Posted on 02/14/2017 3:15:41 AM PST by Pinkbell
Here is the BUT from the NYT. The conversation was "ambiguous" enough where Trump could either have kept or fired Flynn:
But the conversation, according to officials who saw the transcript of the wiretap, also included a discussion about sanctions imposed on Russia after intelligence agencies determined that President Vladimir V. Putin’s government tried to interfere with the 2016 election on Mr. Trump’s behalf. Still, current and former administration officials familiar with the call said the transcript was ambiguous enough that Mr. Trump could have justified either firing or retaining Mr. Flynn.
Also, there was NO classified information discussed on the call. It said he "appeared to be reassuring" the ambassador that Trump would adopt a softer tone and asked them not to retaliate for the sake of better cooperation, but they said there was no "explicit" promise of sanction relief but rather an "impression".
Officials said classified information did not appear to have been discussed during the conversation between Mr. Flynn and the ambassador, which would have been a crime. The call was captured on a routine wiretap of diplomats’ calls, the officials said.
But current Trump administration officials and former Obama administration officials said that Mr. Flynn did appear to be reassuring the ambassador that Mr. Trump would adopt a more accommodating tone on Russia once in office.
Former and current administration officials said that Mr. Flynn urged Russia not to retaliate against any sanctions because an overreaction would make any future cooperation more complicated. He never explicitly promised sanctions relief, one former official said, but he appeared to leave the impression that it would be possible.
My question, I suppose was how long was the call? How much of the call was dedicated to Flynn discussing these sanctions without "explicitly" promising relief and "appearing" to reassure the ambassador and "appearing" to leave the "impression" he would lift sanctions? If that was a brief part of the call, I could see why he would have either characterized it in his mind as no big deal and told Pence as such.
The Washington Post's original article written days before the new NYT article said:
All of those officials said Flynn’s references to the election-related sanctions were explicit. Two of those officials went further, saying that Flynn urged Russia not to overreact to the penalties being imposed by President Barack Obama, making clear that the two sides would be in position to review the matter after Trump was sworn in as president.
“Kislyak was left with the impression that the sanctions would be revisited at a later time,” said a former official.
Again, they use the word "impression." They use the word "explicit," but the NYT article doesn't. Even though they say "explicit," they still don't say he "explicitly" promised to life the sanctions but rather said the matter would be "reviewed" and "revisited" when Trump got in. If that was all he said, I could see how he felt he wasn't lying to Pence.
The WSJ is even less damning to General Flynn. Here is the relevant paragraph linked to Twitter because I don't belong to the WSJ:
U.S. intelligence officials routinely intercept and monitor conversations with Russian diplomats, officials have said. The transcripts of the conversations don't show Mr. Flynn made any sort of promise to lift the sanctions once Trump took office, the officials said. Rather, they show Mr. Flynn making more general statements about the relations between the two countries improving under Mr. Trump, people familiar with them said.
https://twitter.com/shaneriderMA/status/831369320034926594
He never promised to lift the sanctions!
Here is the BUT from the NYT. The conversation was "ambiguous" enough where Trump could either have kept or fired Flynn:
But the conversation, according to officials who saw the transcript of the wiretap, also included a discussion about sanctions imposed on Russia after intelligence agencies determined that President Vladimir V. Putin’s government tried to interfere with the 2016 election on Mr. Trump’s behalf. Still, current and former administration officials familiar with the call said the transcript was ambiguous enough that Mr. Trump could have justified either firing or retaining Mr. Flynn.
Also, there was NO classified information discussed on the call. It said he "appeared to be reassuring" the ambassador that Trump would adopt a softer tone and asked them not to retaliate for the sake of better cooperation, but they said there was no "explicit" promise of sanction relief but rather an "impression".
Officials said classified information did not appear to have been discussed during the conversation between Mr. Flynn and the ambassador, which would have been a crime. The call was captured on a routine wiretap of diplomats’ calls, the officials said.
But current Trump administration officials and former Obama administration officials said that Mr. Flynn did appear to be reassuring the ambassador that Mr. Trump would adopt a more accommodating tone on Russia once in office.
Former and current administration officials said that Mr. Flynn urged Russia not to retaliate against any sanctions because an overreaction would make any future cooperation more complicated. He never explicitly promised sanctions relief, one former official said, but he appeared to leave the impression that it would be possible.
My question, I suppose was how long was the call? How much of the call was dedicated to Flynn discussing these sanctions without "explicitly" promising relief and "appearing" to reassure the ambassador and "appearing" to leave the "impression" he would lift sanctions? If that was a brief part of the call, I could see why he would have either characterized it in his mind as no big deal and told Pence as such.
The Washington Post's original article written days before the new NYT article said:
All of those officials said Flynn’s references to the election-related sanctions were explicit. Two of those officials went further, saying that Flynn urged Russia not to overreact to the penalties being imposed by President Barack Obama, making clear that the two sides would be in position to review the matter after Trump was sworn in as president.
“Kislyak was left with the impression that the sanctions would be revisited at a later time,” said a former official.
Again, they use the word "impression." They use the word "explicit," but the NYT article doesn't. Even though they say "explicit," they still don't say he "explicitly" promised to life the sanctions but rather said the matter would be "reviewed" and "revisited" when Trump got in. If that was all he said, I could see how he felt he wasn't lying to Pence.
The WSJ is even less damning to General Flynn. Here is the relevant paragraph linked to Twitter because I don't belong to the WSJ:
U.S. intelligence officials routinely intercept and monitor conversations with Russian diplomats, officials have said. The transcripts of the conversations don't show Mr. Flynn made any sort of promise to lift the sanctions once Trump took office, the officials said. Rather, they show Mr. Flynn making more general statements about the relations between the two countries improving under Mr. Trump, people familiar with them said.
https://twitter.com/shaneriderMA/status/831369320034926594
He never promised to lift the sanctions!
FBN is saying that the recording was leaked to the MSM.
Just this morning? Has it been aired yet on television or printed in the press? I’d love to hear/read it.
He lied to the VP about having the conversations with the Russians. That is the crux of the issue.
You nailed it right on the head with crystal clarity.
About 30 minutes ago.
Bump.
No can do - Flynn actually “omitted” some truth and made Pence and Spicer use such “omissions” on National TV. If he had not had a “pucker moment” and came totally clean from the beginning, he would still be there. Hate to see it happen for this lapse in judgement but he cannot stay. I still consider him a class act though.
Can’t help but think Flynn was a setup way back to gain Trump’s confidence and then be used as a tool that Russia was involved in election. He lied to Vp and Pres. He may have been Obama tool to embarrass Trump.
Those who want to survive Trump's administration should watch reruns of Celebrity Apprentice. I say that because of some of those who seem self-serving in their Cabinet confirmation hearings and those who are leaking information. They need to turn it around.
That's my take anyway. PS (I've stated this before). hillary received debate questions prior to at least one debate. Why wan't she forced to drop out of the campaign?
Possible but I think not likely. Flynn had a hard on for OBuggery and for good reasons.
“Now Bannon will be the sole foreign policy advisor, which is good.”
Not so he has Gorka too and Flynn will be replaced.
Where was this fervor from the press after the numerous lies Obama told directly to the American people, starting with: if you lil your doctor you can keep your doctor.?
Any links? Thanks.
He resigned.....on to the next one.
Reported during the campaign.
Trump should close the white house press room and move those bastards to an area denying access to the administration. The so called leaks are often eavesdropping by socialist media posing as news reporters. I’m in favor of Trump giving U-Tube videos stating his positions thus denying the spin.
If the Logan Act meant anything John Kerry would have been prosecuted for negotiating with the NVA in Paris while our troops were dying in combat
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.