Flynn likely broke the law by failing to disclose foreign payments, House Oversight leaders say

Flynn likely broke the law by failing to disclose foreign payments, House Oversight leaders say
So it looks like the first of the Trump dominoes is about to fall. It looks like the House has determined that Flynn broke the law by not disclosing foreign payments he received from Russia or Turkey. This is likely the reason why he was seeking immunity a while back. Things are only going to get harrier now.

Former national security adviser Michael Flynn likely broke the law by failing to disclose foreign income he earned from Russia and Turkey, the heads of the House Oversight Committee said Tuesday.

Committee chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and ranking member Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) said they believe Flynn neither received permission nor fully disclosed income he earned for a speaking engagement in Russia and lobbying activities on behalf of Turkey when he applied to reinstate his security clearance, after viewing two classified memos and Flynn’s disclosure form in a private briefing Tuesday morning.

After first reporting the telephone contact between Trump adviser Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak,The Washington Post’s David Ignatius highlights the questions that still remain surrounding his resignation. (Adriana Usero/The Washington Post)

“Personally I see no evidence or no data to support the notion that General Flynn complied with the law,” Chaffetz told reporters following the briefing.

“He was supposed to get permission, he was supposed to report it, and he didn’t,” Cummings said.

Note the bold. Chaffetz is a Republican. So it isn't just Democrats saying this anymore.

A disgrace Republican says ?

LOL.

Chaffetz is out.

IF the Daily Kos is to be believed.

Chaffetz got bigger problems than Flynn.

www.dailykos.com...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

RE: "“Personally I see no evidence or no data to support the notion that General Flynn complied with the law,”"

Uh, the way you comply with the law is by not breaking it. What possible "evidence" would exist that he did not break the law. Maybe he meant he wasn't paid enough money not to make a stink about it.

When he left the White house, the other dominoes are no longer near him. His fall cannot knock them down anymore.

Seems like people like to yank the person that is going to sink the ship off the ship right away instead of waiting for him to sink the ship that they want sunk

The Hillary supporters are not very smart.

a reply to: rickymouse

Trump fired Flynn, not Hillary supporters.

Let's be glad he resigned/was fired. It's about time politicians are held accountable for corruption.

Well atleast we know with republicans back at the helm that we can have a transparent government again. Hell would have to freeze over for a liberal
oversight committee to admit a party member did something wrong.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Podesta did the same thing... except way more money, of course. It seems anything the dems point fingers at, they're guilty of doing ten times worse. Lock them both up! Oh, except if it's Hillary or Podesta it's a witch hunt.

a reply to: bender151

Proof? Show me how Podesta is guilty of the exact-same thing.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

think comey can find a prosecutor to take this to trial?
those have been hard to come by in dc in the last 2 years

or is this just a violation of procedure?

a reply to: avgguy

Oh yeah so transparent that we don't find out this crap until someone leaks it.
I guess a leak at the Whitehouse can be considered governmental transparency to some.
Then the rest of the revelation is discovered by an investigative committee that is totally separate from the executive branch . They needed to probe to find this stuff out. Then when that's revealed Flynn finally registers his foreign associations because he's broken the law and been discovered.
Yes transparency...¿¿¿

I'm just wondering what's going to come out of Flynn's mouth when he starts talking.

a reply to: shooterbrody

I'm sure if the evidence is so obvious that even Chaffetz can't deny it anymore then Comey will have no problem finding a prosecutor to take this to trial.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: rickymouse

Trump fired Flynn, not Hillary supporters.

Anytime there's a scandal or legal problems a politician instantly becomes a liberal Democrat by definition.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

a hearing in which e. cummings spoke on topic and not about police brutality or blm?
no way

a reply to: Krazysh0t

what law was broken?
did flynn INTEND to not disclose this info or did he miss state his involvement?

a reply to: Sillyolme

How many times did a liberal committee admit any wrong doing in ANY of the Obama scandals? I'll wait

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t

what law was broken?
did flynn INTEND to not disclose this info or did he miss state his involvement?

Oh, I forgot about the old "intent" aspect. or does that only work for certain folks?

a reply to: dfnj2015


You do comply with the law by not breaking it.
In this case complying with the law required an action by Flynn. Apparently he never performed the action.
He was supposed to report and register his dealings with foreign countries.
There seems to be an issue regarding that.
This is what Jason Chaffets says he sees no evidence of. He sees no evidence that Flynn filed the paperwork he should have.
So to approach this from the direction you set with your question, the evidence that would exist if he had not broken the law would be the appropriately filed paperwork. Jason didn't find it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well, the new standard set by Democrats is that as long as he didn't INTEND to break the law it is okay. This is a non-issue. Thanks Hillary.