Trump Under Fire

[Accip74 7,112]

Well that's one way of interpreting what's going on.

 

Here's another,

 

 

Robert Kelner, Mr Flynn's lawyer, confirmed his client had held discussions with the House and Senate intelligence committees, but he did not mention the FBI.

 

"General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should the circumstances permit," Mr Kelner said.

 

"The media are awash with unfounded allegations, outrageous claims of treason, and vicious innuendo directed against him.

 

"He is now the target of unsubstantiated public demands by members of Congress and other political critics that he be criminally investigated.

 

"No reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicised, witch hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution."

 

The House of Representatives panel denied the Journal report. "Michael Flynn has not offered to testify to HPSCI in exchange for immunity," Jack Langer, the committee spokesman, said in a statement.

 

 

Now that doesn't sound quite so damning does it?

That was in same piece BGB put up mate, I read it early this morning ;-)

 

I like to read as many sources as possible

[Accip74 7,112]

Who would have thought the media would try to make Trump look bad... It's funny bgd uses those same tactics, you wouldn't happen to be a journalist by any chance would you bgd?

You're infatuated mate! Haha

[Born Hunter 17,775]

 

Well that's one way of interpreting what's going on.

 

Here's another,

 

 

Robert Kelner, Mr Flynn's lawyer, confirmed his client had held discussions with the House and Senate intelligence committees, but he did not mention the FBI.

 

"General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should the circumstances permit," Mr Kelner said.

 

"The media are awash with unfounded allegations, outrageous claims of treason, and vicious innuendo directed against him.

 

"He is now the target of unsubstantiated public demands by members of Congress and other political critics that he be criminally investigated.

 

"No reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicised, witch hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution."

 

The House of Representatives panel denied the Journal report. "Michael Flynn has not offered to testify to HPSCI in exchange for immunity," Jack Langer, the committee spokesman, said in a statement.

 

 

Now that doesn't sound quite so damning does it?

That was in same piece BGB put up mate, I read it early this morning ;-)

 

I like to read as many sources as possible

 

 

Yes, but don't you think what I highlighted and what BGD wrote give two quite different impressions on what is actually going on?

 

BGDs interpretation suggested to me that Flynn was basically about to give a critical piece of information. But the quotation from his lawyer simply suggests that Flynn wants to try to clear his name but won't do it without immunity in what he considers a less than just political environment.

[Accip74 7,112]

 

 

Well that's one way of interpreting what's going on.

 

Here's another,

 

Robert Kelner, Mr Flynn's lawyer, confirmed his client had held discussions with the House and Senate intelligence committees, but he did not mention the FBI.

"General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should the circumstances permit," Mr Kelner said.

"The media are awash with unfounded allegations, outrageous claims of treason, and vicious innuendo directed against him.

"He is now the target of unsubstantiated public demands by members of Congress and other political critics that he be criminally investigated.

"No reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicised, witch hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution."

The House of Representatives panel denied the Journal report. "Michael Flynn has not offered to testify to HPSCI in exchange for immunity," Jack Langer, the committee spokesman, said in a statement.

 

 

Now that doesn't sound quite so damning does it?

 

That was in same piece BGB put up mate, I read it early this morning ;-)

I like to read as many sources as possible

Yes, but don't you think what I highlighted and what BGD wrote give two quite different impressions on what is actually going on?

 

BGDs interpretation suggested to me that Flynn was basically about to give a critical piece of information. But the quotation from his lawyer simply suggests that Flynn wants to try to clear his name but won't do it without immunity in what he considers a less than just political environment.

Yes mate, you always have to read beyond the headline :-)

[BGD 6,436]

 

 

 

Well that's one way of interpreting what's going on.

 

Here's another,

 

 

Robert Kelner, Mr Flynn's lawyer, confirmed his client had held discussions with the House and Senate intelligence committees, but he did not mention the FBI.

 

"General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should the circumstances permit," Mr Kelner said.

 

"The media are awash with unfounded allegations, outrageous claims of treason, and vicious innuendo directed against him.

 

"He is now the target of unsubstantiated public demands by members of Congress and other political critics that he be criminally investigated.

 

"No reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicised, witch hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution."

 

The House of Representatives panel denied the Journal report. "Michael Flynn has not offered to testify to HPSCI in exchange for immunity," Jack Langer, the committee spokesman, said in a statement.

 

 

Now that doesn't sound quite so damning does it?

That was in same piece BGB put up mate, I read it early this morning ;-)

 

I like to read as many sources as possible

Yes, but don't you think what I highlighted and what BGD wrote give two quite different impressions on what is actually going on?

 

BGDs interpretation suggested to me that Flynn was basically about to give a critical piece of information. But the quotation from his lawyer simply suggests that Flynn wants to try to clear his name but won't do it without immunity in what he considers a less than just political environment.

I didn't write anything (unless you think I work for the WSJ ) or offer my own interpretation, I posted the headline and first few paragraphs of an article along with the link just like I do whenever I share a news article on here.

[Born Hunter 17,775]

 

 

 

Well that's one way of interpreting what's going on.

 

Here's another,

 

 

Robert Kelner, Mr Flynn's lawyer, confirmed his client had held discussions with the House and Senate intelligence committees, but he did not mention the FBI.

 

"General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should the circumstances permit," Mr Kelner said.

 

"The media are awash with unfounded allegations, outrageous claims of treason, and vicious innuendo directed against him.

 

"He is now the target of unsubstantiated public demands by members of Congress and other political critics that he be criminally investigated.

 

"No reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicised, witch hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution."

 

The House of Representatives panel denied the Journal report. "Michael Flynn has not offered to testify to HPSCI in exchange for immunity," Jack Langer, the committee spokesman, said in a statement.

 

 

Now that doesn't sound quite so damning does it?

That was in same piece BGB put up mate, I read it early this morning ;-)

 

I like to read as many sources as possible

Yes, but don't you think what I highlighted and what BGD wrote give two quite different impressions on what is actually going on?

 

BGDs interpretation suggested to me that Flynn was basically about to give a critical piece of information. But the quotation from his lawyer simply suggests that Flynn wants to try to clear his name but won't do it without immunity in what he considers a less than just political environment.

I didn't write anything (unless you think I work for the WSJ ) or offer my own interpretation, I posted the headline and first few paragraphs of an article along with the link just like I do whenever I share a news article on here.

 

 

I didn't know where you got that specific statement from as you didn't put it in quotations or italics so for simplicity I referred to it as 'BGDs interpretation'. I assumed it was in line with the article and the fact you used it in your post so I thought it reasonable to say that you supported the statement.

 

It's really neither here nor there. The point of my post wasn't even to attack you, which I guess is a new experience for you.

Edited March 31, 2017 by Born Hunter

[BGD 6,436]

I didn't know where you got that specific statement from as you didn't put it in quotations or italics so for simplicity I referred to it as 'BGDs interpretation'. I assumed it was in line with the article and the fact you used it in your post so I thought it reasonable to say that you supported the statement.

 

It's really neither here nor there. The point of my post wasn't even to attack you, which I guess is a new experience for you.

It was the headline of the article so you would have seen where it came from as soon as you opened the link surely.

 

I can see how the formatting lead to confusion though, I'll make sure to put the headline in bold in future

[Born Hunter 17,775]

 

I didn't know where you got that specific statement from as you didn't put it in quotations or italics so for simplicity I referred to it as 'BGDs interpretation'. I assumed it was in line with the article and the fact you used it in your post so I thought it reasonable to say that you supported the statement.

 

It's really neither here nor there. The point of my post wasn't even to attack you, which I guess is a new experience for you.

It was the headline of the article so you would have seen where it came from as soon as you opened the link surely.

 

I can see how the formatting lead to confusion though, I'll make sure to put the headline in bold in future

 

 

Appreciated LOL.

 

I admit it was lazy on my part to refer to that interpretation as BGD's for simplicity.

[BGD 6,436]

"If you're not guilty of a crime what do you need immunity for?" - Donald Trump

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-michael-flynn-immunity-congress-russia-evidence-fbi-guilty-crime-florida-6-months-ago-a7660006.html

[Accip74 7,112]

"If you're not guilty of a crime what do you need immunity for?" - Donald Trump

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-michael-flynn-immunity-congress-russia-evidence-fbi-guilty-crime-florida-6-months-ago-a7660006.html

.....if nothing else, it's been entertaining so far.........it's the first time I've followed a presidency everyday...

 

....it's almost made me sign up to twitter! Haha...

Edited March 31, 2017 by Accip74

[BGD 6,436]

Better than Eastenders

[Silversnake 1,099]

 

Who would have thought the media would try to make Trump look bad... It's funny bgd uses those same tactics, you wouldn't happen to be a journalist by any chance would you bgd?

You're infatuated mate! Haha

It must be opposites attract. Lol.

[VOON 1,317]

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/trump-dublin-us-president-buys-liberty-hall-to-build-5-star-hotel-1.3032003

[VOON 1,317]

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/31/after-just-ten-weeks-trump-teeters-on-the-brink.html

[VOON 1,317]

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/donald-trump-signs-twin-executive-orders-targeting-trade-cheaters/articleshow/57955145.cms