B.T (Before Trump) and when the United States Constitution was still relevant, the phrase was used, “Innocent until proven guilty.”
Today, A.T. (After Trump) we may as well get used to the term ” Guilt until it’s leaked by treasonous spies yet to be rooted out within the President’s inner circle slipped to the media always ready for a public execution where guilt or innocence are of little consequence.
What matters is the agenda.
President Trump obviously had his choice for National Security Advisor properly vetted.
What type of message is that to tell those he approaches for future staff positions that for political expedience you will be kicked to the curb.
Trump may have blown this one.
Let’s hope he doesn’t need them, but he still has thousands more to go to catch up with Obama.
The National Review
February 17, 2017
It’s a Watergate-era cliché that the cover-up is always worse than the crime.
In the Mike Flynn affair, we have the first recorded instance of a cover-up in the absence of a crime.
Being covered up were the December 29 phone calls between Flynn and the Russian ambassador to Washington.
The presumed violation was Flynn negotiating with a foreign adversary while the Obama administration was still in office and, even worse, discussing with Sergey Kislyak the sanctions then being imposed upon Russia (for meddling in the 2016 elections).
How different is Flynn’s call from Obama’s ‘After my election, I have more flexibility’?
Worst case: He was telling Kislyak that the Trump administration might lift sanctions and therefore, comrade, no need for a spiral of retaliations.
How different is this from Barack Obama telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, on an inadvertently open mic, during his 2012 reelection campaign, “This is my last election.
After my election, I have more flexibility.”
Flynn would have been giving the Russians useful information that might well have contributed to Russia’s decision not to retaliate. I’m no Russophile. But again: What’s wrong with that? Turns out, the Trump administration has not lifted those sanctions. It’s all a tempest in an empty teapot.
But that kind of alleged diplomatic freelancing would have prolonged a war in which Americans were dying daily.
The Flynn conversation was nothing remotely of the sort. Where’s the harm?
You can’t leave your vice president undercut and exposed. Flynn had to go.
Up to this point, the story makes sense. Except for one thing: Why the coverup if there is no crime?
Why lie about talking about sanctions? It’s inexplicable.
Did Flynn want to head off lines of inquiry about other contacts with Russians that might not have been so innocent?
Massive new leaks suggest numerous contacts during the campaign between Trump associates and Russian officials, some of whom were intelligence agents.
Up till now, however, reports the New York Times, there is “no evidence” of any Trump campaign collusion or cooperation with Russian hacking and other interference in the U.S. elections.
Thus far. Which is why there will be investigations. Speculation ranges from the wildly malevolent to the rather loopily innocent.
At one end of the spectrum is the scenario wherein these campaign officials — including perhaps Flynn, perhaps even Trump — are compromised because of tainted business or political activities known to the Russians, to whom they are now captive.
A fevered conspiracy in my view, but there are non-certifiable people who consider it possible.
At the benign end of the spectrum is that the easily flattered Trump imagines himself the great dealmaker who overnight becomes a great statesman by charming Vladimir Putin into a Nixon-to-China grand bargain — we jointly call off the new Cold War, join forces to destroy the Islamic State and reach a new accommodation for Europe that relieves us of some of the burden of parasitic allies.
I believe neither of these scenarios but I’m hard put to come up with alternatives.
The puzzle remains. Why did Flynn lie? Until we answer that, the case of the coverup in search of a crime remains unsolved.