It’s trending on Twitter. You inspired me to make a pair of meme’s - the Tavern, and Errol.
Images on Twitter for #OutLikeFlynn.
Ah, I love the euphemisms for lying.
We’ve had “That statement is now inoperative” , and “The president misspoke himself” from the Watergate era"
We’ve enjoyed “That was not intended to be a factual statement” from Republican Sen. Jon Kyl
Now from Flynn, we have “I inadvertently briefed the Vice President-elect and others with incomplete information.” AKA, “I told them a bunch of lies”
You forgot “alternative facts”. This administration is great! For Saturday Night Live. The rest of us are screwed.
“That’s not a lie, it’s a terminological inexactitude.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/us/politics/donald-trump-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn.html?_r=0
(emphasis gleefully added)
Interesting, I was just reading the Friday paper herein Israel, and their political analyst - who knows what he’s talking about - mentioned that the Israeli defense establishment had a huge amount of respect for James Mattis, and “much less” respect for Flynn.
I think it is extremely unlikely that Flynn made contact with the Russian government without having been instructed to by Trump. I think it’s time we found out what the president knew and when he knew it.
Those laws you linked to are part of the Espionage Act.
Beats me. All I had was “Our Canned Flynn” (2017) (comedy)
~missed the edit window~
de Havilland: “Why, you speak treason!”
Flynn: “Fluently.”
Good to get one Putin pet out, but we’re going to be stuck with General BetrayUs instead. All Putin has to do is find a Natasha to bed down with him and he might as well have an office in the Situation Room. If there’s a smoking gun that leads to a Big Orange resignation/impeachment, I’ll go to church every Sunday, I promise.
I feel sad for Flynn. He commits a little light espionage for his boss, and gets thrown under the bus as soon as it comes to light. All that time spent leading “lock her up!” chants, and this is how they repay him.
<Nixon flashback>
Has our so-called President himself made any statement/comment about Flynn’s resignation? No 3 am tweet on the subject? This must make him furious, because it strikes at the heart of what is most important to him: APPEARANCES. He’s got to scrape all the Flynn cooties off of himself pronto. I’m looking forward to the tap dance he’s going to do, especially the part where he spins on one foot.
There’s just no fucking justice. Oh…wait.
Several Republicans have been on CNN this morning. All seem very blasé about the whole thing.
Lots of talking of moving forward and “we must protect the country” crap. Nothing about protecting the country from Russian influence.
Remarkable how forgiving they can be.
When the shoe is on that foot, they are. However, Hillary’s emails were going to force our Boy Scouts into gay Muslim marriages.
It’s okay when Republicans do it.
Can you imagine what they would have done to Obama? Or, God forbid, Hillary, had she been elected? Remember Bill Clinton’s run-in with Loretta Lynch at the airport-- that was clearly a conspiracy to undermine the entire gummint of these United States.
Sally Yates was the acting attorney General who warned the White House about Flynn, right? And she’s the one Trump fired for “betraying” him over the Muslim ban? She’s got to have a spot high in the Enemies List.
Oh, look! Swamp draining! I was wondering when that would get started.
These observations are, in my view, absolutely correct. The outrage over Secretary Clinton’s e-mail server was supposedly engendered (at least in large measure) on how hackable it was and how foreign powers must have compromised it.
Here we have a situation in which secret information was clearly conveyed to foreign powers, not just as a matter of supposition.
And the reaction is muted, or non-existent, from the Right.
People chide me for pointing out liberal hypocrisy, although I’ve never understood why. A simple accusation of hypocrisy, to be sure, is simply a special case of an ad hominem attack. But highlighting hypocrisy in the context of a specific debate issue is not ad hominem nor is it tu quoque (another accusation I get). Instead, it’s an observation that the speaker is concealing the real substance that animates his argument.
We see it here, from the right wing. A congressman that inveighed against Clinton and then inveighs as strongly, or more so, against Flynn, can be fairly assumed to be sincere: he is against careless disclosure of national secrets. (As well he should be!)
But a congressman who inveighs strongly against Clinton and finds no reason to speak against Flynn invites a different conclusion: his argument was never really about secrecy and the proper handling of classified material or U.S. secrets. His argument was actually that Clinton needed to be attacked, with any believable pretext.
This is why debate so often fails to change minds here. The weight of Clinton’s supposed failures could be dissected and weighed, the possible harm and the lack of material violation of the law be exposed, and still no minds changed, because the argument was never really that Clinton broke the law or endangered secrets.
The real argument was that Clinton needed to be attacked.
For this reason, not tu quoque, I believe it’s valuable to identify hypocrisy when it appears.
Kellyanne looks WAY less confident in her interview this morning. No smug smile as she tries unsuccessfully to spin this thing.