Flynn's fall this morning was a well-thought out plan to avoid the worst. Many believe he made a deal to protect his son from legal implication. Admirable or not, it was their only move. The press will try to blow this out of proportion.
Here's what you can say to the sheep still among your unwoken flock:
-
Flynn was charged with a SINGLE COUNT of making false statements to the FBI. He was not charged with "collusion" of anything having to do with the 2016 election being compromised by Russian influence. (Don't bother trying to explain to your sheep friends that collusion is not a crime...)
FROM CNN: Flynn is being charged for making false statements, but not for any improper actions during the campaign.
-
Flynn's being accused of speaking with Russian Ambassador about how they and others around the world were leaning in a vote for a resolution about Israel, NOT for trying to influence or sway American voters in the 2016 election.
FROM the same CNN article: According to an FBI statement, Flynn communicated with then-Russian Ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak after being asked by a senior Trump transition official to find out how foreign governments stood on a coming UN Security Council resolution about Israel.
-
Trump FIRED Flynn. Trump didn't trust him because he lied to them about his own actions. What actions? Speaking with foreign nationals, including Russian Ambassadors. Why does that matter? IT WAS HIS JOB as National Security Advisor to do so.
FROM TIME ARTICLE: Trump and others in the Administration had lost faith in Flynn after he misled Vice President Mike Pence on whether he had discussed Russian sanctions with the Russian Ambassador to the U.S.
Long story short: This has nothing to do with the validity of Trump's election, nor does it affect or change anything in the narrative Trump has provided to the public. Flynn took one for the team. And he did it to protect his son. I must admit it's a bit of a relief to see someone doing something nice around here for children for a change...
view the rest of the comments →
Kacey ago
How is this directly relevant to the Pizzagate investigation (see rule 1) " Relevance: Posts must be directly relevant to investigation of Pizzagate: the sexual/physical abuse and/or murder of children by elites, child trafficking organized by elites, and/or cover-up of these activities and/or the protection/assistance provided to the people who engage in said activities." What in the title establishes direct relevance to Pizzagate - rule 3 Clarity: All titles must adequately describe post content and must establish direct relevance to pizzagate."
Having had submissions deleted because I violated these rules I just want to be sure that the application of the rules is consistent.
2impendingdoom ago
flynn posts have been allowed since last winter.
Kacey ago
Perhaps some Flynn posts followed the rules. It is possible to post about Flynn and follow the rules. This post did not. So if the moderators want to give some posts a pass and not others they need to write more rules, such as anything about Flynn automatically doesn't have to follow the rules.
2impendingdoom ago
Your complaint is no different than what all of us have been saying. The rules are not applied uniformly at all. Flynn posts do have precedence and this argument was a major issue last year but posts about Human trafficking, Organ trafficking and Rothschilds are always deleted even if links to all claims are added. Try posting one and you'll see. The mods have their own agenda and good luck to you but constantly harping about it is a waste of your time. This is meant kindly. Pointing it out will just get you banned.
Kacey ago
One can post about Flynn and meet with the rules. There is a Pizzagate connection so one can establish that in the Title and the submission. If the moderators want to have a special rule for certain topics they can add a list of exceptions. Not being consistent certainly raises questions about their motives.