(I suspect) Micheal Flynn will turn on Trump

What follows is pure speculation. I write this only so that when it comes true, you can say you read it here first. Enjoy.
--------------------------------------------------
Why?

Who has offered to testify before either the Senate or House Intel committees?

Carter Page
Paul Manafort
Jared Kushner
Roger Stone

Who is missing?

Mr. Flynn....

Why?

(Imagine this last part in the voice of Alan Rickman's character Hans Gruber from Die Hard. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you need to get out and live a little)

Because he is already talking to the F-B-I.

 

The Democrats can subpoena every name in the phone book.

It's not going to amount to jack **** because there is nothing of substance to be found.

And why are they even questioning people anyways?

What happened to all that "proof" the Democrats had?

Ohhhh right, right ...it never existed.

 

Just remember, you heard it here first

 

He might have struck a deal. Someone mentioned Rudy Giuliani today because he has been such an avid supporter of the orange man and lately he has been missing in action. Distancing himself?

 

Who is "the orange man?"

 

Anybody who doesn't want to be tarred with the same brush of Trump's delusional trainwreck, is jumping ship quicker than intelligent rats on the Titanic.

Flynn, obviously, has no honor (unless he is handsomely paid).

Flynn is a disgrace to everyone who has ever worn the uniform of the U.S. Military.

Flynn is ready to cave-in like an unstable mineshaft in a earthquake,

 

It might have something to do with this bizarre event...

 

I feel it's also important to make the obvious observation that because there is no "proof" (I prefer the word evidence, but suit yourself) today does not mean that there is no proof.

Lastly, it's not the Democrats that have "proof" rather the FBI, NSA and other intelligence organizations.

 

Oooo, good point

 

Except the Democrats have been chest thumping since November 9th (the day they manufactured their Russian conspiracy) about how they had facts and proof and evidence and whatever you want to call it when they actually have none of the above.

 

I heard on November 9th when Leftist nutjob media first manufactured the Russian conspiracy.

 

Probably a reference to O J Simpson who used to hawk Treesweet Orange juice

 

It's their way of being hateful towards Trump. They hate the very fact he exists. So they make fun of his skin tone, after all that's really who the left is. There aren't enough orange people for them to build a voter base on so they are free to hate that skin color.

 

Donald 'Permatan' Trump. Who else?

 

Flynn of course had only allegedly spoken to the Russian ambassador, AFTER the elections. The only thing Flynn could possibly reveal is that Trump knew about, or authorized the conversation. There's nothing illegal about establishing dialogue with AMBASSADORS. Kislyak was frequently received at the WH by Obama. Flynn did not lie under oath. Flynn did not contact Kislyak before the Wikileaks. Dead end.

 

I find the level of hypocrisy and denialism on this issue is staggering.

 

How can you possibly know the things you claim?

 

Flynn has a long history with the Russians and the Turks.

I said this from the beginning. Flynn is the key

 

I'll give you a subtle hint.

 

Does this help?

 

Who said they had proof? Who? Chuck Schumer? Nancy Pelosi? Mr. Schiff? Who?

No one that matters has said they have proof of anything other than the fact that people tied to the Trump campaign allegedly talked to the Russians while Russia was allegedly releasing information about Democrats. Is any of that illegal? Maybe, maybe not, but given the subterfuge people within the campaign have engaged in, I'd say it's worth a look.

If this response from Carter Page doesn't convince you that someone is trying to hide something, your ideology has blinded you from looking at the world objectively.

 

Who is missing? Hillary and Bill Clinton. Not to mention the Obama Administration for illegally surveilling political opponents and American journalists

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

Bill got 500K for 1 speech in Russia:

https://www.quora.com/Who-paid-Bill...-of-20-of-Americas-uranium-deposits-to-Russia

"[T]he episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation's donors."

After the story was published, Mitt Romney stated that "it looks like bribery." He said, "I presume we might know for sure whether there was bribery or was not bribery if she hadn't wiped out thousands of emails." Romney added that "this is bigger than just her presidential campaign. I mean, this is a question about whether or not the United States Secretary of State was bribed to grease the sale of strategic assets to Russia."

Hillary could still wind up in prison for this mess. Not to mention the top secret classified information she passed through non secure servers and then lied about it.

 

First, if Hillary and Bill did something wrong they should be investigated and punished, I'm an independent, I have no "skin" in that game. However, the single biggest reason why I doubt there is anything there is that now that the Republicans have control of Congress, the WH and soon the Scotus that they have let the issues go. I mean, what better way to take the focus off Republicans than to investigate every Republican's favorite villains, the Clintons. You know why I think they let the issue go? Because they only ever made those claims to fleece the pockets of people like you for campaign donations.

Now, are the Clintons as pure as fresh driven snow?...HAHAHAHA No. Did they use their positions as politicians to make money, I suspect they probably did. Did the Chinese obtain US missile secrets under Bill's watch (think Loral), yes. Was Bill somehow involved? I'm not sure, but I wanted more info on that too back when Clinton was President.

See I'm not a hypocrite. I don't care who is abusing their power and undermining our nation.

The big problem is that it appears that what's happened over the last 2 years isn't politicians trying to grab power or get rich, this is politicians grabbing power, getting rich and doing it with the active participation of Russia whose only gol is to undermine our influence in the world and convince their own people that democracy isn't something to admire.

Are those indisputable facts?

Absolutely not.

Are people in the campaign being 100% forthright about their activities, absolutely not. Should that make everyone suspicious? I'd hope so.

I'll finish with the fact that you pointed out that Clinton took $500k for a speech he gave in Russia. As I'm sure you know, lots of people from the US give lots of speeches in Russia, but see, that's not the issue. It's the combination of timing, the number of people in Trump's campaign that communicated with the Russians, and the constant evasion and lying that have us all curious if another nation has concluded with Trump's organization to undermine our elections.

 

They are above the law, since they have been investigated and been under fire since Bill was in office. It's hypocrisy from the left to commit so many crimes and then try and point the finger at the other side for alleged wrongdoing with no evidence whatsoever and keep something going with fake news stories. Schumer, Schiff and the rest of the democrats need to get a new tune. There was no collusion by Trump and his team with the Russians to get into the White House. It's liberal nonsense.

 

First of all, "the Left" didn't commit crimes. If crimes were committed, they were committed by the people who did them. If "the Left" is guilty of anything, it's turning a blind eye to those crimes, but even if that's true, which in some cases I'd agree that's true, but you don't get to stand on moral high ground and, when the situation is reversed, commit the same sins you accuse the left of.

As far as "no evidence whatsoever". I'd say the Press has done a pretty good job uncovering things that are worthy of suspicion and investigation. Furthermore, you know that 1) There could be evidence you are unaware of and 2) there could be evidence as yet undiscovered.

You can't possibly claim to know what evidence exists with respect to Trump and Russia. You might as well say "I hope no evidence exists". There is lots of fake news, most of it launched against the Clinton campaign by Russia and Russian surrogates. This is something acknowledged by people on both sides. To deny it, is simply to deny the obvious and not be taken seriously.

For people like you, I am your worst enemy, because I don't argue on ideological grounds. You can't throw the indiscretions of anyone at me and claim the moral high ground because, in Supreme Court nominee's words, I don't believe that anyone is "above the law" and my opinion on that does not change regardless of who holds power.

If you think Trump and his surrogates are innocent, let the nations intelligence agencies investigate it and exonerate him. The Republicans held hour after hour of hearings on Benghazi and email. If there was a crime committed, why did a Republican-controlled Congress fail to uncover a crime? If there was a crime and they were certain that an Obama administration wouldn't prosecute, why not pursue it now? They are in control. Are the Clintons in control of Republicans too? Is that really what you're telling me? Then why such selective control?

Now, again, I'm not saying no crime was committed by the Clintons, I wouldn't claim to know, but the fact that her staunch rivals were in control of the process and failed to find anything significant is pretty telling. The fact that Republicans hold all the keys but aren't doing anything tells me even more.