Democrats & Liberals Archives

Michael Flynn broke the law


I see no data to support the notion that Gen. Flynn complied with the law
— Jason Chaffetz

And so, another shoe drops on the investigation into inappropriate contacts between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and foreign interests in Russia and Turkey.

Posted by Warren Porter at April 25, 2017 1:26 PM
Comments
Comment #415514

Wow…to call that a “shoe drop” sounds like desperation to me.

Let’s suppose Flynn didn’t receive permission for these speeches for which he received about $33,000. To quote former VP Biden; Big F*cking Deal.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 25, 2017 3:28 PM
Comment #415520

Rule of law is most definitely a Big Fucking Deal.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 25, 2017 4:17 PM
Comment #415521

WP,
Both Flynn & Manafort have already acknowledged their guilt. According to the Foreign Agent Registration Act, a foreign agent has ten days to disclose their relationship with a foreign power when acting on their behalf, including financial activities. Both Flynn & Manafort registered two years after they were required to do so. Both are subject to fines and five year prison sentences. By filing two years later, they might expect some leniency.

Flynn took $67,000 from the Russians. This violates the emoluments clause of the Constitution. The money came from the Russian propaganda television station, Russia Today, as well as an airline and a cyber security firm. Flynn received additional money in the form of free airfare and hotel stays.

Flynn also acted on behalf of the Turkish government. He was participating in a plan to kidnap a Turkish cleric and send him back to Turkey.

He has already requested immunity and been denied it for now.

Manafort took very large amounts of money ($1.2 million or more) from the pro-Russian Ukrainian president, a Putin ally.

Unless Flynn and Manafort work an immunity deal- perhaps one that involves handing over Trump- both will face jail time.

They acted against the interests of the United States, on behalf of a foreign power. And yes, that is a big deal.

Posted by: phx8 at April 25, 2017 4:21 PM
Comment #415522

They acted against the interests of the United States, on behalf of a foreign power. And yes, that is a big deal.
Posted by: phx8 at April 25, 2017 4:21 PM

What exactly was against the “interests of the United States”? Not asking permission?

I posted the following yesterday on the Independent column. This traitor Obama sold America down the drain definitely against the “interests of the United States”.

Obama’s hidden Iran deal giveaway

By dropping charges against major arms targets, the administration infuriated Justice Department officials — and undermined its own counter-proliferation task forces.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/24/obama-iran-nuclear-deal-prisoner-release-236966

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 25, 2017 4:39 PM
Comment #415523

RF,
Don’t change the subject. No ‘whataboutism.’ No false equivalents or conspiracy theories.

A foreign payment to Flynn violates the emoluments clause of the Constitution.

At this point we are not even talking about what he may have done in exchange for payments. There are accusations about what he discussed in five phone calls with the Russian Ambassador in late December. There is the one, and only one, change that the Trump campaign made to the Republican Platform concerning policy towards the Ukraine. There are concerns about cooperation between the Trump team and the Russians to influence the election, and there is absolutely no reason to believe Russian attempts to influence us stopped on January 21st.

And this problem is far from over. The Russians openly supported the white nationalist in France, Marine La Pen, and she is in a run-off against one other candidate. The Russians attacked the other candidate in ways very similar to the ways they attacked Hillary Clinton. Whether it ultimately works in France or not remains to be seen.

They may target certain US Senators in 2018. They may target Congressmen. There MUST be a heavy price to be paid for any Americans working with the Russians to influence the outcomes of our elections.

Posted by: phx8 at April 25, 2017 5:09 PM
Comment #415524

If Flynn and Manafort did something stupid then they will pay. That doesn’t mean Trump had privy to their misdeeds or anyone else in the administration. You Democrats have no room to talk, you all have skeletons in your closets.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 25, 2017 5:19 PM
Comment #415525

phx8 implores me not to “change the subject” as he knows there is no defense for the Traitor Obama selling America down the drain for some false belief of legacy enhancement.

If Flynn violated a law, let the law judge his actions not some doltish bunch of Left-wing dingbats.

phx8 is so discombobulated by Trump winning the election and the Republicans controlling both the House and Senate that he is attempting to link possible “emolument” abuse with conspiracy.

It is terrible to read the wild accusations thrown about by phx8 and other Lefty’s simply to assuage their failures.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 25, 2017 5:23 PM
Comment #415526

KAP,
“If Flynn and Manafort did something stupid then they will pay.”

There is no ‘if.’ They failed to register as foreign agents within 10 days. They did register two years after the fact, and then, only when it was publicly revealed by the media. They will pay. Now it is just a matter of the price.

“That doesn’t mean Trump had privy to their misdeeds or anyone else in the administration.”

True. But given Trump’s refusals to criticize Putin, his claims about his close relationship with Putin made in 2013 and 2014 which he later denied, his appeal to Russia to release HRC’s e-mails, and so on, it would certainly be reasonable to ask the question.

“You Democrats have no room to talk, you all have skeletons in your closets.”

More ‘whataboutism.’ Wrong is wrong. What is going on with Flynn & Manafort is wrong. It appears the wrongdoing extends beyond those two. The FBI is continuing a criminal investigation into cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russians. We will see.

RF,
“If Flynn violated a law…”

Again, there is no ‘if.’ There is only a question of how Flynn and Manafort will be punished, or if they receive immunity.

Posted by: phx8 at April 25, 2017 5:46 PM
Comment #415527

As usual, following the example of Obama, my Pals on the Left are rushing to judgement.

Have charges even been filed? Has there been a plea? Has there been a verdict?

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 25, 2017 5:58 PM
Comment #415528

phx8, Have they been charged yet? NO THEY HAVE NOT. So it is still “IF”. If they are charged they still are innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. I still think it works that way in this country phx8.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 25, 2017 6:07 PM
Comment #415529

By the way…
Chaffetz, the Republican head of the Oversight Committee, refused to do anything whatsoever about the Trump administration. Last week, Chaffetz made a surprise announcement that he would not run for re-election. He swore he was healthy. He claimed it was to be closer to his family, but he will be an empty nester after this term. Perhaps someone offered him a lot of money to be a lobbyist. But it seems like quite a coincidence that he did nothing for months, and suddenly comes after Flynn.

KAP,
If someone files paperwork documenting they broke the law by failing to register as a foreign agent in a timely fashion, it’s a little late to start talking about innocence.

Posted by: phx8 at April 25, 2017 6:12 PM
Comment #415530

phx8, Have they been arrested or charged? I agree the evidence is damning but until they are arrested and charged they are presumed innocent. That is how it works in the United States.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 25, 2017 6:32 PM
Comment #415531

The biggest issue of the day, and the one with the most serious consequences if not handled properly, is being ignored by WB in favor of emoluments.

That issue would be addressing the problem of North Korea and their nuclear weapons and delivery system. From what I have read, it appears that China is finally cooperating with the sane nations of the world in attempting to curb this viscous regime.

I am not prepared to start handing out credit to any person or nation yet. I do believe that a strong response to North Korean belligerence, posturing, and defiance of UN sanctions must be forthcoming now, or it may be too late to resolve this problem without the death of millions.

We must never allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons with which to blackmail the world. I fear that Obama has made that possible.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 25, 2017 6:36 PM
Comment #415532

RF,

There already exists an article regarding North Korea. Please move discussion of that issue there.

KAP,

I agree the evidence is damning but until they are arrested and charged they are presumed innocent. That is how it works in the United States.

The presumption of innocence means that Flynn will not be seeing the inside of a prison cell until he is tried and convicted. But, that does not mean there won’t be political consequences for the Trump administration in the meantime.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 25, 2017 7:26 PM
Comment #415533

But, that does not mean there won’t be political consequences for the Trump administration in the meantime.
Posted by: Warren Porter at April 25, 2017 7:26 PM

Not necessarily Warren. I know for certain that the Left Wing Media will do their best to spin the story and keep it alive, but that story really doesn’t have legs.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 25, 2017 7:33 PM
Comment #415534

Hopefully, if Flynn sees the inside of a prison cell, as Warren suggests, so will Hillary Clinton for her email debacle.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 25, 2017 7:44 PM
Comment #415535

Warped, Was the evidence damning for Hillary? Yes it was . Was she indicted? NO! The same can be for Flynn and Manafort. But you left wingers will push this for the remainder of the Trump administration just like you did during G. W. Bush’s administration. You think right wingers are bad you guys should look in a mirror.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 25, 2017 7:44 PM
Comment #415536

The story doesn’t have legs?

First, cyber attacks and propaganda campaigns are being directed at the French candidate right now, in order to favor the white nationalist, Le Pen, but also to undermine the confidence of the West in its democracies and ability to work together through the EU, NATO, and other organizations.

Second, the attacks of the 2016 campaign in the US were not limited to Wikileaks and the DNC. There were also attacks on state voter databases, including several that were known to be successful. Some individual states were targeted by Russian propaganda on social media to maximize the impact on the election. And it was not just a matter of collaboration between the Trump Campaign and the Russians. The Russians literally targeted Trump as an individual. They knew when he was most likely to look at social media, and at those times they flooded it with ‘fake news.’ We know it worked because Trump repeated some of the falsified stories the next day.

Third, the attacks by the Russians will continue. They are ongoing, and they will intensify in the 2018 midterms, and again for the 2020 general election. Does the story have legs? Oh yeah. It does.

We need to do at least three things: 1) Punish any Americans who cooperated with the Russian cyber attacks and propaganda campaigns. Others must be deterred in the future. Americans who inadvertently fell for the Russian propaganda must be made aware of what such attacks look like; same goes for screening by social media giants such as FB, and 2) Defend ourselves with countermeasures against future attacks, whether it is on presidential candidates, political parties, or voter databases, and 3) go on the offense, and launch cyber counterattacks against foreign adversaries who choose to do this to us.

Posted by: phx8 at April 25, 2017 7:53 PM
Comment #415537
Not necessarily Warren. I know for certain that the Left Wing Media will do their best to spin the story and keep it alive, but that story really doesn’t have legs.

The Right Wing Media did its very best to spin the story regarding the Clintonmail server and keep it alive even though the whole “Lock her up!” meme didn’t really have legs, which was evidenced by the lack of any indictment or prosecution despite the fact that the investigation ended long ago and the DOJ is firmly within GOP control.

Regardless of the outcome, this revelation is servery damning for the Trump administration, even if they were not actively colluding with hostile foreign governments. The best scenario for Trump is that this is all a result of incompetence rather than treason, which is nothing to brag about. Americans will wonder, if Trump can’t be trusted to properly vet his own National Security Advisor, how can he be trusted to establish the proper procedures for vetting refugees or other immigrants?

Hopefully, if Flynn sees the inside of a prison cell, as Warren suggests, so will Hillary Clinton for her email debacle.
Because James Comey believed there was insufficient evidence to indict Hillary Clinton last summer does not mean he won’t reach a different conclusion when deciding whether or not to recommend prosecution for Flynn. It really is an apples & oranges situation. Posted by: Warren Porter at April 25, 2017 8:29 PM
Comment #415538

Warped, The same could go for Flynn and Manafort, Lynch isn’t AG anymore. If they find sufficient evidence to indict Flynn and Manafort it wouldn’t surprise me if Sessions reopened the Hillary case and did find evidence enough to indict.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 25, 2017 9:28 PM
Comment #415540

“Regardless of the outcome, this revelation is servery damning for the Trump administration”

And that is ALL this whole thing is about: Making people believe President Trump is somehow illegitimate and incompetent.
Not registering to work with foreign governments fast enough? Oh boy, I bet that’s never happened before and that every American thinks that is a huge deal, lol.
Russia posting on social media? OMG! Don’t they know that only our left wing media is allowed to air and post lies in order to push an agenda?
Obama made picks who had ties to the Saudi Arabian government and to the state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corp., who supported 9/11 Truthers, who doled out government contracts in exchange for campaign money, for ‘mismanaging’ taxpayer money, and many who didn’t pay their taxes, but it’s Trump that you can’t trust to properly vet his picks. Lol.

For the past eight years, people have been struggling to work, have had their health insurance skyrocket, have seen their 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendment rights under constant attack, have watched hate groups like BLM bully Americans and get away with acts of domestic terrorism, have seen their cities burn and police unjustly condemned.
They have been fed BS about some special privilege and told that they are entitled to more, or should feel guilty for working hard.
They have been hatefully called racist, sexist and bigots for simply disagreeing with ‘progressive views’ and for daring to hold the same majority held moderate beliefs of a short 10-15 years ago.
But the left thinks partisan rhetoric and rumors of Trump and Russia is what people care about? Lol

I guess after your agenda has been rejected all across the nation, you might as well go with the ‘Red Scare.’

Posted by: kctim at April 26, 2017 9:05 AM
Comment #415541
Both Flynn & Manafort have already acknowledged their guilt.
phx8, Read this article from the Clinton News Network and point out where it says Flynn acknowledged guilt.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politics/michael-flynn-immunity-testimony/

You would think that if Flynn “admitted” guilt it would be front and center in this article and many others and it would be quoted as him saying so. It’s not. There are words like:

murky
suggests
may have been
allegedly

Where does it say Flynn acknowledged guilt?

phx8’s comment looks like Fake News to me. Perhaps phx8 should start backing up his propaganda with links to actual facts. He’s long since proven he’s wrong on most accounts. It’s about time he starts his comments with facts instead of just rattling off accusations.

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 26, 2017 11:53 AM
Comment #415542
Where does it say Flynn acknowledged guilt?

Last year, Flynn said that asking for immunity was tantamount to acknowledging guilt. This year, Flynn asked for immunity. By Flynn’s own metric, he is acknowledging guilt.

Oh boy, I bet that’s never happened before and that every American thinks that is a huge deal, lol.
Is it a big deal if the President’s National Security Advisor lies on SF-86 security clearance forms? Last year you wrote polemic after polemic regarding the sanctity of US classification procedures yet you are suddenly dismissive when it’s a Republican rather than a Democrat under investigation.
Obama made picks who had ties
We aren’t talking about some deputy undersecretary at the department of transportation. We are talking about the President’s National Security Advisor. Twenty-two men and two women have served in this role and none of them were foreign agents.
For the past eight years, people have been struggling to work, have had their health insurance skyrocket, have seen their 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendment rights under constant attack, have watched hate groups like BLM bully Americans and get away with acts of domestic terrorism, have seen their cities burn and police unjustly condemned. They have been fed BS about some special privilege and told that they are entitled to more, or should feel guilty for working hard. They have been hatefully called racist, sexist and bigots for simply disagreeing with ‘progressive views’ and for daring to hold the same majority held moderate beliefs of a short 10-15 years ago. But the left thinks partisan rhetoric and rumors of Trump and Russia is what people care about? Lol

Save your error prone screed for another day. Americans are tired of this bullshit.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 26, 2017 12:43 PM
Comment #415543

It sounds like you have pre-enforcement anxiety, Warren Porter!

Oh My! What’s a snowflake to do?

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 26, 2017 1:07 PM
Comment #415544

Immunity for what?

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 26, 2017 1:13 PM
Comment #415545
I see no data to support the notion that Gen. Flynn complied with the law

In other words,

He must be guilty, because we can’t find any evidence he is innocent.

King George would be proud of Chaffetz, yes?

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 26, 2017 1:19 PM
Comment #415546

Flynn acknowledged guilt when he filed as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agent Registration Act. According to the act, a person has 10 days to file, and disclose their relationship with a foreign power when acting on their behalf, including financial activities. Flynn registered two years after required to do so. He is subject to fines and a five year prison sentence. It is a felony.

Posted by: phx8 at April 26, 2017 2:34 PM
Comment #415547

Aw, Warren, having a bad day? Week? Year? Or did you decide to join the far-left nuts and just simply hate everybody that disagree’s with you?

IF the President’s National Security Advisor lied, he will be punished for it. It’s not like he can pull a Hillary and say he forgot, or was not aware, and not much will be done.
I do indeed still feel very strong about the importance of our classified information, but it’s soooooo much fun watching you guys make fools of yourselves trying to condemn today the things you excused just a short few months ago.
Do you really expect people to take you seriously about failing to fill out paperwork when you defended ignored excused removing classified information off secure servers? LOL

I’m not being dismissive though. IF he violated the rules then he needs to be punished. My ‘screed’ as you called it, though, was merely pointing out why most Americans aren’t buying the lefts BS about this whole Russia thing.

“We aren’t talking about some deputy undersecretary at the department of transportation.”

Nope, we are talking about democrat or Republican, which is why you chose to use such a weak example as undersecretary, lol.
Fact is, BOTH Obama and Trump nominated someone with baggage.

“Save your error prone screed for another day. Americans are tired of this bullshit.”

IF I was in error, the country would be blue and Hillary would be President. Guess what? It’s not.
IF it were all BS, the media and far-left nuts wouldn’t be the only ones talking about it, normal average every day Americans would be joining you. Guess what? They’re not.

I used to think the leftists were all upset because they thought they might lose an entitlement or some special treatment, but I was wrong. They are so upset, hateful and violent because they have been soundly rejected.

Posted by: kctim at April 26, 2017 3:24 PM
Comment #415548

Aw, Warren, having a bad day? Week? Year? Or did you decide to join the far-left nuts and just simply hate everybody that disagree’s with you?

IF the President’s National Security Advisor lied, he will be punished for it. It’s not like he can pull a Hillary and say he forgot, or was not aware, and not much will be done.
I do indeed still feel very strong about the importance of our classified information, but it’s soooooo much fun watching you guys make fools of yourselves trying to condemn today the things you excused just a short few months ago.
Do you really expect people to take you seriously about failing to fill out paperwork when you defended ignored excused removing classified information off secure servers? LOL

I’m not being dismissive though. IF he violated the rules then he needs to be punished. My ‘screed’ as you called it, though, was merely pointing out why most Americans aren’t buying the lefts BS about this whole Russia thing.

“We aren’t talking about some deputy undersecretary at the department of transportation.”

Nope, we are talking about democrat or Republican, which is why you chose to use such a weak example as undersecretary, lol.
Fact is, BOTH Obama and Trump nominated someone with baggage.

“Save your error prone screed for another day. Americans are tired of this bullshit.”

IF I was in error, the country would be blue and Hillary would be President. Guess what? It’s not.
IF it were all BS, the media and far-left nuts wouldn’t be the only ones talking about it, normal average every day Americans would be joining you. Guess what? They’re not.

I used to think the leftists were all upset because they thought they might lose an entitlement or some special treatment, but I was wrong. They are so upset, hateful and violent because they have been soundly rejected.

Posted by: kctim at April 26, 2017 3:43 PM
Comment #415549

By the way, Chaffetz & Cummins from the House Oversight Committee are referring to other matters, in regards to whether Flynn obeyed the law. They requested documents from the White House. The White House said ‘no.’ Spicer went so far as to say there were no documents. Buzz! Wrong answer! Next, Chaffetz & Cummins will go to the White House and inform them they have no choice- they must hand over the documents, and it be better to cooperate. If that doesn’t work, the subpoenas start flying.

This is yet another example of the Trump people obstructing and blocking and stalling, rather than being transparent, demanding everyone in the campaign cooperate, and moving the matter ahead as quickly as possible. Trump and his people act guilty. They may not be. But they sure act like it.

Posted by: phx8 at April 26, 2017 4:16 PM
Comment #415550

From what I’ve gathered the timeline needs to be included in this chain of events.

Flynn complied with the law in part when the transactions were made. Upon learning of an oversight, Flynn, upon advice from his council, complied with the remaining requirements of the law. It was then, after Flynn voluntarily complied with the law, did Democratics charge he broke the law.

It’s not like he lied to cover up his dealings with foreign governments. He wasn’t forced to comply. He simply failed to clear one of the myriad of hurtles put in place by the government of our “free” country.

He voluntarily complied when he was made aware of the requirement. kctim is correct when he says this is about Democrat and Republican and I would expect immunity as well if I was the witch in a witch hunt.

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 26, 2017 4:18 PM
Comment #415551

kctim,

you defended ignored excused removing classified information off secure servers

Stop making up lies. While she did handle classified information improperly, she never removed classified information from a secure server. Clinton and her aids emailed news stories too each other with comments attached. Those comments, which originated from human brains rather than secure servers, confirmed that the US was responsible for drone strikes overseas, which violated classification procedures.

Hillary Clinton’s violation typically merits termination of one’s job and a blackballed career, but not prison time. I considered the situation so severe, that I refused to vote for her. Now, I apply the same logic to Flynn. Just as I castigated Clinton for her foolish decision to use a private email server, I castigate Flynn for operating as a foreign agent and failing to disclose his divided loyalties to the Army Secretary.

I am not enough of an expert to know whether Michael Flynn’s violation was more or less severe than Clinton’s. My gut sense is that Flynn’s violation is more severe because he actively sought to undermine US interests (the very definition of a foreign agent is someone who places another nation’s interests above American interests). Clinton, while irresponsible, never displayed the hostile intent that Flynn seems to have done. Nevertheless, I will leave it to the experts in the Department of Justice to reach their own conclusions. If James Comey comes out and says that Michael Flynn’s violation of the law is no big deal, I will respect that. However, if he recommends prosecution and Jeff Sessions refuses, then I will definitely raise a stink.

However, my reading of the tea leaves is that Flynn will not be prosecuted. His testimony is far too valuable and investigators have far bigger fish to fry.

IF I was in error, the country would be blue and Hillary would be President. Guess what? It’s not.

That’s one of the most fallacious pieces of ‘logic’ I have ever read. In actuality, it is quite possible for you to be in error without Clinton being President. Have you considered the possibility that other Americans may have voted for Republicans for reasons other than the ones you have listed?

OTH Obama and Trump nominated someone with baggage
Neither Susan Rice nor Tom Donilon nor James Jones had baggage.


I used to think the leftists were all upset because they thought they might lose an entitlement or some special treatment, but I was wrong. They are so upset, hateful and violent because they have been soundly rejected.

Actually, the Left is upset because individual rights are being threatened.

WW,
Flynn’s disclosure that he was a foreign agent was no more voluntary than his resignation as NSA. The disclosure was made under duress after Flynn was caught red handed talking about US sanctions with Kislyak. There are no brownie points to be awarded for covering your ass.

It’s not like he lied to cover up his dealings with foreign governments.
Right now, Chaffetz and the oversight committee are trying to get their hands on Flynn’s SF-86. If Flynn’s forms do not disclose the bribes he received from Russia and Turkey then he most definitely did lie in order to cover up his dealings with foreign governments. Posted by: Warren Porter at April 26, 2017 5:24 PM
Comment #415552

Warped, What is it you don’t understand about Classified material on Hillary’s unsecured home brew server?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 26, 2017 5:44 PM
Comment #415553

“My gut sense is that Flynn’s violation is more severe because he actively sought to undermine US interests (the very definition of a foreign agent is someone who places another nation’s interests above American interests).”

Really Warren? Perhaps officials of sanctuary cities, colleges, churches should also be considered to have placed another nation’s interests above American interests. They placed the citizens of another nation, who have broken our laws, in protective places beyond the reach of our laws.

Do my Pals on the Left even understand what a “foreign agent” means in the context of Flynn? Reading some of their comments leads me to assume they think one can register as someone wishing harm to our nation and then, because registered, act with impunity.

Take a better look at what a “foreign agent” is registered to do and how they may legally act on behalf of another nation. There is nothing nefarious at all about the designation “foreign agent”. If that were not true, why the hell would we register folks to act against the United States?

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 26, 2017 5:54 PM
Comment #415554

RF,
Re foreign agent… The designation serves two purposes: 1) it forces lobbyists to openly acknowledge they are working on behalf of a foreign entity, and 2) it can be used as one more tool to prosecute people who fail to declare that they are a foreign agent- what we think of as spies.

It is not illegal to act as a lobbyist for a foreign country. It is illegal to conceal that fact. A person secretly acting to further the interests of another country is essentially a spy.

Flynn ran into trouble with two separate situations. He acted on behalf of the Turkish government. His company was paid $530,000 to advance the interests of Turkey. Flynn went so far as to write an op-ed in NOvember advocating the interests of the Erdogan government:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/foreign-policy/305021-our-ally-turkey-is-in-crisis-and-needs-our-support

This March, the Editor made this clarification:

“Editor’s Note: On March 8, 2017, four months after this article was published, General Flynn filed documents with the Federal government indicating that he earned $530,000 last fall for consulting work that might have aided the government of Turkey. In the filings, Flynn disclosed that he had received payments from Inovo BV, a Dutch company owned by a Turkish businessman with ties to Turkey’s president and that Inovo reviewed the draft before it was submitted to The Hill. Neither General Flynn nor his representatives disclosed this information when the essay was submitted.”

It gets more complicated, because it turns out the company paying Flynn had ties to the Siberian Energy Group, a Russian company run by an oligarch close to Putin.

In addition:

“Former Central Intelligence Agency Director James Woolsey told CNN Friday that former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn met with representatives of the Turkish government in 2016 and discussed potential ways to send a foe of Turkey’s president back to face charges in that country…”

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/25/politics/james-woolsey-mike-flynn-cnntv/

And I haven’t even got to the Russia stuff yet!

Flynn is in deep, and I’m sure his lawyer is right- Flynn “has a story to tell.”

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/25/politics/james-woolsey-mike-flynn-cnntv/

And I’m guessing Flynn regrets leading all those chants to “lock her up.”

Posted by: phx8 at April 26, 2017 6:29 PM
Comment #415555

RF,
Re foreign agent… The designation serves two purposes: 1) it forces lobbyists to openly acknowledge they are working on behalf of a foreign entity, and 2) it can be used as one more tool to prosecute people who fail to declare that they are a foreign agent- what we think of as spies.

It is not illegal to act as a lobbyist for a foreign country. It is illegal to conceal that fact. A person secretly acting to further the interests of another country is essentially a spy.

Flynn ran into trouble with two separate situations. He acted on behalf of the Turkish government. His company was paid $530,000 to advance the interests of Turkey. Flynn went so far as to write an op-ed in NOvember advocating the interests of the Erdogan government:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/foreign-policy/305021-our-ally-turkey-is-in-crisis-and-needs-our-support

This March, the Editor made this clarification:

“Editor’s Note: On March 8, 2017, four months after this article was published, General Flynn filed documents with the Federal government indicating that he earned $530,000 last fall for consulting work that might have aided the government of Turkey. In the filings, Flynn disclosed that he had received payments from Inovo BV, a Dutch company owned by a Turkish businessman with ties to Turkey’s president and that Inovo reviewed the draft before it was submitted to The Hill. Neither General Flynn nor his representatives disclosed this information when the essay was submitted.”

It gets more complicated, because it turns out the company paying Flynn had ties to the Siberian Energy Group, a Russian company run by an oligarch close to Putin.

In addition:

“Former Central Intelligence Agency Director James Woolsey told CNN Friday that former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn met with representatives of the Turkish government in 2016 and discussed potential ways to send a foe of Turkey’s president back to face charges in that country…”

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/25/politics/james-woolsey-mike-flynn-cnntv/

And I haven’t even got to the Russia stuff yet!

Flynn is in deep, and I’m sure his lawyer is right- Flynn “has a story to tell.”

And I’m guessing Flynn regrets leading all those chants to “lock her up.”

Posted by: phx8 at April 26, 2017 6:30 PM
Comment #415556

Thanks for the comments phx8. You certainly read more about this than I do.

Some have suggested that Flynn worked against the interests of the United States. Any factual comments or links on that? Or, do we just have some interesting, but not nefarious, linkage.

You apparently feel about Flynn as I feel about Hillary Clinton. If her name was not Clinton, and if she did not have overwhelming political cover, she would be in a Federal Prison where she belongs.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 26, 2017 6:40 PM
Comment #415557

“A person secretly acting to further the interests of another country is essentially a spy.”

How do you figure that phx8? Doesn’t spying imply providing America’s secrets to another person or nation?

If I were to promote Polish sausage to American buyers would I be a spy?

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 26, 2017 7:02 PM
Comment #415558

RF,
Does Flynn deserve to go to jail? We will see. Probably. I don’t understand how a person in his position, a three star general in Intelligence, could ever do the things he did. I don’t get it.

Manafort is easier to understand. He’s just a sleazy guy who is willing to do anything for money, even lobby for a pro-Russian Ukrainian dictator, and people like that are a dime a dozen. About the only good thing I can say about him is that he sold out for a lot of money. In a different life he would be knocking over a 7/11, or shaking down the elderly for their Social Security. Manafort just happens to wear a suit.

But Flynn was a high ranking general. He knew what he was doing was wrong. He could not possibly be that stupid, or easily duped. And yet, he did it.

Posted by: phx8 at April 26, 2017 8:15 PM
Comment #415559

Prove it. Prove it, because no one else can.

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 26, 2017 8:52 PM
Comment #415560

If you could this wouldn’t be an issue. Flynn would be in jail, like you said.

This is just the Democratics playing the game the Republicans played for the last 8 years. It’s not that anyone is guilty or innocent. It’s about how long and to what end can continuous coverage of an assault be exploited.

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 26, 2017 8:56 PM
Comment #415561

It’s like watching a rape on Facebook.

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 26, 2017 9:07 PM
Comment #415562

Sure are different standards applied to HRC. You southpaws just can’t get the same degree of reasoning between people. I understand all that. You don’t or you are not being honest, truthful, and reasonable. Frankly you are disgusting to sit there and type your dishonesty. Oh, well I know what is truthful whether you do or not.

Good night folks.

Posted by: tom humes at April 26, 2017 11:11 PM
Comment #415563

WW,
If you will recall, Hillary Clinton did everything in her power to expedite the investigations against her. She was forthcoming and cooperative. She asked her staff to do the same.

Trump and his people have done just the opposite. Rather than trying to expedite the investigations into Russian meddling, they have done everything they can to slow the process down. Chairman Nunes cancelled a scheduled public testimony by Acting AG Sally Yates and Clapper, and then tried to justify a Trump tweet about Obama and wiretaps in a totally ridiculous exercise, Stupid Watergate. As a result, Nunes recused himself. In the Senate, the Intel Committee has moved at a snail’s pace. They did that public testimony by cyber warfare experts, which was amazing, but that was it.

Yates and Clapper will give public testimony on May 8th.

Now the White House is refusing to release documents on Flynn. That will not fly. It reeks of a cover up.

The FBI criminal investigation into Russian meddling in the election and cooperation with the Trump campaign is ongoing.
It is true, Flynn & Manafort may not be charged with anything. Everyone might be exonorated. But unlike the House & Senate Intel Committees, the FBI is devoting a LOT of resources to the investigation. It could easily lead down trails that have nothing to do with Trump- there are a lot of hints about the Russian Mafia, American Mafia, and money laundering.

Everyone in the Trump Campaign might be innocent. But they sure act like they are guilty, and they sure give the appearance of covering something up.

Posted by: phx8 at April 26, 2017 11:50 PM
Comment #415577

Let me know when Trump has a contempt charge against him, or when he starts visiting his AG in the back of jetliners.

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 27, 2017 8:51 AM
Comment #415578

Warren,

“Stop making up lies. While she did handle classified information improperly, she never removed classified information from a secure server.”

First: Are you saying that Clinton was the “owning agency” of all those emails? And that the “extremely careless” Clinton put the markings indicating the presence of classified information on those emails?
Second: Reading classified information on a secure server and then discussing that classified information on an non-secure server IS removing it.

“Hillary Clinton’s violation typically merits termination of one’s job and a blackballed career, but not prison time.”

People have, and are, serving time for less.

“Have you considered the possibility that other Americans may have voted for Republicans for reasons other than the ones you have listed?”

Of course. There’s the pro-life crowd, the Constitutional crowd, the anybody but Hillary crowd, etc… The ones I listed though, are all things that the far-left has attacked their fellow Americans and grossly overreached on over the past decade.

“Neither Susan Rice nor Tom Donilon nor James Jones had baggage.”

Richardson and pay to play. Daschle and numerous others failure to pay taxes. Freeman, over questions about payments from the Saudi Arabian government, business ties to the state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corp. Southers and false testimony to Congress.
All bad nominees made by Obama.

“Actually, the Left is upset because individual rights are being threatened.”

Our individual rights have been “being threatened” on a daily basis for decades now, and we both know that you can’t name one actual right that is being threatened more so today than under Obama, so your excuse here is BS.
The far-left is so upset because their agenda of attacking actual individual rights they don’t like was rejected. Because of their agenda of creating special privileges and rights for some and not all, and then disparaging and demeaning those who dare disagree, was rejected.

You’re not going to win by dwelling on some supposed Russia/Trump or fascist conspiracy theory, you’re going to win by appealing to ALL American’s, not just your special interest groups.

Posted by: kctim at April 27, 2017 9:27 AM
Comment #415580
And that the “extremely careless” Clinton put the markings indicating the presence of classified information on those emails?

Monica Hanley is the person who put (C) markings on a memo regarding a phone call with Joyce Banda. The memo was unclassified and the (C) markings were added erroneously. In the words of James Comey, even a person well-versed in US Government classification procedures would reasonably interpret the memo as unclassified because it lacked the necessary headers.

kctim, you are getting very basic facts about the situation wrong. And I don’t mean merely wrong in their interpretation (we can argue whether Clinton or Saucier’s mishandling of classified information was more severe until the cows come home). You are making statements that are categorically false. Normally, I’d kindly correct you and proceed, but given the numerous times we’ve discussed this before, this is clearly indicative of either willful ignorance or cognitive dissonance on your part. Get educated on the basic facts of what happened first, and then we can talk.

Of course. There’s the pro-life crowd, the Constitutional crowd, the anybody but Hillary crowd, etc… The ones I listed though, are all things that the far-left has attacked their fellow Americans and grossly overreached on over the past decade
My opinion is that you and your peers vastly underestimate the power of the “anybody but Hillary crowd”. With Clinton off the ballot in future elections, the current Republican control of government is VERY precarious. Your “error prone screed” from above is an alt-right wet dream with no basis in reality.
All bad nominees made by Obama.
And none nominated to be National Security Advisor.
Our individual rights have been “being threatened” on a daily basis for decades now, and we both know that you can’t name one actual right that is being threatened more so today than under Obama, so your excuse here is BS. The far-left is so upset because their agenda of attacking actual individual rights they don’t like was rejected. Because of their agenda of creating special privileges and rights for some and not all, and then disparaging and demeaning those who dare disagree, was rejected.

Let me say that my conversations with you over the years tells me you have no clue what “actual individual rights” are. The proposition that the far-left attacked individual rights is rubbish. Individual rights and freedoms were far stronger on January 19, 2017 than they were on January 20, 2009. In January 2017, Americans could marry whoever they wanted, without regard to gender or $ex. In January 2017, Americans could use whichever public restroom they wanted, without regard to gender or $ex. In January 2017, Americans had greater confidence that they wouldn’t be subjected to $ex-based pay discrimination. In January 2017, Americans had greater confidence that their property would not be damaged by global warming. None of these were true in January 2009.

The right’s big complaint with Obama was the fact that a tax was levied on Americans who chose not to buy health insurance. Who knew there was an inherent right not to pay taxes? Apparently not John Roberts if you recall. Apart from that, you have a bunch of complaints that amount to people not being allowed to swing their fists into other people’s noses. Sorry, but that’s not how this country works, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose and you better believe it.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 27, 2017 11:21 AM
Comment #415582

WW,

Upon learning of an oversight, Flynn, upon advice from his council, complied with the remaining requirements of the law.

Flynn “learned” his payments were improper in 2014.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 27, 2017 11:52 AM
Comment #415586

“If you will recall, Hillary Clinton did everything in her power to expedite the investigations against her.”

That may be true phx8…but only after she had all the evidence destroyed. I can not count on the finger and toes given to me by God, how many times; as a witness, she claimed she couldn’t remember.

Warren remains confused regarding Constitutional “Rights” and laws passed by congress. His litany of rights concerning gender and s*x are merely an expression of opinion.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 27, 2017 1:24 PM
Comment #415587

RF,

Sometimes, a law is necessary to protect a preexisting right that has been abridged. For instance, the RFRA was passed in 1993 (along with subsequent state laws) in order to help protect the right to freedom of religion.

The same can also be said regarding the previously cited laws or executive actions. These represent the Obama-led government protecting rights established by the Constitution that had previously been ignored.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 27, 2017 1:42 PM
Comment #415588

Warren would have us believe that it took Obama to discover hidden rights within our constitution.

Our Founders openly practiced the exercise of religion on government property. Now, the Left considers that act a violation of the Constitution. Warren is a hypocrite.

Such hubris should be applauded. Clap

Perhaps our Pal on the Left can explain why it is that he joins other in support of ignoring the law when it suits their purpose?

Example: Sanctuary cities. Campus lawbreakers preventing free speech. Rioting demonstrators. Denial of gun rights. Partial birth abortion. Denial of property rights. Denial of the right to work. Denial of voter registration laws.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 27, 2017 1:56 PM
Comment #415589

Warren,

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

“Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail”

“110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received.”

Please explain how Comey’s statements are “categorically false.”

“Your “error prone screed” from above is an alt-right wet dream with no basis in reality.”

Reality shows that Republicans won what, over a 1000 seats over the past decade, before Hillary was on the ballot. Please explain why a Hillary clone will change that.
And ‘alt-right?’ Lol. There’s no need to get childish.

“And none nominated to be National Security Advisor.”

The point is that it is impossible for a President to know about all of a nom’s skeletons, Warren. Unknowns can and do always pop up.

“Let me say that my conversations with you over the years tells me you have no clue what “actual individual rights” are.”

I’ll go toe to toe with you any day about the actual individual rights that are guaranteed in our Constitution, Warren. You won’t be able to hang, but I’ll give you a shot anytime.

“Individual rights and freedoms were far stronger on January 19, 2017 than they were on January 20, 2009. In January 2017, Americans could marry whoever they wanted, without regard to gender or $ex.”

See, you’re already off to a terrible start with this nonsense.
Marriage is a privilege, not a right. As such, it is controlled by rules, and in 2009 every American was bound by the same rules just as they are today.

“In January 2017, Americans could use whichever public restroom they wanted, without regard to gender or $ex.”

Public restrooms are a convenience, not a right. It is the right of the owner to decide which rules he/she places on entry to that convenience.

Women could sue for actual wage discrimination before 2017.
There isn’t any individual right to prevent weather from destroying your personal property.

“The right’s big complaint with Obama was the fact that a tax was levied on Americans who chose not to buy health insurance.”

Correct. Freedom of choice and all.

“Who knew there was an inherent right not to pay taxes?”

Those who understand that taxes are meant to be used to run government, not to redistribute wealth?

“Apart from that, you have a bunch of complaints that amount to people not being allowed to swing their fists into other people’s noses.”

So, my freedom of choice is somehow swinging my fist into your nose, but you using government to force me to do something against my will is “how this country works?”

You have a lot to learn about our Constitution, my friend.

Posted by: kctim at April 27, 2017 2:24 PM
Comment #415591

You have a lot to learn about our Constitution, my friend.
Posted by: kctim at April 27, 2017 2:24 PM

That’s is certainly true kc. Warren is the poster child for an educated Lefty with no political common sense or political reasoning ability. He subscribes to a “living Constitution” in which can be found the belief that if it feels good; it must be good.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 27, 2017 2:57 PM
Comment #415592
it took Obama to discover hidden rights within our constitution.

“Hidden” isn’t terminology I would use, these rights always existed even if the government refused to protect them due to backward beliefs of one kind or another. And it wasn’t

Our Founders openly practiced the exercise of religion on government property. Now, the Left considers that act a violation of the Constitution. Warren is a hypocrite.
From 1780 to 1833, Calvinism was the official state religion in Massachusetts. People living in Massachusetts were required to pay taxes to support their local Parish even if they did not agree with the beliefs professed there. It took the fission of Calvinism into Unitarian and Congregationalist sects in order to disestablish the state church in Massachusetts. That the founders allowed this to happen was a profound flaw on their part and a flagrant violation of the ideals expressed by Thomas Jefferson in his Letter to Danbury Baptists. I do not support repeating the same mistakes today.
Perhaps our Pal on the Left can explain why it is that he joins other in support of ignoring the law when it suits their purpose

Martin Luther King Jr. addressed this question in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. I suggest you read it. The short answer is that your diagnosis “when it suits their purpose” is completely wrong. These decisions are made with regard to principles and values, not cynical power-grabbing.

Likewise, please don’t caricature my beliefs as you have done in many of your “examples”. I am not going to waste my time defending strawmen.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 27, 2017 3:12 PM
Comment #415593

Warren is exposing his ignorance regarding our Founders and the open practice of religion in government owned property before and after the adoption of the Constitution.

The State Becomes the Church: Jefferson and Madison

“It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson’s example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House—a practice that continued until after the Civil War—were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a “crowded audience.” Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.”

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 27, 2017 3:33 PM
Comment #415594
Please explain how Comey’s statements are “categorically false.”

James Comey’s statements have nothing to do with your claim that “Clinton put the markings indicating the presence of classified information on those emails”. Hillary Clinton did not put markings indicating the presence of classified information on those emails. Someone else did (Monica Hanley) and those markings were placed by mistake on unclassified information. I repeat, James Comey acknowledges that it would be reasonable for a person well-versed in US government classification procedures to conclude that those emails were not classified because they lacked a properly formatted header.

The point is that it is impossible for a President to know about all of a nom’s skeletons, Warren. Unknowns can and do always pop up.
Skeletons can be discovered if time and effort is put into searching for them. For banal positions, such effort might not be justified. However, the National Security Advisor is a very special role that requires extra scrutiny. For unknown reasons, Donald Trump did not choose to commit the extra level of scrutiny to Flynn, or if he did, he chose to ignore the skeletons that he found.
Marriage is a privilege, not a right.
Dead wrong. It is a right, not a privilege (see Kennedy’s opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges for an explainer). Not only that, the rules in 2009 were not consistent. In 2009, there were people that could marry me, but could not marry a woman. Now, everyone who can marry me can also marry a woman and vice versa if they so choose.
It is the right of the owner to decide which rules he/she places on entry to that convenience.
No, owners do not have the right to swing their fists into people’s noses. If a choice is made to have a public restroom, that restroom must be available to ALL. Discrimination on the basis of race, creed, gender or other attribute is a violation of fundamental individual rights to equal treatment just as murder is a violation of fundamental rights to life.
You have a lot to learn about our Constitution, my friend.
Speak for yourself. Paying taxes is not a fist swung into the nose, it is “the price we pay for civilized society” in the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Posted by: Warren Porter at April 27, 2017 3:36 PM
Comment #415595
Warren is exposing his ignorance regarding our Founders and the open practice of religion in government owned property before and after the adoption of the Constitution.

Instead making a knee jerk response, how about reading what I actually write? Not only did I acknowledge the practice of religion in government buildings, I mentioned how the Commonwealth of Massachusetts compelled its own citizens to pay taxes in order to financially support the established state religion “Calvinism”.

The founders were wrong to make Calvinism the official religion in Massachusetts just as they were wrong to conduct religious ceremonies in public government buildings. Such hypocrisy is easy to find among the founders, many of whom owned slaves, supported the Alien & Sedition Acts and fought an undeclared war against France.

This isn’t to discredit the wisdom of the Founders entirely, but to simply acknowledge that their interpretations are not infallible.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 27, 2017 3:51 PM
Comment #415596

Warren is making such ignorant statements today. Sure hope he isn’t sick.

He writes the following citing a period covering 1780 to 1833.

“The founders were wrong to make Calvinism the official religion in Massachusetts…”

Does Warren not understand that the “founders” were not called that until they “founded” our nation?

Then, to compound his ignorant statements, he writes; “This isn’t to discredit the wisdom of the Founders entirely, but to simply acknowledge that their interpretations are not infallible.”

Let’s see. The “Founders” got a few things correct when they wrote the documents that founded our nation and by which we still thrive today. Pretty bad stinking thinking, but not as horrendous as this; “are not infallible.”

One must assume that by writing this, Warren attempts to demean their work by implying that they didn’t know what they were writing or that they could not properly interpret their own thoughts.

Friends, it is obvious that my Buddy Warren has really slipped into a world of his own imagination. I suggest Warren take a free course on the Constitution and our founding from Hillsdale College.

http://info.hillsdale.edu/constitution_101_enroll

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 27, 2017 4:11 PM
Comment #415597
Does Warren not understand that the “founders” were not called that until they “founded” our nation?

Calvinism was the official religion in Massachusetts from the moment the US was founded until 1833. I fail to see the point you are trying to make. I don’t know if “founders” was a colloquial term in the antebellum period of its popularity only rose afterwards, but that matter is purely orthogonal to the conversation.

Pretty bad stinking thinking, but not as horrendous as this; “are not infallible.”

Are you arguing that the founding fathers were infallible? If not, what bone do you have to pick with me?

One must assume that by writing this, Warren attempts to demean their work by implying that they didn’t know what they were writing or that they could not properly interpret their own thoughts.

I’m not making the categorical statements you ascribe to me. Most of the time, the founders were perfectly capable of putting their thoughts and ideals into action. However, there are occasions when they fell short of their own aspirations. We are talking about flawed men, not gods.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 27, 2017 4:28 PM
Comment #415600

“Calvinism was the official religion in Massachusetts from the moment the US was founded until 1833. I fail to see the point you are trying to make.”

Warren, you can’t be that ignorant so I must assume that you will not admit to your grievous error. Religious services of all kinds were held in our national buildings by our sitting presidents.

You keep writing about Calvinism and Massachusetts. Why? You are simply confounding your ignorance or obstinacy.

Warren asks; “Are you arguing that the founding fathers were infallible?”

Infallibility has nothing at all to do with the open practice of religion by sitting presidents in government buildings.

If there is a separation of church and state as defined by Warren and the Left, it has no basis in our Constitution or in the writings and practices of our Founders.


Posted by: Royal Flush at April 27, 2017 4:44 PM
Comment #415602

Royal Flush,

Was the establishment Calvinism as the official state religion in Massachusetts (and Connecticut and New Hampshire) during the first decades of the United States a violation of the 1st Amendment?

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 27, 2017 5:00 PM
Comment #415604

Warren, the link I provided showing religious services being attended by sitting US presidents on federal property in federal buildings obviously did not violate the very amendment they themselves wrote. Why? Let me post what I quoted above again for you to read, and perhaps even comprehend this time.

“Worship services in the House—a practice that continued until after the Civil War—were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary.”

I am not writing about Calvinism in Mass as a state religion. Only you are fixated on that.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 27, 2017 5:15 PM
Comment #415605
obviously did not violate the very amendment they themselves wrote

I posit that the founders were quite capable of violating the amendment that they themselves wrote. Witness Calvinism in Massachusetts or the Alien & Sedition Acts.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 27, 2017 5:37 PM
Comment #415606

You may “posit” Warren. I have proven.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 27, 2017 5:40 PM
Comment #415608

Proven? Show me the proof. Methinks your statement that early US Presidents “obviously did not violate the very amendment they themselves wrote” is merely your opinion.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 27, 2017 5:52 PM
Comment #415610

I have shown you proof Warren. They believed that freedom of religion is an inalienable right. They openly practiced that right on public grounds and in public places.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 27, 2017 6:03 PM
Comment #415611

This is your syllogism:

P1: Public buildings hosted religious services in the early years of the Republic.
P2: The politicians of the early years of the Republic were incapable of violating the Constitution.
C: Therefore, the hosting of religious services in public buildings is not a violation of the Constitution.

I ask for proof regarding P2, yet you keep talking about P1.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 27, 2017 6:41 PM
Comment #415612

You don’t get it Warren.

The founders practiced what they believed and those beliefs became our Founding Documents which all the Colonies agreed to follow to form a United States.

Along comes Warren who disagrees with how the Founders interpreted what they believed.

Warren is wrong or the Founders were wrong.

Warren wishes to believe that immediately following adoption of the Constitution, the very writers of that Constitution decided to violate what they had written.

What are the odds of that being true…Warren?

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 27, 2017 6:59 PM
Comment #415613

“If you’re not guilty of a crime, what do you need immunity for?”
Donald Trump, 9/27/16

“The reason they get immunity is because they did something wrong. If they didn’t do anything wrong, they don’t think in terms of immunity.”
Donald Trump at WI rally

“When you are given immunity, that means you probably committed a crime.”
Mike Flynn on Meet the Press

“Lock her up.”
Mike Flynn at campaign rallies

“Lock her up.”
Donald Trump at campaign rallies

Gee, the new found concern of Trump supporters for the niceties of the legal process is truly touching.

Posted by: phx8 at April 27, 2017 7:19 PM
Comment #415614
the very writers of that Constitution decided to violate what they had written.

It’s exactly the same thing they did with the Alien & Sedition Acts.

What are the odds of that being true…Warren?

100%

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 27, 2017 7:22 PM
Comment #415627

Royal Flush-
Our patriot forebears signed a document stating the they held this truth to be self evident: that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

They and their heirs then continued to hold black men in bondage, buying and selling them like cattle for over 80 years after that.

It’s not that they were particularly evil, or ourselves particularly good. The trick of it is that even when people push forward with particularly radical reforms, radical new ideas like those the Constitution had and still has, folks can get cold feet and tunnel vision about what they’ve wrought. The pioneers often begin with nominal steps towards fulfilling their ideas, while it’s left to the next generation to better fulfill those ideals, since they’re not attached to what came before, and taught about the virtues of the new system.

The progress of a country like ours is not all smooth, and our framers are as capable of hypocrisy as we are. One reason we shouldn’t be slavish imitators of them. They themselves would say that they gave us our freedoms and our rights so we could do better than them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 28, 2017 10:31 AM
Comment #415628

“James Comey’s statements have nothing to do with your claim that “Clinton put the markings indicating the presence of classified information on those emails”.”

I made no such claim, Warren. It was a question in response to your claim that this is all about Clinton and her aides emailing news stories back and forth: “Clinton and her aids emailed news stories too each other with comments attached. Those comments, which originated from human brains rather than secure servers.”

“Someone else did (Monica Hanley) and those markings were placed by mistake on unclassified information.”

Comey: “From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.”

Comey: “Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

It was not a simple mistake on one memo about unclassified info.

“For unknown reasons, Donald Trump did not choose to commit the extra level of scrutiny to Flynn, or if he did, he chose to ignore the skeletons that he found.”

Yes, I understand that this is about Trump and not Flynn for you guys, but I don’t expect perfection and will give him the benefit of doubt as I did with Obama on such issues.

“Dead wrong. It is a right, not a privilege (see Kennedy’s opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges for an explainer).”

Marriage is not a right enshrined in the Constitution, Warren. As used today, it is a government construct which makes it controlled by rules.
OvH referred to due process and equal protection under the law. It was a 5-4 decision based on personal opinion, not Constitutional rights. A decision the other way would not have made it any more right or wrong.
When speaking of individual rights, the government has no business dictating marriage laws. One should be able to marry whoever they want.

“Not only that, the rules in 2009 were not consistent.”

They were ‘consistent’ with them times, Warren. When you give government control, people will use that control to do what they think is for the ‘betterment of society.’

“No, owners do not have the right to swing their fists into people’s noses. If a choice is made to have a public restroom, that restroom must be available to ALL.”

Then you are promoting that one person’s individual rights trump the individual rights of another, which is pretty much the reason we have these arguments in the first place.
But, that’s not the ‘bathroom’ argument we are having today. Public restrooms already are “available to ALL,” the argument is which one males and females should use, and feel safe doing so.

“Discrimination on the basis of race, creed, gender or other attribute is a violation of fundamental individual rights to equal treatment just as murder is a violation of fundamental rights to life.”

Please name a Constitutional duty of the State and how it is guilty of “the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.”

Posted by: kctim at April 28, 2017 11:18 AM
Comment #415629

“James Comey’s statements have nothing to do with your claim that “Clinton put the markings indicating the presence of classified information on those emails”.”

I made no such claim, Warren. It was a question in response to your claim that this is all about Clinton and her aides emailing news stories back and forth: “Clinton and her aids emailed news stories too each other with comments attached. Those comments, which originated from human brains rather than secure servers.”

“Someone else did (Monica Hanley) and those markings were placed by mistake on unclassified information.”

Comey: “From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.”

Comey: “Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

It was not a simple mistake on one memo about unclassified info.

“For unknown reasons, Donald Trump did not choose to commit the extra level of scrutiny to Flynn, or if he did, he chose to ignore the skeletons that he found.”

Yes, I understand that this is about Trump and not Flynn for you guys, but I don’t expect perfection and will give him the benefit of doubt as I did with Obama on such issues.

“Dead wrong. It is a right, not a privilege (see Kennedy’s opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges for an explainer).”

Marriage is not a right enshrined in the Constitution, Warren. As used today, it is a government construct which makes it controlled by rules.
OvH referred to due process and equal protection under the law. It was a 5-4 decision based on personal opinion, not Constitutional rights. A decision the other way would not have made it any more right or wrong.
When speaking of individual rights, the government has no business dictating marriage laws. One should be able to marry whoever they want.

“Not only that, the rules in 2009 were not consistent.”

They were ‘consistent’ with them times, Warren. When you give government control, people will use that control to do what they think is for the ‘betterment of society.’

“No, owners do not have the right to swing their fists into people’s noses. If a choice is made to have a public restroom, that restroom must be available to ALL.”

Then you are promoting that one person’s individual rights trump the individual rights of another, which is pretty much the reason we have these arguments in the first place.
But, that’s not the ‘bathroom’ argument we are having today. Public restrooms already are “available to ALL,” the argument is which one males and females should use, and feel safe doing so.

“Discrimination on the basis of race, creed, gender or other attribute is a violation of fundamental individual rights to equal treatment just as murder is a violation of fundamental rights to life.”

Please name a Constitutional duty of the State and how it is guilty of “the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or s*x.”

Posted by: kctim at April 28, 2017 11:19 AM
Comment #415630

kctim-
That personal opinion BS is ticking me off. What right do those on the Right have to assume that they’re the only ones who believe in the Constitution? They’re basically trying to short circuit the debate about the interpretation of the Constitution by declaring their own opinions and interpretations, however imperfect or absurd as the pre-emptive winners of the debate.

Personally, I think Republicans and Conservatives are terrible at interpreting the Constitution, especially when it comes to civil liberties and countering authoritarian styles of government. This arrogant position does more than mask that, though, it masks a serious unwillingness to break down exactly why they come to certain conclusions, exactly how they rationalize the exceptions, changes, or whatever they make.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 28, 2017 2:14 PM
Comment #415631

What makes your interpretation of the constitution accurate Daugherty? IMO your side is the one who is short circuiting the constitution. IMO what the founders wrote 241 years ago still stands today. You don’t like it try and change it by winning an election.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 28, 2017 2:23 PM
Comment #415632

My original statement regarding the Founders and religion was;

“Our Founders openly practiced the exercise of religion on government property. Now, the Left considers that act a violation of the Constitution. Warren is a hypocrite.”

I provided proof of my statement. Now, we have Warren and Stephen walking all over the Founders graves and offering criticism of their accomplishment in founding our nation.

I know that both of my Lefty Pals understand the compromises that had to be made to found our nation. They, in their great wisdom believe that compromise was wrong and that makes our Founders flawed.

Arrogance and hypocrisy has become their forte. We understand why they do this. If they can convince others that the writers of the Constitution were flawed, then it is just one more step to considering the Constitution itself as flawed…and in need of repair and change by them.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 28, 2017 2:57 PM
Comment #415633

RF,

The writers of the Constitution were extremely wise men and the document they gifted to posterity is an excellent totem to their craft. Only rarely do the precedents set in the early years of the Republic fall short of the ideals professed in our founding documents. However, to claim that it never happened is absolutely absurd. Even you are aware of the “compromises” that were made at the time. I believe in following the wisdom of these men, but I do not support elevating them to the level of infallibility.

understand the compromises that had to be made to found our nation. They, in their great wisdom believe that compromise was wrong and that makes our Founders flawed.

If the Founders compromised their principles 240 years ago, why are we obligated to do the same? The environment that forced those compromises is not extant today. Instead of compromising individual rights, we should strive to cultivate and grow it.

kctim,

It was not a simple mistake on one memo about unclassified info.
You are right, it wasn’t about a single memo, but yet you keep on bringing that memo up. Clinton’s violation of proper procedures was solely with regards to unmarked classified material. Asking questions about marking documents classified is nothing other than a desperate ploy to make it seem like Clinton’s violations were more severe than those of Saucier and others. They were not.
Marriage is not a right enshrined in the Constitution, Warren. As used today, it is a government construct which makes it controlled by rules. OvH referred to due process and equal protection under the law. It was a 5-4 decision based on personal opinion, not Constitutional rights. A decision the other way would not have made it any more right or wrong. When speaking of individual rights, the government has no business dictating marriage laws. One should be able to marry whoever they want.

Marriage is a contract. There is a centuries long jurisprudence identifying a “Right to Contract” among the unenumerated rights in the 9th Amendment to the Constitution. Likewise, the Obergefell v. Hodges decision dwelled heavily upon questions of due process and equal protection. Due Process and Equal Protection ARE Constitutional Rights. If the court had gone the other way, the court would have been objectively wrong, just as they were wrong in Plessy v Ferguson and Dred Scott v Sanford.

the argument is which one males and females should use
Half a century ago, the argument was which ones whites and people of color should use. Segregationists said Blacks had access to their own restrooms, so there was no need to permit them to use restrooms marked ‘Whites Only’. That argument does not fly today
Public restrooms already are “available to ALL,”
In some parts of this country, a restroom marked for women is unavailable to men and a restroom marked for men is unavailable to women. In either case, the restroom is unavailable to half of Americans. Half is well short of all.
feel safe doing so
We don’t have laws banning the American NAZI Party in order to make Jews feel safe in this country. Instead, we have social norms that ensure that most people don’t parade around with swastikas. Likewise, we don’t need to legally prohibit anyone from using a particular restroom in order ensure women feel safe. Societal norms alone are sufficient to ensure people feel safe.

IF we reach a hypothetical scenario where trans-women are violently accosting ciswomen at significant rates, then I can see a case can be made for restricting the individual right to choose one’s appropriate restroom in favor of the compelling governmental interest in protecting ciswomen from assault, but this is an empirical argument that would need to pass the bar of https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Strict_scrutiny.

Please name a Constitutional duty of the State and how it is guilty of “the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or s*x.”

I wasn’t talking about duties of the State. As we both know, racial discrimination by the State has been very rare since the Civil Rights Era. Most discrimination in this country is perpetrated by private citizens on one another rather than from the government. Likewise, the number of murders conducted by private citizens exceeds the number of executions (or unjust killings) of Americans conducted by the State.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 28, 2017 4:19 PM
Comment #415636

Warren has been well educated in obfuscation. No one knows where he stands on the free exercise of religion in public places.

My position is clear. I stand with the Founders writings, stated beliefs and actual practices.

The simple solution to the public toilet controversy is to have a toilet facility that will accommodate only one person, of any sex at a time.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 28, 2017 4:50 PM
Comment #415637

Warren has been well educated in obfuscation. No one knows where he stands on the free exercise of religion in public places.

My position is clear. I stand with the Founders writings, stated beliefs and actual practices.

The simple solution to the public toilet controversy is to have a toilet facility that will accommodate only one person, of any s*x at a time.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 28, 2017 4:51 PM
Comment #415640
I stand with the Founders writings, stated beliefs and actual practices.

Is this true only in the case of the use of public facilities for private religious services? Or is true in all circumstances?

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 28, 2017 5:30 PM
Comment #415641

Or is true in all circumstances?
Posted by: Warren Porter at April 28, 2017 5:30 PM

Provide all circumstances you can imagine and I will answer.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 28, 2017 5:36 PM
Comment #415642

So, it’s only true in some circumstances, but not true for others?

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 28, 2017 5:57 PM
Comment #415644

So, provide the circumstance.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 28, 2017 6:07 PM
Comment #415645

If it’s true in all circumstances, then it isn’t necessary to provide a particular circumstance. No matter what circumstance I provide, it will be true.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 28, 2017 6:10 PM
Comment #415646

Silly Warren. I wrote; “I stand with the Founders writings, stated beliefs and actual practices.”

Are you so deficient in your knowledge of our Founders and our Founding documents that you don’t understand what I wrote?

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 28, 2017 6:16 PM
Comment #415648

Taken by itself, your comment indicates that you stand with the Founders writings, stated beliefs and actual practices in all circumstances. However, I know you to well to believe that to be the case, so I asked for clarification:

is this true in all circumstances?

You have dodged answering this question thrice already. I’ll rephrase it to make things easier for you:

is this true in all circumstances that you can imagine?
Posted by: Warren Porter at April 28, 2017 6:35 PM
Comment #415650

I stand with the Founders and the Constitution they wrote. I believe the decisions they made were the best possible at the time. I stand with the documents that founded our nation. I do not agree with some of the amendments to the Constitution.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 28, 2017 6:48 PM
Comment #415651

My turn Warren. Tell us where you don’t agree with the Constitution and compromises they made to form our nation.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 28, 2017 6:52 PM
Comment #415652

I didn’t ask if the decisions they made were the best possible at the time. I asked whether we in the 21st century must adopt every interpretation of Constitutional Rights adopted during the antebellum.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 28, 2017 8:28 PM
Comment #415659

I am not going to discuss what should or should not have been done in the 18th century. It is a discussion we can have another day. I am only going to address situations where I believe the United States in 21st century should not “stand with the Founders writings, stated beliefs and actual practices” from the early years of the Republic. I am not going to assemble an exhaustive list, it will waste our time and dilute the discussion. Let’s focus on just a few:

I disagree 100% with the proposition that 21st century America should treat the institution of slavery the exact same way as it was handled in the 18th century. I’m pretty sure you do too. Thus means your professed fealty to the “founders writings, stated beliefs and actual practices” is less categorical than you attempt to portray.

I disagree 100% with the proposition that 21st century America should establish state religions as was done in the antebellum (see my aforementioned comments regarding Calvinism in New England). Paying ministerial salaries is not a valid taxpayer responsibility.

I disagree 100% with the proposition that 21st century America should establish anti-libel speech codes as were reflected in the Alien & Sedition Acts. Freedom of speech requires that speech critical of the government ought to be protected and such speech should not be burdened to prove its veracity beyond a reasonable doubt.

So what about you, Royal Flush? Do you stand with our founders and support 21st century slavery, state churches and censorship? Or do you disagree with the founders and support a different interpretation of ‘Individual Rights’.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 29, 2017 12:13 PM
Comment #415660

Many of our Founders wished to abolish slavery. It was not possible then to do so and still create a nation out of the colonies. I understand the compromise that was necessary and agree with it.

The Founders, after the Constitution was adopted and put in place, did not sponsor or desire state (national) churches. The practiced freedom of religion, not state religion.

The Alien & Sedition Act was passed by congress, not the Founders. Take a look at some of the outrageous Presidential acts of Woodrow Wilson if you wish to find violations of our Constitutional Rights Warren.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 29, 2017 2:29 PM
Comment #415662
The Alien & Sedition Act was passed by congress, not the Founders.

OK. Following this logic, the decision to hold religious services in the House of Representatives was made by Congress, not the Founders.

did not sponsor or desire state (national) churches.

Yet, state churches were sponsored (see my example citing Calvinism in Massachusetts). If Texas decided to declare a State Religion in a similar manner today, would you consider that action Constitutional?

Many of our Founders wished to abolish slavery. It was not possible then to do so and still create a nation out of the colonies. I understand the compromise that was necessary and agree with it.
A minority of Founders were abolitionists and we take pride in their courage to speak out against slavery. Unfortunately, a far greater number of Founders supported the wicked institution. Some even enthusiastically embraced it. We should not use the compromise wrought 240 years ago to guide our interpretation of the Constitution today. Instead, we reject the Founders’ belief that it was Constitutional for one person to own another. Posted by: Warren Porter at April 29, 2017 3:34 PM
Comment #415663

Warren skips down the lane of impossible desire smelling imaginary roses while ignoring reality.

I repeat, the Constitution does not establish, favor, or even suggest a national religion. I follow the Founders and the Constitution. Free expression of religion is a Right.

Warren rejects the slavery compromise and thus rejects the founding of our nation. We will never know how happy he would have been living in a Colony rather than a country. We will never know if, and when, slavery would be abolished.

Many of us have noticed, over the years, that the Left is seldom satisfied with political outcomes that they didn’t devise and achieve. Along come Warren and Stephen being critical of our Founding…men and documents were simply inadequate for them to admire and praise. They were not perfect as the Left imagines they should have been.

Lefty’s live in a world much different than the normal American. Thank God there are so few of them. A Northeast privileged Liberal promotes love of country by promoting the means of its destruction. Trash the Founders, Trash the Constitution as outdated, trash the notion of fiscal responsibility, thrash the notion of free enterprise, individual achievement and capitalism…all in favor of some “ism” that has failed everywhere it has been tried.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 29, 2017 4:03 PM
Comment #415664

“Yet, state churches were sponsored (see my example citing Calvinism in Massachusetts). If Texas decided to declare a State Religion in a similar manner today, would you consider that action Constitutional?”

Sponsored by whom Warren? The United States congress with the approval of the president?

Please believe me Warren, there is no comparison between Mass. and TX when it comes to Texas proudly embracing and following our Constitutional “rights”, our individual freedom, and our love of country.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 29, 2017 4:30 PM
Comment #415665
Warren rejects the slavery compromise and thus rejects the founding of our nation. We will never know how happy he would have been living in a Colony rather than a country. We will never know if, and when, slavery would be abolished.

I am only rejecting the application of the compromise regarding slavery made in the 18th century to the 21st century American context. I do not think slavery should be legal in 2017. So do you. Our opinions on the matter are identical. You and I both reject the founders’ wisdom and insert our own.

men and documents were simply inadequate for them to admire and praise
Earlier, I said, “The writers of the Constitution were extremely wise men and the document they gifted to posterity is an excellent totem to their craft… I believe in following the wisdom of these men, but I do not support elevating them to the level of infallibility.” This comment demonstrates quite clearly, my admiration and praise for the Founding Fathers and the documents they created. Admiration and praise are quite possible without elevating people and things to the level of infallibility. Posted by: Warren Porter at April 29, 2017 4:42 PM
Comment #415666

Hope you have a grand weekend Warren.

I must leave now and get ready for a performance by my local symphony orchestra in a few hours. The featured artist is a 22 year old pianist, Jan Lisiecki, playing Chopin: Piano Concerto No. 1 and Dvorák: Symphony No. 7 in D minor.

My wife and I enjoy classical music and live theater. We are blessed to live near a city that offers both. We also frequent Dallas for live performances at their many quality venues.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 29, 2017 5:01 PM
Comment #415667

Dvorak’s 7th is one of my favorites, even better than “From the New World”. You will enjoy it too. I never cared much for Chopin. He never cared much for violinists like me and I kindly return the favor.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 29, 2017 5:16 PM
Comment #415861

The authors of the Constitution were to a great degree shrewd men and the archive they skilled to successors is a brilliant totem to their specialty… I trust in taking after the intelligence of these men, however I don’t bolster raising them to the level of reliability

Posted by: free online video downloader at May 8, 2017 8:01 AM
Post a comment