Posted on 02/13/2017 11:32:27 AM PST by FR_addict
-- Where was a the media's outrage when Ted Kennedy attempted to undermine President Reagan by allying with Russia?
In 1983, Kennedy sent John Tunney, a close confidant to Russia, to meet with Russian counterparts and layout Kennedy’s quid pro quo plan to take down President Reagan in the coming election.
A memorandum explaining this plan was discovered in 1991, when Boris Yeltsin, the Russian President at the time, opened up the Soviet archives.
Here is the history of the incident:
“Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit” http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html
The translated memorandum begins:
From: V. Chebrikov, Chairman of the Committee [for State Security, KGB] To: Comrade Yu. V. Andropov, General Secretary of the Communist Party Subject: Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party Yu. V. Andropov
Contents of Russian memorandum in link directly below:
http://acmeofskill.com/2009/08/text-of-kgb-chairmans-memo-to-andropov-about-us-senator/
This was actual treasonous behavior. Kennedy was attempting to undermine the Reagan administration’s Russian policy. Although Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, discovered the information in 1991, there was hardly a peep out of the American press and Kennedy remained a Senator till his death in 2009.
Now we come to the Flynn incident.
Lt. Gen. Flynn was President’s Trump’s choice to be National Security Advisor. This appointment does not need the Senate’s approval.
On Dec 29th Obama decided to announce sanctions against Russia and also expel 35 officials in the last remaining days of his administration. Supposedly these sanctions were put in place because the U.S. Intelligence community said Russia interfered in our elections. The media claimed this interference cost Hillary the election. This point is the talking point for much of the American mainstream media, but the media leaves out many important reasons why Hillary lost the election, including her health concerns, her name calling of the American electorate, her lack of charisma, Hillary’s security breaches for top secret classified information, Clinton Foundation finances and whether the Foundation offered quid pro quo arrangements with donors and foreign governments, and the contents of the DNC and Podesta emails. Regardless of how the emails came into the public domain, the information in the DNC emails was enough to remove the DNC chairwoman
What about Obama’s motives? With less than a month left to go in the Presidency, was he trying to hamstring the Trump administration with these sanctions? Why didn’t he leave the choice whether to enact sanctions to the new administration? The media never questioned Obama on his motives.
Let’s look at one of the articles on the Flynn story. On Jan 23rd, the Washington post wrote an article entitled:
”FBI reviewed Flynn’s calls with Russian ambassador but found nothing illicit” https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-reviewed-flynns-calls-with-russian-ambassador-but-found-nothing-illicit/2017/01/23/aa83879a-e1ae-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.fccc2b25e43d
The above article indicated their sources agreed that the call was proper and that Gen Flynn & the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak talked about a range of issues.
On Feb 9th of this year, the Washington Post put out a new article on this story:
“National security adviser Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials say” https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/national-security-adviser-flynn-discussed-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador-despite-denials-officials-say/2017/02/09/f85b29d6-ee11-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_usrussia-%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.b9925ac9bb38
In Flynn’s reply to questions, he backed away somewhat from what he originally stated and said he doesn’t remember talking about sanctions, but it was possible. Trump administration spokesperson said they did not see any evidence that Flynn had an intent to make a promise on sanctions after the inauguration. The Post said their sources claimed Flynn told the Ambassador the sanctions would be reviewed. The Washington Post based this article on leaked betrayals of the administration by former and current anonymous agents to the newspaper.
The article conceded that it is normal for high officials in the oncoming administration to contact officials in other countries. Michael McFaul, who was U.S. Ambassador under Obama even travelled to Moscow before Obama’s election win. In hindsight, perhaps Gen. Flynn would have been better off going personally to Moscow.
Whoever is leaking information between Gen. Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak may be committing a crime. Were the conversations taped between Gen. Flynn and Kislyak classified? A whistleblower may report a crime, but not private diplomatic conversations. If they aren’t classified, then the public should be able to see the transcript and judge for ourselves what the real story is here.
On Feb 10th, Washington Post wrote a follow up article,
“Six stunning aspects of the Flynn scandal” https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/02/10/six-stunning-aspects-of-the-flynn-scandal/?utm_term=.3c496149865b
The above article is filled with vitriol towards Gen. Flynn and the Trump administration and isn’t even worth this author’s comments.
Its a nothingburger. The only thing interesting to me is the identity of the leakers, who should be transferred to the Aleutian Islands.
The Demwits and their comrades in the MSM are the biggest liars, hypocrites and traitors certainly in my lifetime.
Where was the outrage when 0 promised “flexibility”
I agree, this is not going anywhere. Byron York stated that the transcripts from Flynn talking to the Russians showed nothing that was improper.
After this Flyncident, he may need a Flyntervention.
In other news, the AG Jeff Sessions has looked into the allegations and has found nothing wrong with the phone calls. You know, kinda like the good ole days when Holder and Lynch never found anything wrong...you know...goose, gander...yeah, like that.
he only thing interesting to me is the identity of the leakers, “
I agree. Was the conversation classified? It seems to me that it very well could have been classified since it was a conversation with Russian officials, If it was, they leaked classified information, a crime.
Media made a big deal of Flynn talking to the Russian ambassador, but hardly touched the story about the Muslim spy ring in Congress in the IT department. If we can’t even vent the people working for Congress, what makes them think we can vent the refugees.
There wasn’t anything wrong with the conversation. This happens in every new administration.
Why was Obama trying to prevent Trump from being able to enact his own Russian policies. Now, Trump has to deal with Obama’s last minute sanctions put in place to be spiteful, not to pursue a real goal.
In fact, it’s possible the Muslim spy ring in the Congressional IT department was responsible for the DNC email leaks blamed on Russia.
nevermind
“Whoever is leaking information between Gen. Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak may be committing a crime. Were the conversations taped between Gen. Flynn and Kislyak classified? A whistleblower may report a crime, but not private diplomatic conversations. If they aren’t classified, then the public should be able to see the transcript and judge for ourselves what the real story is here”.
You are on target— this entire Flynn episode is an engineered “outing” of the leakers, including the actions of holdover obamaumao people (lefties) who will be quietly removed. It may lead to current prominent Admin people who are acting as intermediaries and “sources” to the WSJ, CNN, Al Franken et. al., and who will be fired. This is how it is done.
Jennifer Griffin and Shep Smith are so excited right now while reporting this story, that they need to breathe into paper bags.
Check the technology! Phone, computer etc.
“this entire Flynn episode is an engineered “outing” of the leakers, including the actions of holdover obamaumao people (lefties) who will be quietly removed. It may lead to current prominent Admin people who are acting as intermediaries and “sources” to the WSJ, CNN, Al Franken et. al., and who will be fired.”
I hadn’t really considered that it might be a setup to catch leakers, but Trump has set up people before to find out who he could trust. Whoever they are, they had access to sensitive information and possibly classified info. If it wasn’t classified, it probably should have been.
The whole thing seems a little strange. Seems like the VP could have listened to the tapes himself. If it’s not a setup, then why didn’t Flynn and the VP know there was a tape. Are they spying on the Trump admin? And who is spying?
John Kerry met with the Sandanistas, jim McDermott met with Saddam Hussein, Nancy Pelosi met with Assad, Ted Kennedy met with the Russians, etc...the list goes on and on of Democrats who really did violate the Logan act...
John Kerry met with the Sandanistas, jim McDermott met with Saddam Hussein, Nancy Pelosi met with Assad, Ted Kennedy met with the Russians, etc...the list goes on and on of Democrats who really did violate the Logan act...
This is true. Not just Kerry, just about every Democrat in DC used to fly down to Managua to get their picture taken with the Ortegas.
John Kerry met with the viet con in Paris on his own to negotiate a deparatr peace. He vsme back with Hanoi’s terms. Traitor.
Don’t get sucked in. Some of those things were real. Going to a foreign government and telling them NOT to make a deal with the current administration because the next one will be better is the kind of thing we’re looking for in this law.
Just telling the other country what the new administration is going to do isn’t. The sanctions were already in place, and they weren’t “conditional” on anything, we didn’t ask Russia to take steps to remove the sanctions, so how could anything Trump or any other person said to the Russians been of any consequence at all?
THis is all a made-up, false story looking for some hook to make it real. Like note that the story now is not really about talking to Russia, it’s “did he lie about talking to Russia”.
The issue is: Did Flynn lie to Pence? If not, move on. If yes, Flynn resigns.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.