Gen. Flynn lied concerning his pre-innauguration communications with Russia.

[Mountain Man]

Yeah, heres some more assertions for you. Remember the secret dossier concerning Trumps associations with Russia compiled by the ex-British spy and released by Buzzfeed? You know, the fake news. Well it has now been corraborated according to CNN.

So the fake news has been "corroborated" by a peddler of fake news?

Welp, I'm convinced!

[JimL]

So the fake news has been "corroborated" by a peddler of fake news?

Welp, I'm convinced!

MM, you wouldn't be able to discern fake news from real news if you witnessed it for yourself.

[JimL]

Well, if he HADN'T have lied, we wouldn't have Obamacare. And the fact that he lied so frequently, consistently and boldly, and to the AMERICAN PEOPLE should really infuriate you! After all... "you can keep your doctor - period!" - is a pretty blatant lie, and has cost BILLIONS since.....

It would infuriate me if Obama actually lied, but he didn't, you're just so biased and gullible that you immediately fall for the republican talking points rather than researching. What he said was that if you have insurance, which most people did have through their employer, then you can keep your insurance and your doctor. He wasn't talking about people applying for insurance through Obamacare.

..... oh, wait... you're not worried about Obama......

Nope, not in the least. Trump on the other hand is a pathological liar and has proven that time and time again. That worries me deeply, and should worry you as well.

[Raphael]

Sorry, fixed it. The point is that Flynn lied when he said he didn't dicuss the Obama sanctions in his pre-innauguration call with russian officials.

Is there evidence that he discussed the sanctions with his phone call he had?

From a little googling, the very topic you're accusing him of talking about did not come up in the conversation he had with the Ruskie ambassador.

[JimL]

Is there evidence that he discussed the sanctions with his phone call he had?

From a little googling, the very topic you're accusing him of talking about did not come up in the conversation he had with the Ruskie ambassador.

The phone calls were monitered and 9 former and current security personel have verified that the sactions were discussed. Gen. Flynn, since this news has surfaced has walked back his own lie and now says that sanctions may have been discussed, he just can't remember. Previously he said absolutely, sanctions never came up. One way or the other, if he lied and undermind U.S. policy as a private citizen, or if he is to stupid and incompetent to remember what he discussed with foriegn leaders, then he should be fired.

[Mountain Man]

MM, you wouldn't be able to discern fake news from real news if you witnessed it for yourself.

Come on, Jimmy, you're way too gullible for your own good. Here's what they have to say:

Source: CNN

For the first time, US investigators say they have corroborated some of the communications detailed in a 35-page dossier compiled by a former British intelligence agent, multiple current and former US law enforcement and intelligence officials tell CNN. As CNN first reported, then-President-elect Donald Trump and President Barack Obama were briefed on the existence of the dossier prior to Trump's inauguration.

© Copyright Original Source

Woah-ho-ho! Now this sounds juicy! So what details did they confirm? Let's keep reading!

Source: CNN

None of the newly learned information relates to the salacious allegations in the dossier.

© Copyright Original Source

Oh... hmmm... well... that's disappointing. But after that opening paragraph, surely they've got something that will take President Trump down a peg!

Source: CNN

Rather it relates to conversations between foreign nationals. The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals.

© Copyright Original Source

Well, huh... so nothing that actually relates to Trump or his associates communicating with Russian officials. But of course these conversations must have some good stuff in them for CNN to hyperventilate over it! I can't wait to hear the details!

Source: CNN

Sources would not confirm which specific conversations were intercepted or the content of those discussions due to the classified nature of US intelligence collection programs.

© Copyright Original Source

Oh. More unnamed "sources". Also, no specific details.

And now for the kicker:

Source: CNN

But the intercepts do confirm that some of the conversations described in the dossier took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier, according to the officials. CNN has not confirmed whether any content relates to then-candidate Trump.

[...]

Spokespeople for the FBI, Department of Justice, CIA and Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment.

US intelligence officials emphasize the conversations were solely between foreign nationals, including those in or tied to the Russian government, intercepted during routine intelligence gathering.

[...]

Officials who spoke to CNN cautioned they still have not reached any judgment on whether the Russian government has any compromising information about the President.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politi...ate/index.html

© Copyright Original Source

Basically, it's a big bunch of nothing.

I think the fact that the President played hardball with Russia in his recent phone call with Putin is all the evidence we need that there's no quid pro quo going on.

Source: Breitbart

President Donald Trump in his first phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads, according to a report.

Trump told Putin that the treaty, known as New START, was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, according to a report by Reuters.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-se...mp-putin-call/

© Copyright Original Source

Seriously, Jimmy, find yourself some better news sources, like me.

[Mountain Man]

The phone calls were monitered and 9 former and current security personel have verified that the sactions were discussed. Gen. Flynn, since this news has surfaced has walked back his own lie and now says that sanctions may have been discussed, he just can't remember. Previously he said absolutely, sanctions never came up. One way or the other, if he lied and undermind U.S. policy as a private citizen, or if he is to stupid and incompetent to remember what he discussed with foriegn leaders, then he should be fired.

Except the FBI says they found no evidence of wrongdoing with regards to the phone call, so this is a non-story, Jimmy.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-se...an-ambassador/

[Raphael]

The phone calls were monitered and 9 former and current security personel have verified that the sactions were discussed. Gen. Flynn, since this news has surfaced has walked back his own lie and now says that sanctions may have been discussed, he just can't remember. Previously he said absolutely, sanctions never came up. One way or the other, if he lied and undermind U.S. policy as a private citizen, or if he is to stupid and incompetent to remember what he discussed with foriegn leaders, then he should be fired.

Do you have an aversion to providing supporting evidence for your statements?
You have replied with a number of assertions but provided no evidence of those assertions.

The articles I've read detail the subjects that were covered by Flynn and the ruskie, and sanctions seem to not be one of those topics.
Now he could be lying, but that would end his career as the FBI has copies of the phone calls.


Now I don't know anything about Flynn, I don't really care whether or not he lied (apart form the fact that if he did, he should face the consequences of lying) but you have not provided a single bit of supporting evidence to any of your assertions made in this thread.
Put up or shut up.

[CMD]

It would infuriate me if Obama actually lied, but he didn't, you're just so biased and gullible that you immediately fall for the republican talking points rather than researching.

It's not just "republican talking points." The super unbiased, completely objective fact checkers that liberals love and whose words are absolute agree that he lied as well.

PolitiFact made this lie the "Lie of the Year":

Source: PolitiFact - Lie of the Year: 'If you like your health care plan, you can keep it'

Obama’s ideas on health care were first offered as general outlines then grew into specific legislation over the course of his presidency. Yet Obama never adjusted his rhetoric to give people a more accurate sense of the law’s real-world repercussions, even as fact-checkers flagged his statements as exaggerated at best.

Instead, he fought back against inaccurate attacks with his own oversimplifications, which he repeated even as it became clear his promise was too sweeping.

The debate about the health care law rages on, but friends and foes of Obamacare have found one slice of common ground: The president’s "you can keep it" claim has been a real hit to his credibility.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

And WAPO Fact Check gave it 4 out of 4 pinnochios:

Source: Washington Post Fact Checker - Obama’s pledge that ‘no one will take away’ your health plan

The Pinocchio Test

The administration is defending this pledge with a rather slim reed — that there is nothing in the law that makes insurance companies force people out of plans they were enrolled in before the law passed. That explanation conveniently ignores the regulations written by the administration to implement the law. Moreover, it also ignores the fact that the purpose of the law was to bolster coverage and mandate a robust set of benefits, whether someone wanted to pay for it or not.

The president’s statements were sweeping and unequivocal — and made both before and after the bill became law. The White House now cites technicalities to avoid admitting that he went too far in his repeated pledge, which, after all, is one of the most famous statements of his presidency.

The president’s promise apparently came with a very large caveat: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan — if we deem it to be adequate.”

Four Pinocchios

Source

© Copyright Original Source

[JimL]

It's not just "republican talking points." The super unbiased, completely objective fact checkers that liberals love and whose words are absolute agree that he lied as well.

PolitiFact made this lie the "Lie of the Year":

Source: PolitiFact - Lie of the Year: 'If you like your health care plan, you can keep it'

Obama’s ideas on health care were first offered as general outlines then grew into specific legislation over the course of his presidency. Yet Obama never adjusted his rhetoric to give people a more accurate sense of the law’s real-world repercussions, even as fact-checkers flagged his statements as exaggerated at best.

Instead, he fought back against inaccurate attacks with his own oversimplifications, which he repeated even as it became clear his promise was too sweeping.

The debate about the health care law rages on, but friends and foes of Obamacare have found one slice of common ground: The president’s "you can keep it" claim has been a real hit to his credibility.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

And WAPO Fact Check gave it 4 out of 4 pinnochios:

Source: Washington Post Fact Checker - Obama’s pledge that ‘no one will take away’ your health plan

The Pinocchio Test

The administration is defending this pledge with a rather slim reed — that there is nothing in the law that makes insurance companies force people out of plans they were enrolled in before the law passed. That explanation conveniently ignores the regulations written by the administration to implement the law. Moreover, it also ignores the fact that the purpose of the law was to bolster coverage and mandate a robust set of benefits, whether someone wanted to pay for it or not.

The president’s statements were sweeping and unequivocal — and made both before and after the bill became law. The White House now cites technicalities to avoid admitting that he went too far in his repeated pledge, which, after all, is one of the most famous statements of his presidency.

The president’s promise apparently came with a very large caveat: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan — if we deem it to be adequate.”

Four Pinocchios

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Those existing plans were grandfathered in if the insurance companies adhered to the new rules set forth in the ACA, which they didn't. Perhaps he assumed they would, or perhaps he didn't quite understand it himself, who knows, but it wasn't an outright lie, and less than 2% of insured ending up not being able to keep their existing insurance. Was what Obama said completely factual, no. But for more than 98% of existing plan holders it was true, they could and did keep their existing plans and doctors. You can call that a lie if you want, i.e. that he knew he was telling an untruth, I don't believe it was.

[One Bad Pig]

Do you have an aversion to providing supporting evidence for your statements?
You have replied with a number of assertions but provided no evidence of those assertions.

I'm beginning to suspect that JimL sees providing supporting evidence as a conservative thing, so he's against it.

[Mountain Man]

I'm beginning to suspect that JimL sees providing supporting evidence as a conservative thing, so he's against it.

I think it's more the fact that his sources are so easily debunked that he thinks he can gain more credibility by simply not providing them.

[Sparko]

I'm beginning to suspect that JimL sees providing supporting evidence as a conservative thing, so he's against it.

Actual evidence would work against JimL. He seems to be trying to "gaslight" people. He just spews out whatever he "wants" to be the truth and expects people to just believe him.

[Cow Poke]

The phone calls were monitered and 9 former and current security personel have verified that the sactions were discussed.

What "sactions" were "monitered" by which "personel"? Three strikes in your first sentence. You're out.

(Jimmy, the red squiggly line under the word indicates that it may be a misspelling)

[One Bad Pig]

Apparently, Flynn himself has walked back his denial, after VP Pence went to bat for him:

Source: Thomas Gallatin

Late last week, however, Flynn walked back the denial and now concedes that sanctions were discussed with the Russian ambassador. While the Democrats have made much hay over the sanctions having been discussed, the more worrisome issue is actually Flynn’s untruthfulness. As Rich Lowry noted, “I have never understood why it would be inappropriate, let [alone] illegal, for the incoming National Security Advisor to talk to the Russian ambassador. … [But] the truthfulness of Flynn’s account is another matter. If Flynn misled Vice President Pence about the content of his discussions, knowing that Pence would go out and repeat a misleading version to the public, that’s obviously very troubling.”

© Copyright Original Source