Media, Politics

ABC News Retracts Flynn Bombshell Story

download-6.jpgDuring the frenzy yesterday over the Flynn plea deal, ABC dropped a bombshell report that Michael Flynn told Special Counsel Bob Mueller that he was prepared to testify that it was Trump who told him to contact the Russians.  ABC News later not only retracted that statement but corrected it with information supporting Trump’s account and contacts with Russians.  With the story today of an FBI special agent removed from the Russian investigation due to anti-Trump tweets, the “clarification” by ABC plays into the narrative by Trump supporters that the Russian investigation is politically motivated.

Here is the ABC “clarification”:

During a live Special Report, ABC News reported that a confidant of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn said Flynn was prepared to testify that then-candidate Donald Trump instructed him to contact Russian officials during the campaign.

That source later clarified that during the campaign, Trump assigned Flynn and a small circle of other senior advisers to find ways to repair relations with Russia and other hot spots.

It was shortly after the election, that President-elect Trump directed Flynn to contact Russian officials on topics that included working jointly against ISIS.

As I mentioned in my column yesterday, the meetings described in the Flynn plea were notably directed at pressing foreign conflicts and United Nations votes.  Trump had an interest in repairing relations with Russia and striking a new path in foreign policy.  He stated that on the campaign trail.  The ABC report and Flynn account seems to support that account as the motivation of the meetings to address issues including ISIS, Israel, and sanctions against Russia.

Such accounts can raise issues relation to the Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) barring unauthorized citizens who negotiate with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States.  However, the interpretation of that Act as it relates to the incoming National Security Adviser is uncertain. More importantly the Act is widely and correctly viewed as unconstitutional and should be eliminated by Congress.

The ironic element of the ABC correction is that it highlights a developing picture of these meetings as tracking Trump’s public statements.  Trump openly called for a closer relationship with Russia (which Hillary Clinton once called for) and promised to be an ardent advocate for Israel.  Moreover, as I mentioned on NPR this morning, these meetings are a curious part of a conspiracy when they were discussed openly in meetings at Mar-a-Lago.  While the discussions do raise serious questions over the denials of any contacts with Russians, it seems to follow a pattern of pursing the very policy changes that Trump pledged to pursue on the campaign trail.

287 thoughts on “ABC News Retracts Flynn Bombshell Story”

  1. The news media today doesn’t give a RAT’S ASS what they print or say…. Ignorant Liberals – wish they would get sued enough to put them out of business.

  3. This investigation is being done by people in our government who want to remove an elected president from office. I think this is a very dangerous thing to do in a country like ours. I don’t believe we are a nation of laws any more.

  4. If we finally uncovered the well-hidden MATT LIAR at NBC, why would we listen to ABC or any other propagandists in the MSM?

    If MATT LIAR is unfortunate, what are all the Hillary-style “enablers” in the MSM?

    The ends justify the means, comrades.

    It’s the agenda, stupid!

  5. Nice move JT, play Trump’s playbook by making sure the waters are stirred up so nobody can see the bottom. JT will whip out his vacation pictures again when this gets down to the truth. There is not one lawyer in this country that can not see where this is going and JT knows it. So make sure the I’s are dotted and the T’s are crossed, but when it all goes down your readers can blame Obama and Hillary and everything will be alright in the culpable willfully blind, tribal reality is irrelevant crowd……….. And now back to your regular programming.

    2. re: “culpable willfully blind, tribal reality is irrelevant crowd…”

      that would be all the Dim cultists who admire Obama & the Clinton legacies –

      People are waking up though – donations to DNC continue to drop

      And there are activists working on getting rid of the closed primary system so independents are free from the duopoly.

  6. “Such accounts can raise issues relation to the the Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) barring unauthorized citizens who negotiate with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States. However, the interpretation of that Act as it relates to the incoming National Security Adviser is uncertain.”

    The Logan Act has not ever been used to successfully prosecute anyone, since it was enacted in 1799.

    Flynn’s job was to contact ambassadors, among other things. His error was when he lied about the content of those discussions to federal investigators, as well as VP Mike Pence. Don’t lie to a federal investigator. Just ask Martha Stewart.

    The FBI already stated almost a year ago that it listened to every one of Michael Flynn’s recorded conversations with Russian nationals, and found no wrongdoing in the content. Michael Flynn is charged with lying to a federal investigator, not with collusion with the Russians. Everyone speaks with foreign nationals. Ambassadors of foreign governments have access to politicians as part of their jobs. Obviously, Russian ambassadors report their conversationist to their government. That’s their job.

    Journalists’ jobs are to get the facts of the story straight. To listen to their breathless account, you would think that Flynn was caught red handed giving out the nuclear codes. Obama himself told Russia that he would have more flexibility after the election (when he presumably wouldn’t care how his actions went over with the public) and to give him mores space. The outgoing Russian president even told Obama “I stand with you” during that conversation.

    There is nothing wrong with soothing anxiety about American-Russo relations after an outgoing President just ejected all diplomats from the country. That would be troubling times. What was wrong was lying about it. That does not implicate him or anyone else in collusion to steal a presidency.

    What we do know, for a fact, is that the DNC and Hillary Clinton paid Fusion GPS, who coordinated with Russian operatives to provide Christopher Steele’s entirely fabricated Trump Dossier. We also know that Hillary Clinton was paid $145 million to her foundation, and Bill Clinton was paid double his going rate speaking fee, by the Russians while the Uranium One deal was approved.

    There is nothing wrong with obtaining opposition research from a foreign government. If you want to know what a candidate did in another country, you are going to have to obtain that information from that country. An example would be if a candidate engaged in fraudulent financial transactions internationally. Interpol is information gathered from member countries.

    The issue is when the information is spurious or politically motivated. A country will always look out for its best interest. That is not a problem as long as the information is true. Russia’s goal has always been purported to be chaos. They successfully approached Hillary Clinton and the DNC and injected chaos with their false dossier. They also approached the Trump team, but do not appear to have gotten farther than a meeting. Their false information was rejected. Aside from that, soothing worried ambassadors and being diplomatic is not collusion.

    The term “political malpractice” was bandied about frequently by Democrats this past election. It was political malpractice for Trump to make promises. It was political malpractice if the DNC failed to buy the dossier.

    That implies that there is some high moral standard for politics like there is in medicine. Politics is a cesspool. If you want to use the phrase, then it was political malpractice for the DNC and Hillary Clinton to release slanderous information that they had not vetted or proven in order to malign a candidate and steal an election. It was political malpractice for Brazile to sneak HRC the questions prior to a debate. It was malpractice for the Clinton Team to take control of the DNC in exchange for taking on their debt. It was malpractice to force Bernie out because Clinton had control of the DNC.

    Personally, I call it dirty politics as usual.

    2. Karen S, I think this statement of yours needs to be reported over and over again since some people have a hard time listening to the truth.

      “The FBI already stated almost a year ago that it listened to every one of Michael Flynn’s recorded conversations with Russian nationals, and found no wrongdoing in the content”.

      THE FBI ALREADY STATED ALMOST A YEAR AGO THAT IT LISTENED TO EVERY ONE OF MICHAEL FLYNN’S RECORDED CONVERSATIONS WITH RUSSIAN NATIONALS, AND FOUND NO WRONGDOING IN THE CONTENT.

    1. Mickey,…
      The Russian Dossier seems to be at least one example of collusion with Russians DURING the campaign.
      It remains to be seen if Mueller proves that there were other examples, and if he’ll be even-handed in applying the same standards to both campaigns.

      1. a) Define collusion.

        b) You are aware the dossier’s origins are about as sketcky as the come.

        c) Remember when Obama campaigned for President overseas, courting foreign influence into our electoral process?

        1. Andrew W.
          – I think that using foreign sources for opposition research in a campaign violates, or at the very least straddles, the law against foreign involvement/contributions to U.S. campaigns.
          I used the example of “collusion” with a foreign power in that context.
          I wasn’t addressing the merits/ credibility of the Russian Dossier…..my point was that if seeking or using Russian campaign opposition research is a focus of the Mueller investigation, a reasonable expectation and demand is that he applies the same standard to both campaigns, not just in connection with the Trump campaign.
          If Mueller pursues only the latter, I think his credibilty is shot.
          I’d have to review the 2008 Obama campaign to see how much overseas campaigning was done, so I can’t answer your other question.

          1. I think you and I agree more than we disagree. The origins of the “dossier” are certainly troubling – even more so, the possibility that FBI money helped finance it and then in turn, it may have been presented to a FISA court to authorize intelligence operations against HIllary’s opponent.

            I can refresh your memory regarding Obama’s foreign campaigning.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/us/politics/24text-obama.html

            I don’t know if any previous candidate also campaigned abroad but Obama’s Germany whistlestop was certainly the most involved.

            1. Thanks for the NY Times linke, Andrew.
              The speech didn’t seem to have the same zest as the 1963 JFK “Eich bin ein Berliner” speech.😉
              The height of the financial meltdown/ panic occured less than two months after that 2008 Obama Berlin speech.
              One commentator quipped that “The Italian Communist Party could have beat the Republicans in 2008”, given the timing of the meltdown toward the end of Bush 43’s administration.

  9. A pussy grabbing, sexual predator (multiple rape accusations besides dozens of inappropriate contacts) leading a group of criminals. They all lie. They all commit fraud on disclosure statements. They lie, lie, lie. The swampiest most divisive administration in history. They lie, lie, lie. And yet instead of focusing on Flynn’s incessant lies, Kushner as point man for the criminal enterprise a ridiculously slanted law professor focusing after ABC. Talk about monkeys tossing feces

    I did not expect you to include Flynn’s prior rantings (at dumb donald’s campaign lie fests) that if did one tenth of what clinton did he would be in jail. Wonder what the result will be when he did 10 times more? Probably a celebratory statue in then state about to elect the pedophile moore.

    3. Bill W: A careful reading of the Billie Bush transcript (without moving your lips) would show that Trump said YOU could do ti — not that HE did it. He only copped to kissing beautiful women.

      And Pamela Anderson, in an interview on NBC, confirmed what Trump said. That is, many of the women who have now come forward about Harvey Weinstien knew exactly what they were getting into when they went to a one-on-one encounter with Weinstien.

    4. I’ll see your “grabbing” and raise you a “rape in the first degree.” I’ll throw in a little “aiding and abetting” for good measure.

    5. Wow well thought out commentary. Perhaps you should take a breath. I am always amazed at the name calling last ditch effort by libs when a coherent argument is not possible on their part. Grow up. Of course Obama’s administration was the most transparent, honest, and non-abusive period in this country’s history. My favorite example of this would be Lois Lerner, Comey and let’s not forget who Flynn was appointed by…and that he worked less than 30 days for…how did you phrase it….the P**** grabber?Amazing.

    6. Look at it this way….it was either Trump…..or…Bill Clinton the rapist…and his wife Hillary the corrupt, incompetent, concussed, pathological liar and enabler of rapists — who both have close personal friendships with all of the recent pervs and rapists being exposed in Hollywood and the media, like their good pal Harvey Weinstein, etc, etc. Lucky for us, we got Trump. The far, far better choice to shake things up.

    7. “A pussy grabbing, sexual predator (multiple rape accusations besides dozens of inappropriate contacts) leading a group of criminals.”

      Let’s unpack this.

      Lady parts grabber. Trump was on a hot mike bragging to another guy how women will let famous guys do anything. That’s the definition of a groupie, and the operative term is “let.” Let implies to allow, which implies consent. Mind reading is not possible yet, regardless of the sci fi genre.

      Let’s take another look at boundaries. I was shopping in Hollywood years ago, and bemoaned my hips when looking at a cute pair of low rider jeans. The super gay shop employee grabbed my hips with both hands, shimmied my entire body, and said, “Thank God for your hips! Let’s run!” Then he took my hand and we literally ran to the back of the store, laughing, where those adorable jeans were stocked. Yes, he touched me without my permission and I was completely fine with it. He was a sweetie and effervescent. Maybe someone else would have filed sexual assault claims and gotten lawyers involved. It would be a shame if gay shop attendants couldn’t push the boundaries in a friendly way.

      Another example was when I went to a gay bar with my friends. That was the thing to do – go to a gay bar so girls could just dance with their friends and not get hit on. Girls really do like to dance. Of course, this was a gay/lesbian bar. When I went into the bathroom, a girl in a blazer accidentally-on-purpose bumped into me, and steadied herself by grabbing my boobs, and then my butt, and then a few other places. I just laughed it off. My impression was that she pegged me for a tourist, and was teasing me. My laughing it off told her I did not judge her and took it as a joke as it was intended. It certainly wasn’t scare or assault. Maybe someone else would have filed sexual assault charges, gotten lawyers involved, and ruined her life. That would be a shame.

      I have a high bar for sexual assault. Sexual assault does not mean some guy (or girl) grabbing your but in a bar. A calm, mature woman knows how to avoid those situations, and handle them when they come up without screaming. I recall reading how a writer saw some executive walk up to Goldie Hawn at a party and place his hand quite a bit too low. She smiled up at him, took his hand in her own, and squeezed it, holding onto it. He didn’t even know she’d parried his pawing, it was so diplomatically and calmly done. Now I wonder if it was Weinstein, or someone else.

      Sexual assault implies overpowering or threatening someone. Sexual harassment implies pushing advances on someone who is not interested. Stalking someone is harassment. Threatening someone’s job unless they go out with you is harassment. A come on is not sexual harassment, unless it comes from your boss and/or affects your employment. If you GOOGLE “sexual harassment”, you will find “harassment (typically of a woman) in a workplace, or other professional or social situation, involving the making of unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks.” I disagree. Lots of women and men proposition each other. If the other person is not receptive, it is certainly classified as an unwanted advance, but it is not harassment.

      There are a lot of actresses who willingly slept their way into movies and Playboy magazine. That’s why the casting couch has been a cliche for decades. Women may not have liked it, but they did it. Then later they regretted it. Where was their spine? If someone tells you that you can have a great job, but you have to sleep with them to get it, the correct answer is, “No.” A lot of women did exactly that, or they saw it going on and kept quiet. Then they funneled their outrage at Trump. They should focus their ire on the men dangling jobs for sex in their industry, and at themselves for either going along with it or keeping quiet. Find your backbone, and move forward. And do not compensate for your silence by lumping all expressions of interest or even pushing boundaries as sexual harassment or assault.

      Other than that, any allegations of criminal behavior should always be investigated. I have been burned so many times by believing the media, that I now am quite guarded. It’s best to wait until you have as much information as possible.

      1. Sorry. Editing problem. I meant to say that harassment could include a threat. Assault obviously carried through on the threat.

      2. How come 99% of all those that allegedly committed sexual offenses are members of the Jack Ass Party? Even Roy Moore was a Democrat prior to 1992.

      3. How about when T rump bracked about seein those teen pageant girls naked when he went prowling their dressing rooms. Said it on Howard the Stern one’s show.

        3. Ken, you seem to be fascinated with the idea of naked bodies that makes you imagine things. This sounds like some sort of childhood hangup.

  11. By Robert Parry, as posted to his site — with credit to Autumn:

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/12/01/the-scalp-taking-of-gen-flynn/

    “What I have heard from many Hillary Clinton supporters in recent months is that they don’t care about the unfairness of the Russia-gate process or the dangerous precedents that such politicized prosecutions might set. They simply view Trump as such a danger that he must be destroyed at whatever the cost.

    “Yet, besides the collateral damage inflicted on mid-level government officials such as retired Lt. Gen. Flynn facing personal destruction at the hands of federal prosecutors with unlimited budgets, there is this deepening pattern of using criminal law to settle political differences, a process more common in authoritarian states.

    “As much as the Russia-gate enthusiasts talk about how they are upholding “the rule of law,” there is the troubling appearance that the law is simply being used to collect the scalps of political enemies.” -Robert Parry

    1. Mikey wanted to lock Clinton up with no trial. Mikey may not do da time either but Don Don Jr and da Prince Jared have a damn good shot at it.

      1. “Mikey wanted to lock Clinton up with no trial.”

        Yep. And it was wrong.

        “Mikey may not do da time either but Don Don Jr and da Prince Jared have a damn good shot at it.”

        Let the chips fall. Shake up the whole damn system. It’s a f*cking mess.

        1. “Shake up the whole damn system.”

          Exactly. That’s why Trump is in the big White House and not Hillary Clinton.

          1. T rump constructed a dirty little nest in record time. Some of his dirtbags have left. More will follow.

            3. That’s funny. It would appear that most of the problem children were holdovers from the muslim in the oval office. Rather disturbing that an FBI agent responsible for investigating Hillary’s dirt was just fired for anti Trump rhetoric. The Obama deep state moles are everywhere and Trump DOES need to clean house.

  12. Could this really be about Gulen? – Erdogan’s opponent who orchestrated an attempted coup – he is living here.

    Time-Traveling Michael Flynn Colludes with Russians in December to Interfere with Election in November

    “This is about Imam Gulen in the Poconos, whom the American deep state apparently set up a long time ago as a Turkish regime-in-waiting and has been allowing to skim hundreds of millions of America taxpayer dollars from Gulen’s giant chain of charter schools in America.

    Prosecutors did not charge Mr. Flynn with crimes related to his work with the Turkish government. But in documents, they made clear that they have evidence that Mr. Flynn “made materially false statements and omissions” in his federal filings about that lobbying work.

    What it sounds like is Mueller is letting Flynn walk on the Turkish stuff, which appears to be pretty bad, in return for taking a fall on the minor Martha Stewart-like Russian stuff … Does that make sense?”

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/time-travelin-michael-flynn-colludes-on-election-with-russians-in-december/

    1. TBob – Behar is the first one in her family to walk upright unaided so give her some slack. Brain is underdeveloped but it is huge that she can spout the script.

      1. FWIW — I had never watched TV — excepting World Cup and some campaign debates.as I hate commercials. During the primaries though I followed every Bernie appearance – this was my intro to the purveyers of televised fake media. Ugh! These people are so vile, purposely altering or omitting facts. That they reach such a yuuge audience as Michelle Obama would say, shook me to my core!

        Recently I was searching for interviews with Aldous Huxley – one of my fav writers and came across one with Mike Wallace. UT Austin has an archive of Wallace’s interviews from 1957 & 1958. I have been watching them and wonder what happened to the level of intelligent discourse on TV?

        http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/collections/film/holdings/wallace/

        1. Ugh is right. I think it was Ben Shapiro who called television shows like The View a ‘repository of all human stupidity.’ But see, that’s exactly why Barack Obama and Michelle Obama spent so much time flying out to Los Angeles to appear on all the shows. The View, The Ellen Show, David Letterman, Fallon, Jon Stewart, etc. For eight years the Obama’s made regular appearances on all the shows, never being asked hard questions, and were given a big, huge platform to sell their ‘brands’ and disseminate their propaganda to the masses.

          And we wonder why Trump uses his Twitter to sell himself and his policies? Why shouldn’t he? It’s not like Republicans can use all the Hollywood megaphones that Democrats use to get their messages out to the uninformed public. Nope, only Democrats get that platform. Why do you think Obama’s popularity ratings stayed so high? He and Michelle worked hard to keep it up by going on all the shows and always looking so cool and likeable. Never mind how awful his policies were or any of that.

          Thanks for the link. And actually Chris Wallace, Mike’s son, is probably one of the better political journalists around.

    2. “Smallest, most basic idea…” Hannity creates, promotes and broadcasts both small and big lies.

      1. Proof? I’m waiting. Please show me the courtesy and prove that the thing between your shoulders isn’t just a library of Democrat Party talking points but that you can construct an idea. So do it! Get there!!!! Dying to hear this.

        1. You’re not trying very hard. Type in a search of “Hannity lies”. Publications across the spectrum have articles, many of which were posted in 2017. There’s even an article from 2013 that is titled “Hannity’s 10 worst lies”.

  14. “The Scalp-Taking of Gen. Flynn”

    “just four days into the Trump presidency, an Obama holdover, then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates, primed the Flynn perjury trap by coming up with a novel legal theory that Flynn – although the national security adviser-designate at the time of his late December phone calls with Kislyak – was violating the 1799 Logan Act, which prohibits private citizens from interfering with U.S. foreign policy.

    But that law – passed during President John Adams’s administration in the era of the Alien and Sedition Acts – was never intended to apply to incoming officials in the transition period between elected presidential administrations and – in the past 218 years – the law has resulted in no successful prosecution at all and thus its dubious constitutionality has never been adjudicated”.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48325.htm

    1. I was just about to post the same piece, Autumn.

      By Robert Parry, as posted to his site:

      https://consortiumnews.com/2017/12/01/the-scalp-taking-of-gen-flynn/

      “What I have heard from many Hillary Clinton supporters in recent months is that they don’t care about the unfairness of the Russia-gate process or the dangerous precedents that such politicized prosecutions might set. They simply view Trump as such a danger that he must be destroyed at whatever the cost.

      “Yet, besides the collateral damage inflicted on mid-level government officials such as retired Lt. Gen. Flynn facing personal destruction at the hands of federal prosecutors with unlimited budgets, there is this deepening pattern of using criminal law to settle political differences, a process more common in authoritarian states.

      “As much as the Russia-gate enthusiasts talk about how they are upholding “the rule of law,” there is the troubling appearance that the law is simply being used to collect the scalps of political enemies.” -Robert Parry

      Credit to Autumn.

    2. You’re buying into a factually incorrect narrative whose spin is crystal clear.

      Most glaringly: Flynn was not “an Obama holdover.” Obama fired Flynn and warned Trump that he was a loose cannon. Trump, who claims he hires “the best people”, hired him despite this specific warning.

      If the assertion is more generally that Obama had him in his administration at one point in time (certainly a true statement), well, Flynn began his military service somewhere around 1981 under Reagan, and was steadily promoted through all that time, including to senior intelligence positions for US Central Command during the Bush II administration. In other words, he came up through the military side of things, and ultimately rose to the level of his own limits.

      It should not be surprising that all presidential administrations – Obama, Bush II, Clinton, and going backwards from there – would respect the normal military promotion process. The key is that Obama, unlike Trump, recognized that Flynn was a loose cannon and acted appropriately (by forcing him out as head of the DIA).

      But it’s ridiculous to blame Reagan and call Flynn “a Reagan holdover”, correct? Equally silly to call Flynn “a Bush II holdover”, correct?

      1. @Zarniwoop

        It’s Sally Yates who is being termed the “Obama holdover” — not Flynn.

        From the Parry article: “…an Obama holdover, then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates,…”

    3. And yet Obama continues to go overseas to visit government leaders after Trump has toured. Surely he isn’t in violation of the Logan Act.

    3. The research from conservative Rasmussen found that Fox is perceived to be the least credible.

      1. Linda – I don’t think Rasmussen is considered conservative, although Gallup is an arm of the DNC.

  18. “Trump’s version” was that there were no contacts with Russians as opposed to the 19 or so, most having to do with money or reduction of sanctions that I’m aware of. For those of you that come away with yesterday’s news of a guilty plea by Flynn who is now a cooperating witness and being directed by others as opposed to going rogue as “more fake news.” Good luck with that.

    For any that want to claim that the President has not yet been directly implicated, you are correct. If you want to believe that nearly everyone around him during the campaign had knowledge of the Russian contacts including his son and son-in-law, National Security Advisor, Attorney General, K.T. McFarland, and Hope Hicks while he personally knew nothing. That is your right but the steady stream of information is looking more likely rather than less likely that Trump was at least aware of these activities.

    1. Ah, Enigma, it’s legal and downright required for transition team members to contact their foreign counterparts. Flynn is charged with lying about it for reasons known only to him and likely because he didn’t have a lawyer with him when talking to Comey’s FBI. By your logic, Obama, Clinton and W Bush should be indicted since their transition teams did the same thing. But why let facts get in the way of your innuendo. Carry on.

      1. Talking to Russians and foreign powers is a legitimate thing and not illegal. Undermining current foreign policy while not yet in office is another thing. Especially making promises regarding sanctions against Russian for interfering in the very election which may have played a role in helping get them elected.
        We will find out just how many of them lied to the FBI and the American public and what the “reasons of their own” turned out to be.
        Perhaps Reagan’s overtures to Iran and forestalling the release of the hostages until after the election might be a better example of criminal meddling in foreign policy although the other Presidents may have done their dirt as well.
        BTW, are you really going with, “he didn’t have a lawyer” and didn’t know better than lying to the FBI?

        1. Enigma,..

          I remembered a previous comment that you had made on this issue.
          I can’t cut and paste your entire comment, but I will quote the relevant parts.
          Any Caps will be mine.
          From JT’s July 11, 2017 column, “New York Times, Trump Jr.told in advance that anti-Clinton information was coming from the Russian government to help his Dad.”
          Your comment was in response to Allan’s comment challenging you to show that Trump Jr. violated the law.
          Here was your response:
          “(g) solicitation, acceptance, or receipt of contributions and donations from foreign nationals.
          No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
          TRUMP JR. SOLICITED AND ACCEPTED SOMETHING OF VALUE FROM A FOREIGN NATIONAL..THE SOMETHING OF VALUE WAS THE OPPOSITION RESEARCH PROMISED”.
          By that same standard, do you think that Marc Elias and his law firm, Fusion GPS, The DNC, John Podesta et al. violated the law?

          1. Enigma,..
            I posed a specific question to you at 6:45 PM yesterday ( Dec.2) re your standards of illegal conduct on the part of either campaign in the 2016 election.
            I quoted what you said in July, 2017, when you concluded that Trump Jr. and Kushner violated statutes by seeking/ accepting something of value ( opposition research) from a foreign national.
            I think that a strong argument can be made that involving foreign entities in opposition research does violate the statutes that you cited in July.
            (Much of this will likely end up decided by the courts….you or I or Mueller can deem anything we decide as “illegal”, but this isn’t settled law, and to the best of my knowledge this has never been addressed by SCOTUS or any higher court in relation to any previous campaign).
            I have also repeatedly commented in this thread, and in previous JT columns, that going forward there needs to be some fairly clear-cut boundaries and definations set for those boundaries in future campaigns.
            You applied a standard ( in July 2016) to Trump Jr., Kushner, etc.
            And by that standard, you concluded that they violated the statutes prohibiting foreign contributions ( opposition reasearch being contribution).
            If you answered the question that I previously posed, I missed it.
            I did see that you noted that Hillary was “a private citizen”, and that bringing up issues like the Russian Dossier, Fusion GPS, the DNC funding of foreign opposition research by the DNC, the rolez of Podesta and Marc Elias…..all of this seems to be a “diversion” to you.
            So where Trump Jr. and Kushner sought ( and evidently did not receive) foreign opposition research, you conclude that they violated the statutes.
            And in the case of the Russian Dossier, where foreign opposition research actually was obtained, and was bought and paid for by the DNC, you complain about it being “a diversion”.
            I’ll repeat this same question…if, in your view, Trump Jr. and Kushner illegally sought to obtain foreign opposition research, should seeking and obtaining ( p urchasing) opposition research by the DNC and other parties I mentioned also be considered to be illegal?
            Or is it just conduct that you dismiss as a “diversion”, since Hillary is “a private citizen”?
            It appears that in one case you are eager to conclude that JR. and Kusher acted illegally, but that you want the standards you set to unilaterally apply only to the Trump campaign.
            I think that’s a hell of a convenient “inconsistency” you seem to repeatedly dodge when you say things like it’s just ” diversion”, or that Hillary is “a private citizen”.

    2. but the steady stream of information is looking more likely rather than less likely that Trump was at least aware of these activities.

      LOL! I would have appreciated you leading with that sentence. I should have known better. You set the table and in the end served up a nothing-burger. The real story that has meat on the bone with lots of flavor is the utter desperation of the Left to find anything President Trump does as an impeachable offense. The Left is like the boxer that should never have gotten in the ring. One punch from Trump and lights out. You wake up and while trying to stand up, Trump hits you again saying, “Stay down.” But you keep getting back up only to be put down again. At this point it’s gotten pretty pathetic.

      1. Ultimately, one of us will be shown to be correct. I like my odds. So far your definition of “nothing-burger” seems to allow for three indictments and two guilty pleas with other officials in the White House implicated but not named.

              1. Read the tweet, as so many here like to point out, collusion in and of itself is not a crime so naturally, no indictments with that specific charge have come from it.
                Flynn’s lies (and guilty plea) were about Russia. Papadopoulos’s lies (and guilty plea) were about Russia.
                Keep on telling me and yourself there’s nothing there and Jared and Donald Jr at minimum won’t be facing charges. You’re setting yourself up for a huge disappointment.

                1. enigmainblack – I fervently wish Jared would be charged — Or at the very least just go back to NYC. But I don’t see that happening – he is backed by AIPAC

                  1. Autumn, you have a weird understanding of AIPAC. Perhaps the anti-Semites are getting to you. AIPAC enthusiastically applauded Obama when he was there.

                    I don’t know how much backing Kushner has from AIPAC, but whatever backing he has doesn’t carry that much clout. Anti-Semites like to claim that Jews control and push all sorts of buttons. There are many prominent Jews, but they don’t fit nicely into the anti-Semites pidgeon hole.

                    1. Allan I am not anti Semetic, but I am anti (hard line) Zionism. Judaism is a religion, Zionism is a political movement. Gentiles are never allowed to call out Zionists without being accused. However there are some prominent secular Jews who are brave enough to do so. Ever hear about the S.H.I.T. list? A former professor of mine is on it – JEWISH S.H.I.T. LIST Self-Hating and/or Israel-Threatening

                      as are many prominent Jews who dare question the Zionist narrative and would like to see an end to settlement expansion, a peaceful resolution, demonization of Iran, etc

                      the list: https://archive.is/7Yaoz

                    2. Autumn, is what you are saying that it is OK to have a country in the Middle East where Jews are forbidden, but it is not OK to have the State of Israel that is a democracy where Jews, Christians, and Moslems can live at peace together? Do you realize that the Arab citizens of Israel have complete rights and are represented in the Knesset and on Israel’s Supreme Court? Are you saying that it was OK that Jews were killed and forcibly evicted from Arab lands being forced to leave all their possessions behind? You realize of course the Arabs that left Israel did so on their own accord and were not being killed. Those that remained are now citizens and even serve in the Israeli army. A forgotten fact is that the number of Jews forcibly expelled from Arab lands was equivalent to the number of Palestinians that left on their own accord. There is no Jewish right of return to the Arab lands they were forced to leave under the threat of death.

                      A bit of history on the Balfour Declaration of 1917. It did not cause the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israeli’s. The League of Nations endorsed the Balfour Declaration. This endorsement was similar to the Ottoman Empire’s communications on the subject and it was accepted by Palestinians and Arab leaders who felt coexistence was beneficial to all. Extremists on the Arab side, unfortunately, gained power. During WW2. Jerusalem’s Mufti Hajj Amin Husseini allied himself with Hitler and was very encouraged by Hitler’s war against the Jews and the extermination of half their population.

                      Don’t forget Jews have continuously lived in Israel over 2,000 years before Mohammed was born. Also, don’t forget that all too often anti-Zionism is a cloak for anti-Semitism because the objective is that the Jewish people in Israel be driven into the sea. Finally (re your comment about some prominent Jews), remember that just because one is born a Jew doesn’t make what they say any more important than anyone else. A good number of prominent Jews supported Stalin and all the killings under Stalin. Their Jewishness took second place in that slaughter and so it is that some Jews will promote their leftist identities over their Jewishness along with any sense of decency.

        2. Remember when the FBI interviewed Hillary in 2016 and she answered, “I don’t recall” about 40 times? Do you think the feds could have set her up for a charge of lying to the FBI if they wanted to? You betcha.

          And do you remember when Hillary’s tech people who used Bleach Bit to wipe clean her email hard drives and deleted emails under Congressional subpoena each took the 5th and refused to answer any questions at all? Yeah, no crimes to see there.

          If the only actual crime Mueller comes up with is lying to the feds, then what? If Manafort goes down, so do the Podesta brothers. And so do a whole lot of K Street lobbyists.

          We have no proof that it was the Russians who hacked Podesta’s email account. We have no proof that Russia hacked the DNC server. “All 17 intel agencies said…” is a lie. “Russia hacked the election” is a storyline/narrative that keeps getting repeated over and over again with no actual proof of how it happened. And since the DNC server is long gone, there is no way to ever know.

          How about Fusion GPS and their Russian dossier on Trump that was paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign? Isn’t that collusion with a foreign government to influence an election? What makes you think Mueller isn’t coming after some Democrats next?

          Having contact with the Russians during a presidential transition is not a crime. Possibly ‘undermining’ current foreign policy is not a crime. And we don’t even know what Russia supposedly did to influence our election that warranted Obama’s sanctions and expulsion of Russian diplomats in the first place, do we?

          This is about politics. If you believe this is about pursuit of the truth or upholding the rule of law, try again.

          1. Da dossier dude was British not Russian so some different rules apply. Where da hookers? Did T rump assault them too?

          2. You are truly missing the point if you believe the only charge they could come up with against Flynn (and his son) is one charge of lying to the FBI. What the rest of the world has grasped is that they gave Flynn a sweetheart deal and didn’t prosecute his son because he made a proffer indicating what he could say about “higher ups” that was compelling to the prosecution.

            And how long will the answer to anything about Trump be, “What about Hillary?” While you’re still trolling her, there will be more indictments and guilty pleas. The swamp will be drained after all.

            1. The “What about Hillary”, of the “what about Marc Elias, John Podesta, Fusion GPS, The Russian Dossier question will continue until Mueller demonstrates that he is applying the same standards to both 2016 campaigns.
              I think it’s an open question at this point if Mueller will selectively target only the Trump camp for possible campaign ( criminal) violations, or if he takes a more consistent, even-handed approach.
              I can understand why some partisan hacks complain about bringing up the issue of equal application of the law.
              Or ignore that issue.

              2. Exactly. Equal application of the law is the issue. If Flynn is prosecuted for lying, then why not Hillary for her crimes, James Comey for leaking classified info, James Clapper for perjury before Congress, Susan Rice for lying and illegally unmasking names, Lois Lerner for abuse of power in her position at the IRS which just paid out a multi-million dollar settlement to conservative groups that were targeted by the Obama IRS? That’s why we will continue with the What about Hillary answer.

            2. Then I am ‘truly missing the point’ as I have not ‘grasped’ what ‘the rest of the world has.’ (seriously? the REST of THE WORLD? Sorry, but I don’t think I stand alone in my opinion here) 😉

              If they in fact gave Flynn ‘a sweetheart deal’ so that he and his son could avoid being charged with other ‘crimes’ unrelated to the Russia collusion, then that demonstrates my point that this investigation is a political witch hunt. If the underlying crimes Mueller might have charged Flynn with have to do with say, lobbying on behalf of Turkey, and nothing to do with ‘colluding with Russia’ to influence the results of our election — which is ostensibly the purpose of the Mueller investigation — then they have nothing but a process crime of lying to the feds. If Mueller goes after Flynn for various foreign lobbying violations, then a whole lotta DC lobbying firms will be scrambling just like the Podesta Group recently did.

              The answer “What about Hillary” will continue as long as we have selective prosecution by our so-called “Justice” department. My point is that if Mueller and the FBI/DOJ charge Flynn with a crime, they must — in order to retain any sense of justice, credibility and integrity — ALSO charge Hillary Clinton with her crimes of using an unsecured personal server to handle highly classified information. That is also a crime.

              1. TBob – spot on. I think HRC was given special treatment because so many people would have been implicated – from both parties. And Comey has a tainted past,

                “Hillary Clinton’s case isn’t interesting enough to the public to justify releasing the FBI’s files on her, the bureau said this week in rejecting an open-records request by a lawyer seeking to have the former secretary of state punished for perjury.”

                https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/29/fbi-lack-public-interest-emails-justifies-withhold/

                Thankfully, Judicial Watch stayed on them

                1. Also, where is that missing lap top?

                  “A personal laptop computer used to archive Hillary Clinton’s e-mails when she was secretary of state went missing after being put in the mail, according to the FBI’s report on its investigation into her use of a private e-mail system.

                  E-mails that Clinton sent and received through her private server during her tenure were archived on the laptop in 2013 by a person who was an assistant to former President Bill Clinton, the FBI said in its heavily redacted investigative report released Friday.

                  Someone whose name was redacted in the FBI report told the agency that he later deleted the e-mails from the laptop but didn’t wipe its hard drive. A computer technician can often recover such e-mails that have been deleted but not permanently erased from a laptop’s memory.

                  The FBI sought the laptop as part of its investigation, but it’s whereabouts remain unknown, the bureau said: The last time the laptop was seen was when it was put in the mail.”

                  https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/09/05/one-of-hillary-clintons-laptops-is-missing-n2214022

              2. Whenever “What about Hillary” is an answer to a question it is always a diversion. If you think Republicans should spend millions more investigating Hillary after finding nothing, that’s fine but it truly is a separate thing.
                I suspect there is a direct relationship between the leniency shown Flynn and what he had to offer against others. Despite wishful thinking, I don’t know where it stops, just that it’s not over yet.

                1. Enigma, -You are in no position to complain about diversions.
                  Your the one who deflects and evades, rather than giving a straight answer to a straightforward question.
                  I can’t tell for sure who, or what you are responding to, since you don’t bother to specify who the comments are directed to.
                  But I got your standard non-answer to the question I posed to you c. 24 hours ago.

                  1. Is this the “non-answer” you’re speaking of? I don’t see how I didn’t respond directly to your question.
                    “I confess I don’t know all the details of those you asked about. I believe that Fusion GPS was initially hired by a Republican group and when their candidate was ousted, the DNC and a lawyer associated with Hillary picked up their work (which hadn’t yet included the hire of Christopher Steele). I don’t believe the parts in all caps preclude people from contracting with foreign firms in a work for hire basis. I don’t believe they received any donations or contributions.
                    John Podesta, I’m less sure about. He and his brother may have been involved in illegal activity. It there’s a lead there, Mueller should investigate it and let the chips fall where they may.”
                    Let me be more clear, purchasing goods and services from a foreign entity is not illegal. If half of the “Make America Great Again” hats contained material made in other countries and were not officially “Made In The USA,” that is not a crime. Hiring Fusion GPS by either the Republicans or DNC or Hillary or anybody is not a crime. From what I’ve read, Podesta may well have committed crimes and should be investigated. What else would you like me to say?

                    1. Enigma,…I’ll reply to you when I find a reply box wider than a thermometer needle.
                      So it’s likely to be out of sequence.
                      Also, hitting “reply” doesn’t always neatly place the reply where it belongs…it might, but the reply to a comment might end up after dozens of other comments are posted, far removed from the person that you’re responding to.
                      As I said, my reply will be out of sequence because I need a usable width gutter to see more than the last couple of letters I typed.

                  2. When I reply to a comment, I am replying to the person who made the comment and they get a direct notification. In the space I’m typing in now it says “Reply to Tom Nash” If somehow not identifying specifically who I’m replying to is rude I’ll endeavor to be more specific.

                  3. Tom, it is hard to debate anyone that mixes a little bit of truth with fiction. Even when you catch them red-handed in a lie some don’t budge and just persist in the exact same direction. That is how Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton became so successful. They feed and benefit off of people that want to believe even though it is to their disadvantage.

                2. “after finding nothing…” that’s so funny that you believe Hillary has been investigated…and they found nothing. Nope, she’s never broken the law in all her decades of (obvious) corruption and we have all of the fruitless investigations and Republican witchunts to prove it. That’s the chosen narrative of course, and you, like so many others, buy it hook, line and sinker. It’s called politics, sir, and “political power” trumps “justice” – which is not to be confused with ‘investigating and finding nothing.’

                  1. That’s what Trey Gowdy finally admitted. I watched much of the televised Benghazi investigation so I’m sure it happened. I followed Whitewater, again nothing. Vince Foster… Again, all this is a distraction, Hillary is a private citizen likely never to run for office again. Trump is colluding with Russia (in my opinion).

                    1. Okay, and can you say, specifically, what you think Trump is doing when you say he is ‘colluding’ with Russia?

                    2. To TBob:
                      I perhaps went too far is saying Donald specifically colluded with Russia. So far those involved (specifically with undermining the existing President and Congress by conducting foreign policy when not in office and also lying to Congress) which according to what we’ve learned includes Flynn, Kushner, Donald Jr, K.T. McFarland, and Papadopoulos. Regarding obstruction of justice, (specifically the letter of lies to explain the Trump, Jr meeting constructed by Donald and Hope Hicks).

                    3. Thanks Enigma, I’m not on the email notification list, so I will reply here since there is not a ‘reply’ button under your most recent response. All I have to say is: we shall see what happens. The year is not over yet.

  19. Putting out fake news and then a retraction (which many people miss) is a widely used tactic by MSM. Wash Compost is the leader.

    2. “Putting out fake news and then a retraction (which many people miss) is a widely used tactic by MSM. Wash Compost is the leader.”

      Yes, we have discussed this here before. Start the inflammation, then say, “whoopsie….” The inflammation remains. Very effective. Watched a MSM TV show last night, not so covertly inlaid propaganda… making the Russians look like evil brutes–just a reminder. Partisan Democrats and the weak-minded millennials eat that up. And Ken too! Maybe they like being afraid all the time?

  20. Fake news at its finest and it only cost us 400 points in the stock market. When do we get to come with torches and pitchforks for these modern day Frankensteins?

    1. My news says the DOW ended up down 40. Must be fake news. Expect increased volatility as the investigation closes in on the Trump Kushner families.

        1. This story was corrected and not retracted. It may still prove to be true. I doubt Mueller extended Flynn and his son such a generous for nothing.

          1. I hope Flynn takes down Jared. Get him out of the WH.

            Trump should have fied Mueller when he took office, Mueller has not worked in the interest of us,

            2. Trump would have been better off with the ineffective Comey. Maybe he has figured that out but maybe not as he is not the brightest.

                1. Yep, and Kushner is our Mideast negotiator. Has secret meetings with the Saudi prince.

                3. I would love to see Kushner sent packing (and I voted for Trump). He is precisely the type of influence we don’t need around Trump. If the swamp is to be drained, it will mean shaking out the Zionist snakes as much as legally possible (not that that is the whole story by any means).

                  I would love to know how much Kushner (and Trump for that matter) was involved in the recent Saudi ploy to destabilize Lebanon.

                  1. Israel and SA would love to crush Lebanon – but that just might be a tipping point and unite some Sunni states with Shia.

          2. SWM:

            “This story was corrected and not retracted.”

            ***************************

            Actually your masters “clarified” the story; “corrected” being to judgmental.

            From the Doublespeak Dictionary:

            Clarification: noun, from Latin clarificare,to make clear (sort of) — We got it totally wrong and want to cover our a**es.

            1. ABC could not confirm that Trump asked Flynn to contact the Russians as a candidate. They did confirm that Trump did ask Flynn to contact the Russians during the transition. Maybe they they will be able to confirm the latter later this week.Stay tuned. Flynn traded something big for the freedom of his son. Flynn did the right thing in not putting the Trump family over himself and his son.

        2. There are more mutual funds than there are companies in which to invest. The stock market is smoke and mirrors.

          2. I wonder why it is bad that the average American has ways to invest in the stock market.

            1. The average American family earning a median income of $50 k to $60 k holds very little stock.

              1. When one retires with a pension where, Linda, do you think that money was invested? Under the mattress? You don’t believe in the stock market so why would you want the average American family investing in it when they all have some type of mattress they can hide their money under.

                Some people with little assets do invest in the stock market and for them, their investment is a high percentage of their savings.

Comments are closed.