Trump Team Knew Flynn Was Under Investigation Before He Came to White House

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MadeTheSwitch, May 17, 2017.

  1. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #1
    Every evening it seems we must have some breaking news, so here's tonight‘s tidbit:

    Trump Team Knew Flynn Was Under Investigation Before He Came to White House

    Hired him anyway. Corrupt or incompetent administration? You decide. It's one of those two things.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/...ald-trump-national-security-adviser.html?_r=0
     
  2. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #2
    it was in the news too and congress knew. But hey when you need to please your buddy Vlad.
     
  3. HEK Suspended

    HEK

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2013
    #3
    Each day it gets more obtuse. You simply can't make this stuff up. Fiction pales in comparison.
     
  4. fitshaced macrumors 68000

    fitshaced

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    #4
    My personal view is that he was willing to hire Flynn simply because Obama advised against it. Maybe I'm going too far but I think that Trump is such a racist that he would behave this way.

    Also, I don't believe that Trump had any direct connection with Russia in regards to the election but was very willing to accept Putins support. But Trumps stupidity can't make the connections which lead him to look guilty.

    He is a massive moron. I think we can all agree on that.
     
  5. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #5
    More anonymous sources. None of them have any credibility.

    Trump has clearly angered people within the deep state for these leaks to be coming out every night. He should continue to do what he is doing.
     
  6. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #6


    The credibility is in the fact that so many of these sources have been correct. Add the fact that we know that Trump and his administration was warned by multiple people including Obama and still did nothing goes along way to show that this story is on par.
     
  7. MadeTheSwitch thread starter macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #7
    Your proof they have no credibility? Besides your desire to protect Trump at all cost and wishful thinking of course. An anonymous source doesn't lack credibility merely because it's anonymous or you don't like the info. I also don't see the Trump administration refuting this, so.......looks pretty credible at this point.

    And Flynn doesn't help dispel that either when he refuses to comply with a subpoena as he did this morning. The behavior of a guilty person.
     
  8. Tinmania macrumors 68040

    Tinmania

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Location:
    Aridzona
    #8
    Why respond to the propaganda spewed by a wannabe (but still not) American living in the UK? His idol will never let him here so it's not worth 1/10th of a calorie of energy responding. We have actual deluded Americans to worry about, and no time for this nonsense.


    Mike
     
  9. MadeTheSwitch thread starter macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #9
    Because to not push back on the nonsense allows the nonsense to stand unchallenged.
     
  10. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #10
    I vote incompetent. I really wanted to give Trump the benefit of the doubt - but he just seems tragically in over-his (coiffed) head.
     
  11. poloponies macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    #11
    Trump is the one who has a verifiable lack of credibility. Assuming that everyone else does just goes to show how much he's lowered our expectations.
     
  12. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #12
    I agree. I just hope he doesn't front-load all the corruption and incompetence. We need him to make it last until early November 2018.

    Oh...and which deep state are we talking about? Mississippi?
     
  13. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #13
    Would be great if these people had names.
     
  14. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #14
  15. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #15
    Right an anonymous tip is worthless never valid. So you know never use wiki leaks?
     
  16. rjohnstone macrumors 68040

    rjohnstone

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    PHX, AZ.
    #16
    Actually they're not, according to the Constitution.
    People love to throw that term around without actually knowing the standard of proof required to impeach a sitting President.
    Hunches, assumptions, and feelings, are not valid arguments.
    Remember. Innocent until proven guilty.
    At the time of Flynn's hiring, he had a valid top secret security clearance and was not under any indictment. Being investigated is not a disqualifying event. Hell most of his incoming staff were investigated by the FBI. Standard procedure.
     
  17. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #17


    Actually what is considered impeachable is ENTIRELY up to the House of Representatives. They have the power to decide what is or isn't an impeachable offense.
     
  18. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #18
    Part of me really wants to see the movie, part me is sick to death of it. :oops:

    Part 2, Scene 8: Fill in the Blank. ____________________________________________ :)

    I don't think it's me. Maybe you should look up the grounds for impeachment, research high crimes and misdemeanors.
    And no it's not innocent until proven guilty, it's when 2/3 of the Senate decide the President is a conman, a loose cannon, a threat to the country, insane, crooked, dangerously erratic, or massively incompetent. Based on that alone, they can vote to convict the President and remove him from office.

    However, I'd like to know if once impeached and convicted (not that I'm counting on that), if the President has been shown to be involved in illegal activities or treason, can he be charged with a crime at that point? (I'm not holding my breath for this either.)
     
  19. rjohnstone macrumors 68040

    rjohnstone

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    PHX, AZ.
    #19
    There is a legal standard that applies the high crimes and misdemeanors.
    The House doesn't get to make that determination.
    As for the innocent until proven guilty remark, that was in reference to Flynn.
    But that same standard applies in the house.
    There is not just a simple vote to impeach.
    It goes to the judicial committee first for a sort of mini trial.
    Once it clears there, then it goes to the full house.

    As for conviction, yes, POTUS can be criminally charged after impeachment and conviction in the Senate if he committed a criminal act.
     
  20. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #20
    You can't continually **** off your employees, whether you work in the public sector or private sector.
     
  21. pdqgp macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #21
    so it's wrong to put someone under investigation on his staff but someone under investigation could run for POTUS. Gotcha.

    it's time the left put down their attempts to undermine our democratic system, accept the special investigation they cried for is underway and await the results. until then, they need to get the hell back to doing their job and fix the country.

    My $5 says the connections to outside forces was a leak on the Dems side by an insider.
     
  22. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #22
    Why would they do that?
     
  23. pdqgp macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #23
    because there's a first time for everything.
     
  24. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #24
    So basically you're admitting a hack was more likely...
     
  25. pdqgp macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #25
    More likely than what? No, I never said a hack nor are you clarifying what you think was impacted by anything. IMO the election was lost by Hit liar y because she was perhaps the worst candidate the country could have ever put in the race. The BS that was put out during the election on both sides in attempts to impact the election didn't IMO make much of a difference at all. They do however shine through that both sides have leaks impacting them and that the leakers need put in jail. The content of those leaks, if valid, still stands for what they are. Dems were caught stating and doing some pretty outlandish things and it just so happen to be icing on the cake that it came out and they lost.
     

Share This Page