Thread: Trump Defends Delay Firing Flynn

Trump Defends Delay Firing Flynn

May 11 2017, 6:30 pm ET
by Ali Vitali

President Donald Trump defended the delay in firing former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn in exclusive interview on Thursday with NBC News' Lester Holt.

There was an 18-day gap between the heads up from former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates regarding Flynn's activities with the Russians and his removal by the White House.

"(White House counsel Don) McGahn came back to me and did not sound like an emergency," Trump said of Yates' information about Flynn.

"This man (Flynn) has served for many years, he's a general, he's a — in my opinion — a very good person. I believe that it would be very unfair to hear from somebody who we don't even know and immediately run out and fire a general."

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer has previously expressed skepticism about Yates' motives in giving her initial heads up about Flynn to the White House. On Tuesday, Spicer praised the "due process" of the White House in the lead up to Flynn's dismissal and dismissed Yates as "someone who is not exactly a supporter of the president's agenda."

"You have someone who you have to wonder whether — why they are telling you something," Spicer added.
Image: Flynn speaks at a White House news briefing in February
National Security Adviser Michael Flynn speaks in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room during the daily news briefing at the White House on Feb. 1, 2017 in Washington. Jabin Botsford / The Washington Post via Getty Images file

Yates testified Monday to the Senate Judiciary subcommittee that she told the White House that Flynn could be "blackmailed by the Russians" because he had misled Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations with Kremlin diplomats.

"We were concerned that the American people had been misled about the underlying conduct and what General Flynn had done," she said.

Trump also told Holt that he was not aware of Flynn's payments from the Russian and Turkish governments, but wondered if maybe former President Barack Obama did.

"Obama perhaps knew because [Flynn] had clearance from the Obama administration," Trump told NBC News. "And his clear — and this is something they never want to report — he had clearance from the Obama administration. The highest clearance you can have."

While Flynn's clearance was continued by the Obama administration, he was also fired by the prior administration from his post as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014. Obama also warned Trump against hiring Flynn less than 48 hours after the November election, three former Obama administration officials have told NBC News.

On Wednesday, the Senate Intelligence Committee subpoenaed Flynn — the first time they've used that subpoena power since the joint inquiry into the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to a Senate historian. The Senate Intelligence Committee also subpoenaed documents from Flynn after he declined to provide them if he wasn't offered immunity.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/whit...-flynn-n757991

I really don't understand the investigation of Flynn. What exactly has he done that warrants FBI and Congressional Intelligence Committee investigations? Flynn didn't hack the DNC. Flynn didn't violate any laws in his conversations with the Russian Ambassador or he would already be charged. I mean they've got the transcripts of his phone calls, illegally obtained in my view, but they still have them. Flynn didn't violate any laws when he flew to Russia to speak at that gala. He met with the DOD and ran it by them before he went and met with them again after he got back. His "Turkey" deal was actually with a Dutch business, not the government of Turkey. Apparently in that work the issue of the Imam or some Muslim guy Turkey wants extradited is in the US and our government won't extradite him for some reason and the issue came up with Flynn. But that wasn't his original deal with the Dutch business, the owner of whom apparently has some relationship with the President of Turkey who wants this Imam, and it came up in conversation, but there's nothing Flynn can do about that. That's in the hands of the US government. But what does that have to do with the "Russia" investigation?

Flynn was very open, same as Trump, same as many Americans, about wanting a better relationship with Russia. Who in their right mind wouldn't want a better relationship with Russia? Trump campaigned on a better relationship with Russia. Americans are excited about that prospect. So why is the US Congress treating people who want better relations with Russia like they're criminals?

None of these investigations are making any sense any more.

Paul Manafort has agreed to testify. Why don't they ask him in?
Roger Stone has agreed to testify. Why don't they ask him in?
Carter Page had agreed to testify but I don't know if he still will now, because he's so upset about having his name dragged through the mud, he's suing or preparing to sue the government.
Michael Flynn had agreed to testify but wanted immunity fearing a framed-up "witch hunt".

I think the better investigation in all of this would be a look-see into how the FBI knew the DNC was hacked before the DNC knew it had been hacked. How did the FBI know that? How do we know the DNC was even hacked at all?

Why with 1,100 known terrorists and 30 million illegal aliens, millions of them hardened gang-bangers, drug runners, rapists, sociopaths and murderers, running loose in our country are the FBI and multiple US Congressional "Intelligence" Committees investigating Paul Manfort, Michael Flynn, Roger Stone and Carter Page when they haven't committed a crime and more importantly, no crime has been committed to begin with?

These are investigations in search of a crime seems to me. That's now how our system is supposed to work.