Picking up where I left off yesterday, I'm going to look at how we learned about the activities that led to flyn's ......resignation? ......... firing?........... resignation? .......... firing? . I think we've come down on 'firing'. You know, the administrations handling of whether flyn resigned or was fired seemed like an adolescent break up. 'I'm breaking up with you'. 'Well you can't, 'cause I broke up with you first'. 'Oh yeah?' 'Yeah!'
And now various republicans in Congress are working as hard as they can to divert attention away from scrutinizing the trump campaign's possible contacts with Russian officials (the word campaign automatically means before the election), and to have the gaze of the public eye on those that 'illegally' provided the media with information (leaks) about flyn's phone calls with the Russian Ambassador. So let's get this cleared up and out of the way. The law on this is a follows:
18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information
(a)Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section—
(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section—
The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;
I made bold and underlined a key phrase in the opening statement of this clause in U.S.C 18 section 798, which is certainly leaves this matter as subject to interpretation. The real question here is not (a)(3), it is this phrase I have drawn attention to. These leaks where only prejudicial to the safety or interest of donatd trump and his band of racists. The information did not compromise the safety and security of the United States. As far as bein to the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States .......... oh contraire mon frère. The leaks where in fact to the benefit of the United States and to the detriment of Russia. The leaks ended up removing flyn from playing a critical role in our country's security. flyn was obviously in a position to be blackmailed by the Russians. The leaks made that possibility or eventuality no longer possible, thereby removing leverage for the Russians against someone holding a sensitive security position in our country!
While researching today's post, I cam across an interesting thought from an online publication called the intercept. Although I am not familiar with this source, I am willing to reprint a bit of the article because the quote is opinion, not fact:
https://theintercept.com/2017/02/14/the-leakers-who-exposed-gen-flynns-lie-committed-serious-and-wholly-justified-felonies/
Even if the 'leaks' were illegal, which they obviously are not for anyone who can read and understand English, the whole argument around legality along with this quote from The Intercept made me think. I'll digress for a moment here. When I was young, taking my BA in psychology at Temple University, I was presented with the following example of mature flexible thinking versus a more rigid and child like way of viewing the world. A couple's child is dying. They have been told by the boy's doctor that there is a drug that will save their child's life. The couple are upstanding citizens who have never committed a crime in their life times. They are very moral people who go to their place of worship weekly (not that that defines morality) and earnestly pray for their God's guidance. Not just when their child became ill, but since their own childhoods. They are dirt poor and have no means to purchase the very expensive drug. The husband takes it upon himself to break into a pharmacy and 'steel' the drug. The question is, was the husband right in what he did, or wrong?
What we have here are many people (these leeks where from more than one source) who care deeply about morality, decency and their country. From their perspective, what is occurring in our country, right now, presents a danger to what we hold dear and what our country represents and has been built on. They were aware of definite concrete information that corroborated their perception and knew in their heart, in their gut that they had to do something about it. They knew that the present course of 'investigation' would yield nothing from a Republican dominated Congress or from investigative agencies under the control of the administrative branch. So, they did what they knew was the only possible way to hold trump accountable. They chose to use the outlet of the First Amendment, the press.
Now the burden rests on the media to not, under any circumstances, divulge their sources. Even if that means imprisonment for contempt of Congress. They will be political prisoners and will be freed quickly due to public outrage and the obvious conflict with the First Amendment.
Meanwhile, back at the farm ...... Representative Devin Nunes, a Republican from California who heads the House Intelligence Committee has been quoted in an article in The Washington Post as saying, “I expect for the FBI to tell me what is going on, and they better have a good answer,” with reference to why a private American citizen (flyn) was recorded speaking to the Russian Ambassador.
Nunes is obviously couching his question in such a way that implies that flyn was the target of the recordings. Either Nunes is ignorant (in the true meaning of that word) or he's trying to manipulate public perception. Which one do you think it is? As the head of the House Intelligence Committee, he must be aware that the phone conversations of Russian officials are recorded as a matter of routine. Nunes obviously knows that the information that was divulged was from some of these recordings and that flyn was not the or a target. This nunes (I am now displaying my disrespect for him by beginning to spell his name with lower case letters as is obviously my habit), this nunes guy is a rubber stamp jack ass.
nunes continued, by again attempting to manipulate public perception and opinion by saying it is “very hard to believe [that flynn was acting as] some sort of secret Russian agent.” Nowhere have I seen that suggested. Saying this is an obvious attempt to distract from what truly needs to be investigated, the trump campaign's possible contacts with Russian officials prior to and leading up to election day.
In an interview on CNN nunes did trump's job for him by noting that the House Intelligence Committee will not look into discussions between trump and flyn, citing executive privilege. Well, since he's only an administrator, is there a legal precedent around 'administrative privilege'? (lol).
Lastly, I want to speak to what flyn would have looked like as our country's National Security Adviser. If you recall, there was a "fake news" scandal at the end of 2016 that fabricated crap about a child porn slave trafficking ring headed by Hillary Clinton. If you recall, flyn and then his son helped to propagate this horse dung on twitter (which by the way is not a reliable source for serious information, but rather, may be worthwhile when communicating with friends about non-serious issues). Below is an excerpt from a post on this blog from 12/10/2016:
nunes continued, by again attempting to manipulate public perception and opinion by saying it is “very hard to believe [that flynn was acting as] some sort of secret Russian agent.” Nowhere have I seen that suggested. Saying this is an obvious attempt to distract from what truly needs to be investigated, the trump campaign's possible contacts with Russian officials prior to and leading up to election day.
In an interview on CNN nunes did trump's job for him by noting that the House Intelligence Committee will not look into discussions between trump and flyn, citing executive privilege. Well, since he's only an administrator, is there a legal precedent around 'administrative privilege'? (lol).
Lastly, I want to speak to what flyn would have looked like as our country's National Security Adviser. If you recall, there was a "fake news" scandal at the end of 2016 that fabricated crap about a child porn slave trafficking ring headed by Hillary Clinton. If you recall, flyn and then his son helped to propagate this horse dung on twitter (which by the way is not a reliable source for serious information, but rather, may be worthwhile when communicating with friends about non-serious issues). Below is an excerpt from a post on this blog from 12/10/2016:
No comments:
Post a Comment