Mike Flynn and Trump

It looks like General Mike Flynn definitely did wrong.  (By the way, if THIS is all they’ve got on Flynn, I think he was WRONG but it doesn’t seem devastating to me.  There has to be something more other than accepting a fee for a speech after he had been told he couldn’t without previous approval.)  That he did accept money from Russia for a speech seems to be a given. My question is why so much of the media seems to be blaming Trump’s White House.  Like ‘One of TRUMP’S guys took MONEY FROM RUSSIA!”   Trump’s guys?  He had barely started working for Trump…only days before this stuff kicked up, I think?

My curiosity is about how the White House could have known anything about Flynn’s indiscretions and how much a new White House staff has the ability to vet future cabinet post appointees.   If a man is an American GENERAL, I’d have thought that the vetting of Flynn would be assumed and presidents can pretty much count on an AMERICAN GENERAL so how is it Trump’s fault that Flynn took Russian money?

Tell me what you know. 



This entry was posted in military, Russia, Trump. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Mike Flynn and Trump

  1. Flynn is the culprit here, but the Administration deserves it’s share of blame for the clownish manner in which it’s run it’s transition process [nominating, appointing, vetting, etc]. Though the current White House is not alone in having vetting issues by any means [Kimba Wood, Zoe Baird, The issue is not Flynn’s speech at the RT event. Flynn not only received UNREPORTED funds from State-run RT for an appearance and speech [45k], but he likewise received 11k from Russian cybersecurity company, Kaspersky Lab……and, 11k from Volga-Dnepr Airlines. All while holding a USGOV Top Secret clearance. AND, received money for representing the Turkish firm Inovo [with clear links to the Turkish government]; While holding said clearance…..and without registering [by law] as a foreign agent……while briefing the Trump team on national security matters……..and AFTER receipt of the October 2014 DIA memo reminding him of the rules regarding foreign compensation. This doesn’t surprise me however, knowing Flynn at least as little as I do.

    The Administration, through Spicer, is attempting to deflect and obfuscate by implying that the previous Administration is to blame…and that the current Administration had no need to vet Flynn. Amateur hour.

    “Vetting” doesn’t mean reapplying for a security clearance, as Spicer would have you believe. Flynn been in the private sector since 2014, and if the Trump team opted to not look at Flynn’s activities since then, shame on them. Spicer further obfuscates, though the general public would not necessarily know, by invoking the 2016 date of Flynn’s clearance adjudication. For the last decade, and especially since the OPM data breach….clearance investigations and adjudications have been languishing under a paradigm of underfunding and understaffing. To the point where the normal five year renewal mark, has been universally extended to six years to accommodate the backlog of PR’s. It seems obvious that Flynn’s investigation was complete or near complete before or during his receipt of foreign compensation. Spicer would have one believe that Flynn’s investigation was comprehensively concluded at the same time his clearance was renewed. It’s not that tidy. Ever.


  2. geeez2014 says:

    CI, the very idea that any new White House administration felt it had to vet a man of Flynn’s position seems ridiculous to me. “Gee, the guy retired as a Lieutenant General and was Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, we’d better look into this guy!” wouldn’t occur to many new administrations. And Spicer is supposed to be aware that clearance investigations and adjudications at the Pentagon have been a mess?
    I’m not sure ANY administration would have looked at THIS guy and thought “Holy cow, we’d better check on HIM!” 🙂
    I’m certainly not saying you’re entirely wrong….but I can’t imagine looking at Flynn’s background and questioning it.

    EVERYONE: I so wish I’d posted this morning on the BUDGET DISASTER. Are we SURE this is a Republican Congress and White House?

    Looks to me like Obama’s last budget………….HUGE win for the Democrats..

    Let’s talk about this, too. It’s hard to see Pelosi’s joy, it TRULY is. They thought they lost the election but………….??


  3. Z – Flynn was a controversial figure [to be polite] while he was still in uniform, and was removed from his position at DIA. I would think that’s grounds to ensure that he had nothing incriminating that would mar a campaign. General Officers are not saints……Petraeus is but another example.


  4. geeez2014 says:

    Re FLYNN…..do we have a transcript of his speeches in Russia? I’d have thought that what he said might be important to know?


  5. geeez2014 says:

    CI, why was he removed? Do we know? I didn’t know that.


  6. Flynn created a toxic environment at DIA, to the point where his subordinate managers and department heads called in the Inspector General. I haven’t seen any transcripts of his speech; that wasn’t out of bounds for him to engage in….it was being financially compensated for the action, and NOT reporting it, as required by law.


  7. geeez2014 says:

    CI, yes, it was having been told to announce any speaking fees in advance, and not having done it, which did him in. I’d have thought that, putting that indiscretion aside, he should be made to present the text; could it have been subversive?
    in my opinion, someone at the Pentagon should have made clear what had happened to Flynn to the WH. If the IG had to be called in, did the WH know that?


  8. Flynn’s abrupt departure from DIA was public knowledge, and the transition team could have easily been further briefed by DoD, had they asked. Spicer admitted that they didn’t.



  9. Kid says:

    Let’s balance Flynn taking money for a speech against the Secy of State taking bribe money from enemy states for special favors from State.
    I don’t care one way or the other about Flynn, but the hypocrisy from the dems is too thick to cut with a chainsaw.


  10. This proves that you can’t trust anyone. When the knives are out, even the appearance of impropriety is good enough. In the case, Flynn caused his own problems and now the stink rubbed off on the administration. I think Trump learned a tough lesson here. Trust but verify. Too bad.


  11. geeez2014 says:

    CI…and DoD didn’t think it was important enough to alert the WH? Honestly, with the ENORMOUS amount of what was going on at that time for the Trump people, vetting a guy with his background would have been the last thing most people would even consider.
    And, as you know, I’m not big Trump fan.

    Kid…remind me. John Kerry?

    L&O teacher; TRUST but VERIFY seems to fit this perfectly. I wonder how many of us would have looked at Flynn’s background and thought “Better vet him” But, if he DID get put out of the DIA, they should DEFINITELY have been TOLD BY THE PENTAGON, in my opinion.


  12. Kid says:

    Z, Clinton.


  13. Mal says:

    If we are going to go there, can we also question the actions of the Clintons involving their “speeches” and “donations” to their “foundation”? Also, the deal she made giving Russia access to our uranium? How about the pre-election conversation between Obama and Putin’s representative we heard via an open mike? Why is the left so intentionally biased where wrong doing is concerned? And why doesn’t anybody keep reminding the public about these things?


  14. bunkerville says:

    My understanding was that he received security clearance in 2016 from Obama. Why would you think you would need to do it again? He gave a report before and after his speeches in Russia to the DOD and the content thereof. I am no fan of Flynn. For all we know he could have been an operator from the CIA. We are quick to pounce on our own. You never hear the Dems doing it. All of the corruption of the Dems, you don’t hear their fellow mates so quick to turn and happy to report hearsay.


  15. Z – Alert the White House of what? Public record? Not their job. You want a candidate on your team….vet him. I’ll restate……it was public record to anyone with access to Google, that Flynn was removed from his position at DIA….and “retired”. Period. Indisputable.

    When Flynn took off his uniform, he founded the Flynn Intel Group. It’s not as if he retired with a squeaky clean record and took up fly fishing. He engaged with and solicited business from foreign actors.

    And again, vetting does not entail reapplying for an already active security clearance [which much to Spicer’s probable dismay, is NOT granted by a White House Administration].

    But hey, if the consensus is “doesn’t matter…..Clinton”……then you can see why Republicans are just as disdainful to me as are Democrats.


  16. Kid says:

    I’d say they both matter. I was just venting my anger over the love poured out for the unbelievable criminal clintons as opposed to the flock of magpies cackling over Flynn.


  17. geeez2014 says:

    CI..I couldn’t disagree more strongly. I could just see the Trump admin trying desperately to get a HUGE amount of people in positions and they’re supposed to vet a lieutenant General who the Pentagon didn’t deem necessary to warn about. My GOSH.
    “Hey, White House…FLYNN? You could have problems with him.”:
    Almost makes me wonder why the Pentagon did NOT alarm them.

    BUnkerville’s correct; He had been vetted, he’d been in the military in pretty high positions most of his life. “Hey, let’s vet him?” No way.


  18. geeez2014 says:

    And Kid’s right…just to get Gorsuch in was almost the most important thing. Of course, the NEXT justice vacancy will be a blood bath, but at least Trump was able to get that through for now.

    I’m not a fan of people saying HOW WONDERFUL TRUMP IS for all he’s done when most of it’s been executive orders he criticized (and so did I and all of you, by the way) OBama for…


  19. Z – Disagreement noted, though I don’t understand why one would NOT vet [NOT the same as having a clearance] someone who’d been in the private sector since 2014, and with foreign intelligence ties. I would hope that nobody would support such casual presumption for appointment as the National Security Advisor. And again, WHY would DoD reiterate something that is PUBLIC RECORD???

    And the Trump Administration has been notably tardy in nominating and appointing to unfilled positions….much mores than previous Administrations….so it wouldn’t seem that they’re overworked in that department.


  20. I heard Trump say that many of those positions will probably not be filled. If that’s the case, good. These departments are so heavy with people who don’t really have jobs, it’s like a return to the “spoils system.” Given Trump’s admiration for Andrew Jackson, who loved the spoils system, that would be a welcome turn of events. The less the better.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s