"undermining foreign policy"? I see . . . (a) so President Trump, who would be Flynn's boss, would have no right to change the foreign policy established by the Obama Administration, and "therefore" Flynn couldn't possibly discuss such things (if he did). Gotcha. (b) He didn't "Undermine" anything - he asked the Ambassador not to rea…
"undermining foreign policy"? I see . . . (a) so President Trump, who would be Flynn's boss, would have no right to change the foreign policy established by the Obama Administration, and "therefore" Flynn couldn't possibly discuss such things (if he did). Gotcha. (b) He didn't "Undermine" anything - he asked the Ambassador not to react precipitously. Seems like a "reasonable" request. (c) Obama announcing the sanctions when he did - turning it back on you, what's Obama doing "undermining American foreign policy" by doing things by which he attempts to "tie the hands" of his successor? He's ABOUT TO BE GONE - - - - decency would suggest "don't do such things," but Obama's too arrogant for that. (d) You ignore the misconduct associated with (1) keeping the case open; (2) using the LOGAN ACT as a pretext for the same; (3) not following protocol in terms of notifying the White House Counsel's office re the interview; (4) taking affirmative steps to encourage Flynn NOT to be represented; (5) taking affirmative steps to obscure / minimize the preliminary warning regarding telling the truth in such interviews; (6) the failure to follow protocol in the preparation of the 302; (7) the doctoring of the 302; (8) the threats against Flynn's son; (9) the failure to advise the Court about the promise to lay off Flynn's son, and the role that promise played in obtaining the plea.
But NONE OF THAT BOTHERS YOU because Flynn worked for Trump, and "Orange Man Bad."
Dear God, you people have no principles but "I want my way."
Can't stand DT, but this has been a joke of an investigation, the sole purpose of which was to negate Trump's victory, on the false premise that he was sincere on his campaigning about ending wars, and opening up to Russia, policies the MIC/surveillance state could not tolerate. DT has no deep and abiding beliefs in anything that doesn't personally benefit himself; that these supposed hard nosed security types couldn't see that is a mystery I'll never understand.
Of course, let's not go overboard and say this a something only the Dems would do; Bill Clinton's being impeached on lying about getting a BJ from a woman not his wife, was conducted by three men who were receiving the exact same benefit from non wives even as they posed as moral men to their very core.
What would politics be without hypocrisy of the highest order?
"DT has no deep and abiding beliefs in anything that doesn't personally benefit himself; that these supposed hard-nosed security types couldn't see that is a mystery I'll never understand."
More horseshit and ignorance masquerading as insight. You can't possibly know that. Mind reading is not a valid form of argument. The rest of your argument is on the same level.
There is also evidence that prosecutors were coercing Flynn's lawyers with threats to prosecute THEM in order to force Flynn's lawyers to advise Flynn to plead guilty.
"undermining foreign policy"? I see . . . (a) so President Trump, who would be Flynn's boss, would have no right to change the foreign policy established by the Obama Administration, and "therefore" Flynn couldn't possibly discuss such things (if he did). Gotcha. (b) He didn't "Undermine" anything - he asked the Ambassador not to react precipitously. Seems like a "reasonable" request. (c) Obama announcing the sanctions when he did - turning it back on you, what's Obama doing "undermining American foreign policy" by doing things by which he attempts to "tie the hands" of his successor? He's ABOUT TO BE GONE - - - - decency would suggest "don't do such things," but Obama's too arrogant for that. (d) You ignore the misconduct associated with (1) keeping the case open; (2) using the LOGAN ACT as a pretext for the same; (3) not following protocol in terms of notifying the White House Counsel's office re the interview; (4) taking affirmative steps to encourage Flynn NOT to be represented; (5) taking affirmative steps to obscure / minimize the preliminary warning regarding telling the truth in such interviews; (6) the failure to follow protocol in the preparation of the 302; (7) the doctoring of the 302; (8) the threats against Flynn's son; (9) the failure to advise the Court about the promise to lay off Flynn's son, and the role that promise played in obtaining the plea.
But NONE OF THAT BOTHERS YOU because Flynn worked for Trump, and "Orange Man Bad."
Dear God, you people have no principles but "I want my way."
Can't stand DT, but this has been a joke of an investigation, the sole purpose of which was to negate Trump's victory, on the false premise that he was sincere on his campaigning about ending wars, and opening up to Russia, policies the MIC/surveillance state could not tolerate. DT has no deep and abiding beliefs in anything that doesn't personally benefit himself; that these supposed hard nosed security types couldn't see that is a mystery I'll never understand.
Of course, let's not go overboard and say this a something only the Dems would do; Bill Clinton's being impeached on lying about getting a BJ from a woman not his wife, was conducted by three men who were receiving the exact same benefit from non wives even as they posed as moral men to their very core.
What would politics be without hypocrisy of the highest order?
"DT has no deep and abiding beliefs in anything that doesn't personally benefit himself; that these supposed hard-nosed security types couldn't see that is a mystery I'll never understand."
More horseshit and ignorance masquerading as insight. You can't possibly know that. Mind reading is not a valid form of argument. The rest of your argument is on the same level.
There is also evidence that prosecutors were coercing Flynn's lawyers with threats to prosecute THEM in order to force Flynn's lawyers to advise Flynn to plead guilty.
I'd say you've laid out an excellent case for hurling the epithet at Joe of MORON.
Or, perhaps, a willingness to just lie. Or, perhaps, a willingness to parrot a narrative because it resonates with his own biases.