Posted on 02/10/2017 3:02:20 PM PST by RoosterRedux
When Vice President Mike Pence declared that national security adviser Michael Flynn didn't talk to the Russian ambassador about sanctions before President Trump's inauguration, he was repeating what Flynn had told him directly, a source in the Trump administration tells the Daily News.
Pence said in a Jan. 15 appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation" that Flynn's pre-inauguration contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak had nothing to do with the Obama administration's sanctions punishing Russia for its meddling in the 2016 election. That claim has now been directly contradicted by reports in the New York Times and Washington Post that say Flynn did discuss the sanctions in December, a potentially illegal move.
"They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States' decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia," Pence told CBS at the time.
An administration source confirms to the Daily News other reports that Pence was just repeating what Flynn told him directly before the interview, strongly suggesting that Flynn lied to Pence.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
I heard this subject discussed on BBC Radio this afternoon, between a Washington Examiner reporter and some other intelligence reporter.
The Intel reporter said the WaPo had actually reported early on more accurately about this Kelly/Russia phone call, saying that the Russian ambassador had inquired of Kelly about the Obama sanctions against Russia, and that Kelly informed the vice president Pence of the inquiry. He told Pence that his reply was the would discuss the sanctions after the inauguration. So those are probably the facts as they are, I and represent rather a “yes and no” version of what actually happened.
“Yes”, they discussed the sanctions.
But, “No”, they did not discuss the sanctions. Get it?
The Intel reporter suggested Andrea Mitchell and her sources make a mistake in reading the conversation one way or the other, until there is a transcript of the conversation.
I heard Chris Wallace on Fox say that the FBI had a transcript of the conversation.
As for other leaks, it’s someone in the White House Communications Agency. They set up the calls and hear all that is said. They probably have capability to tape also, for transcript purposes.
The Intel reporter suggested Andrea Mitchell and her sources make a mistake in reading the conversation one way or the other, until there is a transcript of the conversation.
*******************************************
...and this is the truth of the whole situation...
They’re obsessed with Flynn. The man served this country distinctly and they keep slandering him. They’re not happy with how he exposed Obama’s incompetence.
The correct answer would be to simply say, I work for Trump. What I discuss behind closed doors is between Trump and myself. That includes conversations I have with third parties on his behalf.
If other officials have disclosed what was discussed behind closed doors, they need to hand in their resignations.
Flynn is a master at such things...as is Trump.
They are obsessed with Trump. Flynn is only an outer layer that they must peel off to get to Trump.
More leaks from the Deep State most likely. Remember that Obama signed an order to release all of the Trump team’s surveillance information from the NSA etc. for review.
Who knows what really was said and in what context? After the stunt that was pulled with the golden showers, I believe nothing until I hear it or see it directly, and know who produced it, given that the Intelligence Services are good at faking things.
The transition team should be able to talk to the other leaders to prevent nuclear war shouldn’t they?
That's the same advice I would have given the Russians if they had asked me... I would say: "Hey, Obama's on the way out, so wait and see who the new president is and go from there". What's the big deal with that?
I just assume any story from unnamed sources is a lie these days and the media peddling it is fake news.
But why has Flynn changed his story to “he doesn’t remember”. I love the guy but this spells trouble.
That makes more sense than most explanations I’ve read.
I’m not convinced as some are that the president is playing the media in the cases of the leaks. Not just these - but the ones we’ve seen almost daily since the inauguration. They are calculated to inflict damage.
I don’t know just what, but there’s some out of the ordinary things that seem to be going on just beneath the surface in Washington. I don’t mean what we can all see, but something else. I can’t put my finger on it and haven’t drawn any conclusions about it.
There has been renewed interest in the Logan Act in 2015 as the result of a letter signed by 47 U.S. Senators to Iran suggesting that negotiations about a nuclear deal between the President and the Iranian leadership would be an executive agreement that another President or Congress would be able to abrogate. Some have raised questions about the constitutionality of the act, whether it applies to Members of Congress, and its current viability. Commenters have provided arguments that both support and oppose the legality of the Senators’ letter.
Does the lying media have proof?
Uh, nydailynews.com is a kook commie site that peddles fake news.
Thank you. You’re welcome and good night.
Yes, unknown people are leaking these things. THEY are in control at this time, IMO, not he POTUS.
Flynn was talking to the Russians. WE record all of that. You have no privacy concerning such issues. We will find out soon what type character he really has.
So sorry. You guys know I’m on my cell phone word salad machine, I hope?
I meant FLYNN of course, not Kelly.
The bigger problem is the treasonous assault against our president with these CIA leaks to the seditionist press.
We are getting acid washed by the fifth column, and it p’$$@$ me off!
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.