied to the FBI, US Senate, reporters and the American people about them and what she knew about them.
...But Flynn and McFarlands dissembling followed the election. What about before?
(continued due to character limit)