General Flynn Exonerated!

[Valli6]

Does anyone who's happy about this news actually like Flynn, or is it just that you dislike the Dems, and they dislike him?

For all the Flynn talk, I don't recall anyone ever explaining why he's a good guy who we should be cheering on.

There's this:

THE AFGHANISTAN PAPERS
A SECRET HISTORY OF THE WAR
In a cache of previously unpublished interviews and memos, key insiders reveal what went wrong during the longest armed conflict in U.S. history

By Craig Whitlock, Leslie Shapiro and Armand Emamdjomeh
Dec. 9, 2019
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...ents-database/

UPDATE:
Seriously, I think this interview is the KEY to why they went after Mike Flynn!

Michael Flynn, Lessons Learned interview, 11/10/2015 (audio)
(It's over an hour long.) https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...d-11102015.mp3

Around 50:32:

…There’s probably criminal cases waiting to be had against people who found weaknesses in our system, I mean, even soldiers, even other government officials, found weaknesses in our system to make money…so… the tactical intelligence and the tactical intelligence reporting that was captured, written down in some database, some computer system that described corruption was unbelievable. There was plenty of it. As intelligence makes it’s way up higher, it gets consolidated and it gets really really watered down… and it gets politicized… because once policy makers get their hands on it, and frankly, when operational commanders get their hands on it, they put their twist on it…

Rough, partial, transcript of some comments from Flynn's interview:

...I think that in general, you'll be part of the history of this thing [the war in Afghanlstanj, obviously because what SJGAR's role has been for a long time.

I used to go down and sit with the SIGAR people in Kandahar, just to chat with them, have a cup of coffee, and see what they were up to.

Never mind not accompllshing our mission, but the severity of corruption in our own system, I think is just unbelievable.

The waste that I saw is unbelievable.

You just sit there and go, "you have got to be kidding me, why did we do this?"

I think thal somebody, ‘someday, will sit down and do some very serious n;•search with data, which they can discover, (about this problem].

A friend of mine just did an assessment in Iraq. He is a very serious gentleman in this case. He is discovering how little data we <Ktual!y have kept for [the new mJJitary] organization.
The Secretary of Defensej has just <1ppointetl our general in Iraq· U.S. Army 3rt! Corps.
It is amazing.
He [my friend wnductinA the assessment} did a good solid 45 days ami went into theater.
llc has an extraordinary background in the whole theater, but definitely 1n raq.
He just told me the other day that·
it hi lil(e we are starting from scratch.
In this era of data and information th<:~t we have;
we have all thc.~e things and all this stuff, but evc1ybody goes and then takes [the data] when they lc;we.
You do your right- seat ride and we have actually taken right-seat rides for granted.

I am in the process of writing a book right now [Note: This was November of 2015] and part of it is how we have gotten aw.1y from that.
We are such a strong country, but we have gotten away from the idea of
<:~ctuaHy how to win anything...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...el_ll_11102015

UPDATE: Wow! I never listened to the whole interview before! It's astonishing! CIA wasn't sharing intel with other intel agencies.

[Pauls' Revere]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=uxbndlbing

In a tweet tagging Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsay Graham, Trump, Trump called for former President Obama to be brought before Congress to testify about unspecified crimes that Trump thinks constitutes the biggest scandal in history.

“If I were a Senator or Congressman, the first person I would call to testify about the biggest political crime and scandal in the history of the USA, by FAR, is former President Obama,” he wrote. “He knew EVERYTHING. Do it @LindseyGrahamSC, just do it. No more Mr. Nice Guy. No more talk!”

Trump has been loudly complaining about “Obamagate” in recent days, first amplifying the allegations in a stream of 120 tweets and retweets on May 10. But he has conveniently declined to say what crimes Obama is supposed to have committed.

Asked by a Washington Post journalist this week, Trump responded: “Obamagate. It’s been going on for a long time. It’s been going on from before I even got elected. And it’s a disgrace that it happened.”

When pressed to say what offense was committed, Trump said: “You know what the crime is. The crime is very obvious to everybody. All you have to do is read the newspapers, except yours.”

Trump and his allies have long claimed, without evidence, that the investigation into Russian election meddling, started by the FBI in 2017, was a hit job by the outgoing Obama administration.

Since the Department of Justice sensationally moved to drop its case against Trump’s one-time National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contact with Russian officials, Trump’s “Obamagate” conspiracy theories have reached fever pitch.

[r3volution 3.0]

He sure as $#@! is a lot more useful to liberty than you.

Can you give me some examples of his pro-liberty positions/actions?

There's this

Criticizing corruption is good, but from what I recall he was more or less on board with the underlying foreign policy.

So, "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran (but don't buy the bombs on no-bid contracts)"...?

[Mini-Me]

Does anyone who's happy about this news actually like Flynn, or is it just that you dislike the Dems, and they dislike him?

For all the Flynn talk, I don't recall anyone ever explaining why he's a good guy who we should be cheering on.

There are reasons to like and dislike Flynn personally, but why should that even matter? Whether I like him or not, the man was set up and railroaded on a technicality for reasons that had nothing to do with his innocence or guilt and everything to do with the threat he posed to some true villains. Why on Earth should any fair-minded person interested in liberty and justice for all, not take issue with that?

At the end of the day, this isn't really about Flynn. It's about actually exposing the way the globalist deep state in-crowd has systematically corrupted the federal government to abuse anyone who might even possibly stand in their way, probably for an entire century. Will anything actually come of it? Who knows? Our history of political theater has shown that the real enemy is generally beyond the reach of the law, but this is by far the closest they've ever been to serious jeopardy. We're in uncharted territory here, where there's actually a chance of some real justice being done for once. I'm going to dare to hope, because cheering it on and showing a public demand is far more likely to help grease the wheels of justice than glumly discouraging everyone with, "Nothing's going to happen." I'd rather take my allies where I can get them, hope and fight for a major takedown, and lose, than resign myself to defeat at the outset.

We can bloviate about libertarianism until we die of old age, but we'll never have any hope to e.g. change foreign policy until we root out this cabal and put the fear of God into the untouchables. I'm going to put first things first. You do as you will.

[r3volution 3.0]

There are reasons to like and dislike Flynn personally, but why should that even matter? Whether I like him or not, the man was set up and railroaded on a technicality for reasons that had nothing to do with his innocence or guilt and everything to do with the threat he posed to some true villains. Why on Earth should any fair-minded person interested in liberty and justice for all, not take issue with that?

There are plenty of injustices every day; why should I care about this one in particular, as opposed to all the others that don't make the news?

The media/politicians certainly don't care because of any interest in justice; for them, this is just red (or blue) meat for the coming election.

...like most issues that get a lot of press.

And what threat did he pose to what villains?

At the end of the day, this isn't really about Flynn. It's about actually exposing the way the globalist deep state in-crowd has systematically corrupted the federal government to abuse anyone who might even possibly stand in their way, probably for an entire century.

How did Flynn stand in "their" way?

Will anything actually come of it? Who knows? Our history of political theater has shown that the real enemy is generally beyond the reach of the law, this is by far the closest they've ever been to serious jeopardy. I'm going to dare to hope, because cheering it on is far more likely to help grease the wheels of justice than glumly discouraging everyone with, "Nothing's going to happen." I'd rather take my allies where I can get them, hope and fight for a major takedown, and lose, than resign myself to defeat at the outset.

Again, I see less a struggle between good and evil and more a partisan circus.

[Mini-Me]

https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/statu...05216829239296

After denying amicus 24 times, Sullivan is now showing he is far from a disinterested party. From what I understand, his actions are virtually unprecedented in legal proceedings. Unless he's secretly wanting to continue this so more facts come out, he has to be compromised or in on the conspiracy. I'm hoping someone investigates his ass too.

[Mini-Me]

There are plenty of injustices every day; why should I care about this one in particular, as opposed to all the others that don't make the news?

Um, because getting to the bottom of this one actually strikes at the heart of the system of injustice? You don't have to care about that though, if you don't want. That's your call.

The media/politicians certainly don't care because of any interest in justice; for them, this is just red (or blue) meat for the coming election.

...like most issues that get a lot of press.

The mainstream press isn't driving this one. It's being dragged kicking and screaming by the Internet, and I'd say that's a clue.

And what threat did he pose to what villains?



How did Flynn stand in "their" way?


Again, I see less a struggle between good and evil and more a partisan circus.

You can view this as cynically as you want. Maybe you're right, and if so, I've wasted my efforts on far less worthy causes. In case you're wrong, I'm not uselessly wasting this opportunity moaning that it's not real and that nothing's going to happen. I'm taking every hope, every chance, I can get, and demanding to see justice for the untouchables...in whatever order that gets as many as possible. You do you.

[Pauls' Revere]

So, now, who is going to be held accountable for using the justice system to destroy this man's life for political gain?

Meh, justice department is there to see that justice is served for political reasons or not.

[acptulsa]

...like most issues that get a lot of press.

Influencing opinion on a topic people are interested in is a whole lot easier than getting them interested in something they don't currently care about.

[r3volution 3.0]

Um, because getting to the bottom of this one actually strikes at the heart of the system of injustice? You don't have to care about that though, if you don't want. That's your call.

So, let's say Flynn is exonerated; what happens next?

I'll tell you; the GOP cheers, the Dems boo, and everything else remains exactly the same, because this is meaningless clickbait.

The mainstream press isn't driving this one. It's being dragged kicking and screaming by the Internet, and I'd say that's a clue.

Every TV news network has been blabbering about this on and off for years.

TL;DR

ABC says "Flynn bad, GOP bad!"

FOX says "Flynn good, Dem bad!"

You can view this as cynically as you want. Maybe you're right, and if so, I've wasted my efforts on far less worthy causes. In case you're wrong, I'm not uselessly wasting this opportunity moaning that it's not real and that nothing's going to happen. I'm taking every hope, every chance, I can get, and demanding to see justice for the untouchables...in whatever order that gets as many as possible. You do you.

How many times more coverage would you guess has been devoted to the Clinton impeachment, Russia investigation, Real Housewives of Washington D.C., the Flynn trial than to things like exploding federal spending, unlimited money printing by the Fed, the PATRIOT Act, year 19 of the Afghan War, or other things that actually matter? It's a large number.

[dannno]

There are reasons to like and dislike Flynn personally, but why should that even matter? Whether I like him or not, the man was set up and railroaded on a technicality for reasons that had nothing to do with his innocence or guilt and everything to do with the threat he posed to some true villains. Why on Earth should any fair-minded person interested in liberty and justice for all, not take issue with that?

At the end of the day, this isn't really about Flynn. It's about actually exposing the way the globalist deep state in-crowd has systematically corrupted the federal government to abuse anyone who might even possibly stand in their way, probably for an entire century. Will anything actually come of it? Who knows? Our history of political theater has shown that the real enemy is generally beyond the reach of the law, but this is by far the closest they've ever been to serious jeopardy. We're in uncharted territory here, where there's actually a chance of some real justice being done for once. I'm going to dare to hope, because cheering it on and showing a public demand is far more likely to help grease the wheels of justice than glumly discouraging everyone with, "Nothing's going to happen." I'd rather take my allies where I can get them, hope and fight for a major takedown, and lose, than resign myself to defeat at the outset.

We can bloviate about libertarianism until we die of old age, but we'll never have any hope to e.g. change foreign policy until we root out this cabal and put the fear of God into the untouchables. I'm going to put first things first. You do as you will.

Thanks for coming back.

[dannno]

So, let's say Flynn is exonerated; what happens next?

I'll tell you; the GOP cheers, the Dems boo, and everything else remains exactly the same, because this is meaningless clickbait.

Uh, no, the reason he was exonerated is what is going to send evil powerful people to prison.

[r3volution 3.0]

Influencing opinion on a topic people are interested in is a whole lot easier than getting them interested in something they don't currently care about.

They don't call it the dismal science for nothing.

[r3volution 3.0]

Uh, no, the reason he was exonerated is what is going to send evil powerful people to prison.

Any ETA on that?

Before or after Trump pays off the national debt?

Are the super secret marines bivouacking at an undisclosed location as we speak?

[Swordsmyth]

After denying amicus 24 times, Sullivan is now showing he is far from a disinterested party. From what I understand, his actions are virtually unprecedented in legal proceedings. Unless he's secretly wanting to continue this so more facts come out, he has to be compromised or in on the conspiracy. I'm hoping someone investigates his ass too.

And the Supreme Court just barely ruled UNANIMOUSLY that judges can't invite amicus briefs like this.

[Mini-Me]

So, let's say Flynn is exonerated; what happens next?

I'll tell you; the GOP cheers, the Dems boo, and everything else remains exactly the same, because this is meaningless clickbait.



Every TV news network has been blabbering about this on and off for years.

TL;DR

ABC says "Flynn bad, GOP bad!"

FOX says "Flynn good, Dem bad!"



How many times more coverage would you guess has been devoted to the Clinton impeachment, Russia investigation, Real Housewives of Washington D.C., the Flynn trial than to things like exploding federal spending, unlimited money printing by the Fed, the PATRIOT Act, year 19 of the Afghan War, or other things that actually matter? It's a large number.

What happens next? Well, if we're lucky, indictments of the people who broke the law a bajillion times railroading him, for starters. That's if we're lucky. You can be as cynical and negative and discouraging as you like, but I still have some fire left in my belly.

As for coverage: The Clinton impeachment was over perjury about a blow job. The Russia investigation was a total farce meant to drive out Donald Trump, and there's a reason for that. What's going on right now is bigger than Watergate, and corruption of the federal government is the issue that's at the root of all the "things that actually matter." There's a lot of ideological disagreement and social/moral breakdown behind these policies too, but none of that would be so severe if not for the cabal's existence and dominance. They have to go. Watergate didn't change our country for the better as it could have, but this gives us another crack at it, against people more deeply connected to the real culprits, and literally nothing you say will make me poo-poo it. I'm not here to convince you either, because I'm well aware you're beyond caring.

[r3volution 3.0]

What happens next? Well, if we're lucky, indictments of the people who broke the law a bajillion times railroading him, for starters. That's if we're lucky. You can be as cynical and negative and discouraging as you like, but I still have some fire left in my belly.

As for coverage: The Clinton impeachment was over perjury about a blow job. The Russia investigation was a total farce meant to drive out Donald Trump, and there's a reason for that. What's going on right now is bigger than Watergate, and corruption of the federal government is the issue that's at the root of all the "things that actually matter." There's a lot of ideological disagreement and social/moral breakdown behind these policies too, but none of that would be so severe if not for the cabal's existence and dominance. They have to go. Watergate didn't change our country for the better as it could have, but this gives us another crack at it, against people more deeply connected to the real culprits, and literally nothing you say will make me poo-poo it. I'm not here to convince you either, because I'm well aware you're beyond caring.

I'll take the Lynyrd Skynyrd position on that too. As for the fire in your belly, I'm not trying to put it out, just suggesting that you might redirect it toward something more important. To my point, about misplaced focus and distraction, Watergate is probably what 99% of people know about Nixon, as opposed to say nationwide price controls or closing the gold window: things not nearly as sexy, but infinitely more important.

[Mini-Me]

I'll take the Lynyrd Skynyrd position on that too. As for the fire in your belly, I'm not trying to put it out, just suggesting that you might redirect it toward something more important. To my point, about misplaced focus and distraction, Watergate is probably what 99% of people know about Nixon, as opposed to say nationwide price controls or closing the gold window: things not nealy as sexy or salacious, but infinitely more important.

Direct your energies wherever you like, and so will I. I'm not personally interested in taking the same insular circlejerk approach libertarians have for fifty years, and I'll decide for myself what's important.

[r3volution 3.0]

Direct your energies wherever you like, and so will I. I'm not personally interested in taking the same insular circlejerk approach libertarians have for fifty years, and I'll decide for myself what's important.

Okie doke

[Pauls' Revere]

Graham is such an establishment GOP.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...-bad-precedent

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Thursday rebuffed President Trump's demand that he call former President Obama to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of oversight on the origins of the Russia investigation.

“I think it would be a bad precedent to compel a former president to come before the Congress. That would open up a can of worms, and for a variety of reasons, I don't think that's a good idea," Graham told reporters on Capitol Hill.

Trump urged GOP lawmakers on Thursday morning to call Obama to testify in front of the Senate panel — the latest incident in recent days where the president has homed in on his predecessor.

[dannno]

Graham is such an establishment GOP.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...-bad-precedent

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Thursday rebuffed President Trump's demand that he call former President Obama to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of oversight on the origins of the Russia investigation.

“I think it would be a bad precedent to compel a former president to come before the Congress. That would open up a can of worms, and for a variety of reasons, I don't think that's a good idea," Graham told reporters on Capitol Hill.

Trump urged GOP lawmakers on Thursday morning to call Obama to testify in front of the Senate panel — the latest incident in recent days where the president has homed in on his predecessor.

It is likely he will need to eventually, it will be obvious to everyone who doesn't primarily consume fake news. I think Trump is just putting it out there so when it happens he can say he called it.

[vita3]

Thanks for the posts & point of view mini-me.

Insightful & Inspiring

[donnay]

Graham is such an establishment GOP.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...-bad-precedent

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Thursday rebuffed President Trump's demand that he call former President Obama to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of oversight on the origins of the Russia investigation.

“I think it would be a bad precedent to compel a former president to come before the Congress. That would open up a can of worms, and for a variety of reasons, I don't think that's a good idea," Graham told reporters on Capitol Hill.

Trump urged GOP lawmakers on Thursday morning to call Obama to testify in front of the Senate panel — the latest incident in recent days where the president has homed in on his predecessor.

Lindsey doesn't want the can of worms open because somewhere down the line he may be implicated. Lindsey is a snake.

[Pauls' Revere]

Lindsey doesn't want the can of worms open because somewhere down the line he may be implicated. Lindsey is a snake.

Kinda along the lines of what I was thinking. The can of worms would expose the Senate and half of congress and jeopardize his job. Imagine the web of corruption that would be revealed among all our politicians.

Graham is falling back into self preservation mode, for himself and to protect the systemic corruption. As Morpheus (The Matrix) said "Those on the system will defend the system"

[Valli6]

Lindsey doesn't want the can of worms open because somewhere down the line he may be implicated. Lindsey is a snake.

Yeah, him and his deceased pal - that fraud McCain.

[Danke]