This Michael Flynn guy just can't stop committing treason

[septimus]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

So even judges trained in the relevant laws may use the word “treason” in its non-legal sense in a critical legal opinion.

Well … only because Bricker wasn’t in that courtroom!

[dropzone]

@Belowjob2.0

The prosecution being driven by Roy Cohn, close friend and mentor of you-know-who.

Voldemort?

[Ravenman]

CNN is reporting on TV now that the House Intelligence Committee chairman doesn’t think that an investigation of Flynn’s conduct is warranted, but that there ought to be an investigation of the leaks that brought Flynn’s phone calls to light.

Jee. Bus. Christ.

[septimus]

@Bricker

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.

So, Republican silence in a case of clearcut subversion, of passing secrets to our strategic enemy, rises to nearly the same level of hypocrisy as Democratic silence in the face of Hillary’s many perjuries, her Massacre in Benghazi, selling child sex slaves, and so much more? Say it isn’t so!

***Who coulda thunk it? ***

[BobLibDem]

@Bricker

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.

Yes to all that. Everyone agrees that Hillary did something quite boneheaded with her own server. Anything that has security implications should be on the government servers with the dedicated professional staff to keep it from being hacked. Had she done a big mea culpa when this first broke and devoted a news conference just to that issue, she might have put it behind her. But it was a risk that didn’t need to be taken. Some of the hell she caught was quite justified. But I don’t see criminal intent, just carelessness. Flynn, however, seems to me to be an order of magnitude in greater seriousness. This seems to be intentional misdeeds and deliberate lying. Time for investigations.

[Bricker]

@BobLibDem

But I don’t see criminal intent, just carelessness. Flynn, however, seems to me to be an order of magnitude in greater seriousness. This seems to be intentional misdeeds and deliberate lying. Time for investigations.

Agreed. Clinton’s lies, to the extent they were lies, came about in an ill-advised effort to minimize a scandal (one that was fed by right wing witch-hunting in the first place). Flynn’s lies were apparently started before there was any public knowledge of the issue. I absolutely agree that investigations are called for.

[Bricker]

@septimus

So, Republican silence in a case of clearcut subversion, of passing secrets to our strategic enemy, rises to nearly the same level of hypocrisy as Democratic silence in the face of Hillary’s many perjuries, her Massacre in Benghazi, selling child sex slaves, and so much more? Say it isn’t so!

***Who coulda thunk it? ***

It isn’t so. Certainly that bears little resemblance to what I said.

[Bricker]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

So even judges trained in the relevant laws may use the word “treason” in its non-legal sense in a critical legal opinion.

Sure. Because the metaphor was clear when the judge said it. The indictment did not charge treason; the jury did not convict on treason.

@Bricker

It’s not. Neither of your examples is treason, except in a metaphoric sense.

(emphasis added)

[Belowjob2.0]

@dropzone

Voldemort?

**The King in Orange.
**

[Count_Blucher]

So, who will replace him? Vice Admiral Bob Harwood?
Bob…! Bob…! Bob…!
Bob Or You’re Canned…?
Bob…! Bob…! Bob…!
Bob Or You’re Canned…!

Bob Or Canned…!
You’re Our Bald Man…!
Bob Or Canned…!
You Better Suck it Til Don’s Reelin
Its Your Pension (can You Feel It?)

Bob or Canned
Bob…! Bob…!
Bob…! Bob…! Or Canned…!

[steronz]

@Ravenman

CNN is reporting on TV now that the House Intelligence Committee chairman doesn’t think that an investigation of Flynn’s conduct is warranted, but that there ought to be an investigation of the leaks that brought Flynn’s phone calls to light.

Jee. Bus. Christ.

Yes, this is the current spin. Trump tweeted about “the real story” being the leaks this morning.

Trump conducts business carelessly, he’s left massive numbers of senior positions empty, he doesn’t attend meetings, he’s ill-informed of what his agencies are doing, his agencies are ill-informed of what he’s doing… in short, this is the sort of dysfunctional administration that encourages leaks. How he thinks that highlighting all of this is a way to save face is just beyond me.

In a functional organization, employees are comfortable addressing their concerns via the chain of command with assurances that they’ll be dealt with fairly and without retribution. Lacking that organization strength, this is what we get.

And conducting intelligence briefings under a tent at his resort in plain view of random guests doesn’t help. :smack:

[septimus]

@Bricker

It isn’t so. Certainly that bears little resemblance to what I said.

Oh. So Republican hypocrisy does NOT rise to almost the same level as Democratic hypocrisy.

Whew. You had us worried there.

[Okrahoma]

@septimus

of passing secrets to our strategic enemy

I am sorry, I may have missed that. Which secrets were passed?

[Bricker]

@septimus

Oh. So Republican hypocrisy does NOT rise to almost the same level as Democratic hypocrisy.

Whew. You had us worried there.

Who are you talking to? You quote my posts, but then respond to some point you have either created yourself or taken from another set of words. But clearly you don’t need my input; you’re furnishing both sides of this conversation yourself.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

Well, now we see the actual problem here.

It’s not that Flynn had talks with the Russians about relaxing sanctions, even before Trump was sworn in, and before Flynn had a government role. Despite the fact that this is against the law (but that does not count anyway, as apparently it’s OK to break a law if you probably won’t be prosecuted).

Nope, that’s not of concern at all, really.

The ACTUAL problem is that someone leaked the fact that Flynn had secret talks with the Russians, and lied to Pence about that. The most important thing is tofind the person who revealed the truth to the public, and punish them.

Trump himself tweeted:

“The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington?”

The real story.

THE REAL STORY.

Why does the media publish stories about the National security advisor who secretly conspired with the Russians, when the real story is that someone is telling the truth, and must be punished?

[Ravenman]

Yeah, septimus, even I have lost touch of your train of thinking. Next you’re going to start accusing Flynn and the Russian ambassador of running a child porn ring out of borscht restaurant.

[Monty]

@SingleMalt

Oh, look! Swamp draining! I was wondering when that would get started.

Draining or simply overflowing?

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Bricker

I absolutely agree that investigations are called for.

Oh, Trump has called for an investigation all right. Don’t worry, they’ll find the person who leaked the truth, and punish them.

[Monty]

Trump thinks the real story is why are there so many leaks? News media have already covered that and determined the answer: Trump is incompetent.

[raventhief]

The real story isn’t what Flynn did, it’s that we find out about it. Yep. Makes perfect sense.