Mike Flynn Offers to Testify in Exchange for Immunity - The Wall Street Journal

a reply to: xuenchen

What are you 12? The Wall Street journal, a conservative leading publication with years of prestige would. Not. Be. Making. This. Up. If. There was. No. Credible. Source.

Go back to school.

a reply to: Gryphon66

It's beginning to look like trouble on the horizon ...

Or it can just be a mirage.

My guess is that it will dissipate the closer we get to it.

But time will tell..

a reply to: marg6043

Think about it like this:

This Russian situation was Obama's ultimate Kobayahi Maru or Catch 22.

Putin's goal was to undermine American democracy. Sometimes (see: in every instance of technological innovation across history) one faction gains a form of weapon before another faction. This time the Russians learned to weaponize internet based psychological tactics, hacking, bot net spam, and other electronic based interference to affect the elections of a 1st world nation, the first 1st world nation.

Obama catches wind of this and does what? Does he give in to Putin and come out with all of this information before the election to prove collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia? The right wing would have slaughtered his name and legacy for attempting to affect the election's outcome. Thus, the United States would have the appearance of being no better than Iran, Syria, Banana Republics, and Russia.
OR
Does President Obama hold his breath, prevent Comey from coming out, and trust that Hillary Clinton will win so that the information can come out afterwards? This option allows the ideals of Democracy along with free and impartial elections to remain intact, but the American people remain ignorant to the truth of the danger that existed.

Either way, there was danger. Either way, he "loses." It seems as if he chose not to say a word and to trust that Hillary could hold her own against Trump and Putin. It was a choice to allow Democracy to stand on it's own or artificially prop it up and therefore tainting the idea forever.


Just tell me this:

IF OBAMA DID COME OUT WITH COMEY AND THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY TO ACCUSE RUSSIA OF TAMPERING AND HILLARY WON THE ELECTION:

What would you say today?

See what I mean, from an objective level the entire situation was doomed from the beginning. This is me being honest: Obama was naive and I would have come out on the other side. TO HELL WITH IDEALS. Truth rules all. But here we are, and the idea of Democracy is still tarnished because it looks like Russia did in fact put a heavy hand on the scale that changed everything.

Pretty insidious.

The Russians infiltrate and coopt our govt via bribes, blackmail, idiocy and propaganda ...

and through that same manipulative propaganda, give the impression to the ...er, more hardcore followers of T, that any attack on T and co is just the "deep state" in it's death throws trying to take down the one true hero of the people.

Gads... I fervently wished I was wrong about T's character and designs, and that of his entourage ... and now I really hope we don't end up in civil war due to Russia's manipulations.

The blame can be spread everywhere, from Russia to our own machinations and over secrecy... but what a mess.

originally posted by: chaeone86
a reply to: Woodcarver

Innocent people don't ask for immunity.

Especially not high functioning government officials. He's not some teenager try to get out of a petty drug crime by snitching on the classmate who sold to him.

There's no proof yet.

No proof Flynn is actually doing this.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Interestingly enough, the hypocrisy is now breeching partisan lines. Sean Spicer's tweet about Cheryl Mills asking for immunity here:

"The Secrets of Cheryl Mills
If there was no evidence of criminal activity, why all the immunity?
@WSJ
@wjmcgurn"

Sean Spicer in reference to this article

I doubt he'd be saying the same about Flynn.

But at least we know Flynn is following in the foot steps of those who did it before.

originally posted by: chaeone86
a reply to: xuenchen

What are you 12? The Wall Street journal, a conservative leading publication with years of prestige would. Not. Be. Making. This. Up. If. There was. No. Credible. Source.

Go back to school.

I think the.WSJ.could.easily.be.making.this story.up.

They've.done.it.before.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chaeone86
a reply to: Woodcarver

Innocent people don't ask for immunity.

Especially not high functioning government officials. He's not some teenager try to get out of a petty drug crime by snitching on the classmate who sold to him.

There's no proof yet.

No proof Flynn is actually doing this.

The article clearly states that this information comes from people familiar with the situation.

Sure they are un named, therfore unverifiable and unquestionable.

Whats the problem with that?

Flynn is just the tip of the iceberg of rats jumping a sinking ship.

Sorry about the mixed metaphors. I really don't have any control over it.

Next in line will be that scumbag Bannon. He has no loyalty to anyone....

originally posted by: TheOneElectric
a reply to: Idreamofme

It implies they don't even need his testimony. Which is an indication that the evidence and connections are abundant, clear, and nearly indisputable.

Or this is a case of making up evidence like they did in many drug related cases they recently got caught for. Flynn is looking out for his own arse and made a deal i am sure to help the FBI since COmeys in such hot water.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Jiggly
"according to officials with knowledge of the matter"

mmmmk

The Wall Street Journal has some FAKE NEWS reporters and contributors, just like the NYTimes.

Calling everything that does not serve your side FAKE NEWS doesn't make it so. Your Messiah is in deep doo doo.

a reply to: xuenchen

Thanks. That's enough internets for you today. Comment with thoughtful discussion, analysis or facts to support a proposed idea.

Trolls belong under bridges, not on message boards.

originally posted by: TheOneElectric

Listen closely. No one asks for immunity exchanges if there is no crime. It does not happen.

Make sure you tell the Cult of Hillary as when there was immunity deals flying around over her email stuff last year it was nothing to even batt an eye at.

a reply to: chaeone86

Rupert Murdoch owns the Wall street journal also New York Times and Chicago Tribune .

He is a controversial figure.

a reply to: Christosterone

Well it sounds like Trump will be remembered as a Treasonous Criminal Oligarch.

I think I'd rather be known for voting for a parenthesis rather than voting for a Treasonous Criminal.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Christosterone

Well it sounds like Trump will be remembered as a Treasonous Criminal Oligarch.

I think I'd rather be known for voting for a parenthesis rather than voting for a Treasonous Criminal.

To be fair, it hasn't been proven yet.

But Hillary on the other hand fits nicely under "treasonous criminal"

a reply to: TheOneElectric

I would have been thrilled and happy that corruption was halted.

But no, the secrecy is going to undermine the Obama administration now for staying in the side lines and do nothing with what they knew back then.

Sadly I have another idea for how all the crap came down, sadly I believe that it would have damage Hillary too, she is not without fault either.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Christosterone

Well it sounds like Trump will be remembered as a Treasonous Criminal Oligarch.

I think I'd rather be known for voting for a parenthesis rather than voting for a Treasonous Criminal.

No id say as a moron...who didnt know what his people in his camp were doing. I believe he actually thought he was not talking to anyone but people he was allowwed to speak to.

I think trump is kept in the dark alot and this is the result.

a reply to: mOjOm

It will not come down to that, that is not how things work, he will finish his presidential term.

Statement by Robert Kelner, Flynn's lawyer.