Rep. Adam Schiff (D-MA) revealed allegations on Monday that President Donald Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Flynn, may have tried to hide his unofficial discussions with Russia by using encryption technology.Speaking to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Schiff explained that the Trump administration was not labeling allegations against Flynn as “fake news” because U.S. intelligence agencies may have audio recordings of him speaking to Russian officials while President Barack Obama was still in office.
“They know that if there is a transcript, if there are recordings, that can’t be dismissed,” Schiff said. “The fact that they would mislead the country about this is inexplicable.”
Sounds like a Democrat is throwing **** hoping it will stick. The smoking gun as far as the article goes is simply Trump isn't calling fake news so it had to of happened.
More grist for the mill. It is time the GOP Congress begins to advocate for real and independent investigations concerning Trump's inexplicable connection to Putin. Flynn is just one more reason but is not a reason to be ignored. How long can the Republican controlled Congress continue to turn its head and remain silent?
Source
[/FONT][/COLOR]
Wouldn't encryption be standard for high-level diplomatic discussions? I imagine the Russians, and anyone else, would expect such.
The guy overstepped his bounds by doing it and then lied by omission to the VP regarding it. Grounds for firing? Yes, if the administration finds it so. Grounds for hyperbole about the state of the administration? No.
He was no diplomat when he reportedly made the telephone calls. Hyperbole? I think not.
I'm sure the Russian, and any other, official would expect encryption. I think it's S.O.P. for high level diplomatic discussion, whether or not an individual is technically a diplomat.
Using this event to claim the administration is in chaos (or other such dramatic characterization) is, in my opinion, unfounded hyperbole.
If he was involved in diplomatic discussions with the Russians as a civilian at the minimum he broke federal law.
When I spoke with high level Chinese engineers (while in Kenya) regarding North Korea and the importance of China helping to move that country into the modern world socially, did I break federal law?
Were you speaking on behalf of the US government at the time? If so, then yes.
Without claiming any official designation as such (same as Flynn), I was doing so as much as he was. Anyone could have said "hey, Trump will be different so chill out for a minute".
Do you have any knowledge of what he talked to the Russian Ambassador about or whether or not he was representing Trump?
The available knowledge is: he told the Russian ambassador to chill out for a minute because Trump will be different than Obama. Anyone could do the same, without any claim of official designation in representing the US government.
Unless you have information that no one else in the public has...
I don't and apparently neither do you so whether or not your little anecdotal tale and Flynn's situation are the same is unknown.
Well, you can fantasize about whatever you want, but the known facts are exactly what I have represented and my analogy is right on.
All of those officials said *Flynn’s references to the election-related sanctions were explicit. Two of those officials went further, saying that Flynn urged Russia not to overreact to the penalties being imposed by President Barack Obama, making clear that the two sides would be in position to review the matter after Trump was sworn in as president. “Kislyak was left with the impression that the sanctions would be revisited at a later time,” said a former official.
More grist for the mill. It is time the GOP Congress begins to advocate for real and independent investigations concerning Trump's inexplicable connection to Putin. Flynn is just one more reason but is not a reason to be ignored. How long can the Republican controlled Congress continue to turn its head and remain silent?
Source
[/FONT][/COLOR]
That sounds a lot more than just "chill, things will be different" and your little analogy is nothing like what happened here.
It's exactly "chill, things will be different".
No it isn't.
Flynn urged Russia not to overreact to the penalties being imposed by President Barack Obama, making clear that the two sides would be in position to review the matter after Trump was sworn in as president.
Your citation:
That's exactly: "chill, things will be different under Trump". Any one of us could have made the same claim, to the Russian ambassador, under no official designation.
With that being said, after reading some of your threads today it's clear you're in one of your moods.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?