It seems unlikely that Trump was aware that a counter-reaction was the expected norm, at the time. I don’t see any other explanation of that tweet which isn’t an admission of the talks going on between Trump’s people and Putin’s.
Looking back, it turns out that Trump posted this on the same day that Putin announced that he wouldn’t respond to Obama’s retaliation. So the lack of a response was probably public knowledge when he tweeted that, so it may be less damning then it appears.
However it does seem odd that he referred to it as a delay. Why would you refer to a lack of response as a delay? Could it indicate that he knew that Flynn had asked Putin to delay any response until after the inauguration?
I like that he ends it as a campaign stump speech for Trump.
If nothing else, he made “in like Flynn” a sarcastic expression going forward.
I’m wondering about the wording of Flynn’s resignation letter. He says that he “inadvertently briefed the Vice President elect and others with incomplete information”. If one of the “others” included the president, wouldn’t he have said that specifically? Seems like the “and others” is a bit weaselly at this stage of the game.
I really don’t think Flynn authored the letter.
Of course not, his lawyers would have been the ones to put in the weasel words.
You’ve misunderstood what I said about speculation.
What I’ve said in this thread is that the notion that Trump had some sort of improper relationship with the Russians is completely based on speculation. (No idea where you picked up the stuff about “we don’t need to be concerned …” from.)
What you’ve produced to ostensibly counter that is itself merely more speculation, specifically that Trump doesn’t want to show his tax forms because they contain evidence of his improper relationship with the Russians. The fact that the best you could do is to engage in further speculation bolsters my point that there’s nothing else besides speculation, instead of countering that point.
Then perhaps we should investigate what has happened. Nah, of course not! But we will be investigating the real crime here, which is the leaks of the crime.
I don’t care about Flynn. I think he’s just a distraction for the real issue: What did Clinton know about Benghazi and her emails?
:dubious:
It’s a valid inference from the fact he’s crawled into bed with Putin.
Indeed. The REAL STORY, according to Trump, is that there is someone in the White House who is telling the truth. This person must be found and punished, because that is not what Trump stands for. Also, Trump is likely shit-scared, because there are plenty more stories of his people working closely with the Russians, both before and immediately after the election. He wants the FBI to find the leaker before more truth comes out.
“What did the President know, and when did he know it?”
Are Republicans delaying the inevitable, or is there a chance they can actually pull off not investigating that the President of the United States has concrete links to Russia?
It’s not really “speculation” when all the evidence, although not yet conclusive, points in that direction.
At this point, it is still no more than speculation.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, let’s see what he does with this now:
True enough, but there are a number of reasons why that speculation has been occurring.
Obfuscation.
This just happens to give him the opportunity to be tough on Russia to show that he’s not a puppet. Amazing coincidence.
North Korea is shooting off missiles. Iran is taunting Navy ships in the Persian Gulf. Russia is violating treaties. Terrorists are massacring civilians in Bowling Green. I’m glad we have Trump’s steady, tiny hands at the wheel in these troubling times.