vendic wrote:I must admit I have no idea what you two are on about.
My first thought was Errol.
Sigma_Orionis wrote:vendic wrote:I must admit I have no idea what you two are on about.
My first thought was Errol.
Errol Flynn was my dad's favorite actor when he was growing up.
As for Michael T. Flynn, couldn't happen to a nicer guy
According to this, Priebus and Bannon have a "Solid Working Relationship", which IMHO means "Bannon can't afford to boot Priebus....... YET"
Tarragon wrote:Democrats and others smell blood in the water. They don't have enough seats to force hearings on Flynnghazi, which will only fuel more speculation. The public will assume that Republicans are not having hearings because what they suspect they'll find is even worse than what people already assume.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday it's "highly likely" the Senate intelligence committee will investigate former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador.
"I think the fundamental question for us is what is our involvement in it, and who ought to look at it," the Kentucky Republican said. "And the intelligence committee is already looking at Russian involvement in our election. As Sen. (Roy) Blunt has already indicated, it is highly likely they will want to take look at this episode as well. They have the broad jurisdiction to do it."
The Senate's second-ranking Republican and other GOP senators have called for an investigation into the episode, building on a string of investigations underway on Russian interference in the US elections. Sen. John Cornyn told reporters Tuesday that the Senate standing committees with oversight of intelligence needs to investigate.
Asked by CNN if he wanted the Senate's committees to investigate Flynn, Cornyn replied: "Yes."
But Cornyn, the Senate majority whip, was not ready to say Flynn should testify before Congress.
"I think it's symbolic of somebody with a distinguished military career making a bad mistake," Cornyn said of Flynn.
Flynn resigned from his position as national security adviser Monday following reports that the Justice Department warned the Trump administration last month that he misled administration officials about the nature of his conversations with the Russian ambassador and whether they addressed the issue of sanctions.
The conversations occurred before he was an official government employee, causing some to fear that he was potentially vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians for covering up details of the exchanges. It is illegal for unauthorized private citizens to negotiate with foreign governments on behalf of the US.
Rommie wrote:Also, my cynical take? It's pretty clear the Republicans wanted Trump because they wanted to push through their agenda, but he's a complete disaster and doesn't even care about the important Republican things like lowering taxes in his agenda. His VP, on the other hand, is one of them. Kick Trump out, and Pence is going to seem normal in comparison. So it wouldn't surprise me if they turn on Trump, it's starting to look like they have a lot to gain from it.
gethen wrote:Rommie wrote:
And, of course, why did Trump lie in the first place? Was he just hoping no one would find out his staff members had been talking to Russian officials? Were he and his staff so naive as to be unaware that those conversations were probably recorded?
Finally, I've been wondering why, if the FBI has known for months that Trump campaign staffers had been talking to the Russians, and also knew that the Russians had been attempting to influence our election to get Trump elected, why were they silent about that during the election, but released a batch of hacked emails from Clinton's people during the last week of the campaign? Smells pretty bad from here.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests