well then, we have something in common.

You leftist fools are still trying to push a connection between Trump and Russia.

 

That sounds like a lot of work. Here's another idea. Instead of searching for fictional sources, let's examine the general premise, so see if it makes any sense. We are supposed to believe that Flynn has some damaging information about President Obama. There are plenty of inconvenient truths to go around.

You remind me to the guy who habitually looked at his watch and told everybody the time of day because he liked to say things that people couldn't argue about the truth.

So, what now? Why would Flynn be the only person with these details? Let's suppose he was. Why would he lie to the Vice President? Who knows, but he did. On top of that, Trump already knew about it, and knew the Vice President was misinformed. The Veep goes on TV and parrots the party line about Flynn, only to have the Oval Office carpet pulled out from under him. He looks like a fool.

Remember, this is supposed to make Flynn look like an unreliable source of information, and it certainly did, but then what? How does that protect the supposed Obama/Iran deal? What does Flynn have to lose. He can give all he knows about Obama-Iran dealings to Brietbart. He hasn't done that.

That leads to a few inconvenient truths. Whether Obamites wanted to damage Flynn's credibility is irrelevant, since he did it all by himself. This makes the premise of the story pretty much dead. The President knew about Flynn's conversation, because the Justice Department informed him. He did nothing public at the time. He let the Vice President repeat a lie and still did nothing public. When the story leaked, as everybody knew it would, Flynn was caught between a rock and a hard place. The leak doesn't expose Flynn's lie, it exposes a Whitehouse staff that has isolated the Vice President from National Security operations. Pence has to save face, or resign. Trump had enough trouble getting someone to sign on with him the first time. Who would take the job less than a month into the term?

There are two real mysteries here. The first is why someone would think this story would salvage Flynn's reputation and the second is why on earth would they think anyone would believe a word of it?

 

You do not want to disprove the source. You want to impeach the source.

Journalists use unnamed sources all the time, but they are verified internally by editorial boards and their claims corroborated. At least, that is how it is supposed to work in real news rooms.

No one is asking you to judge the existence and credibility of the source.

We are only waiting for someone to rebut the assertions presented. None of you-- not even Bron Zeage above, who is of a sound mind, has attempted to do that. He has waxed eloquent on a bit of armchair psychology, in an attempt to analyze the core beliefs of the man accused. Which of course while perhaps intriguing to some has no relevance to the veracity of the story, since the story makes no claims about the motivations of the players.

Again: you made a specific and very serious accusation. You claimed one of the author's sources is fictional. In other words, the claim is that the author invented material that has been published in the story and misattributed it to non-existent persons.

And I am asking if you have anything to back up that claim.

Relax, Hush. I don't expect a coherent answer. But you've been admonishing us to discuss the OP article. That is what I thought you wanted to do.

 

Nothing there. Even the New York Times is admitting it lately. Though you have to read all the way to paragraph 18 or whatever, where they get around to burying their CYA provisos.

 

So, if we got problems with "facts" please explain how Trump has gotten away with his lies?

Oh, i forgot, you can't allow yourself to accept that Trump has lied to you.

But I'm sure you will take solice in your fake revolution.

 

Do you get all your fake news from Breitbart?

 

Yup, them's merits alright! "Anonymous sources said..."

 

Can anyone identify these sources?

More "fake" news?

 

George Soros... The right has a hard-on for Mr Soros!

 

You mean like how Obama won by narrow margins, as you have claimed!

You're full of your own shit, clarise!

 

If they are not fictional, then who are they? Who are these anonymous sources?

 

If the author didn't make them up, then which anonymous said them? The article gives no names.

 

What sources? The article didn't given names.

 

My source says that the author's source is wrong and that you have no concept about what you are speaking on. BTW, my source is irrefutable.

So there we have it... Now don't disagree, or you shoot down the entire lead post. So there, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. You are wrong.

Hush....an alias

 

From 2015: Notice what he says about their ballistic missile program. You know, the kind they've been testing since practically the day the deal was signed.


Obama's former defense intelligence chief savages nuke negotiations with 'clear and present danger' Iran as 'wishful thinking'

6/10/15

President Barack Obama's former military intelligence chief shredded the White House's plan for a nuclear agreement with Iran on Wednesday, telling a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Capitol Hill that the administration's approach amoutns to 'wishful thinking.'

Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, who ed the Defense Intelligence Agency until last August, devoted 20 paragraphs of his opening statement to a blow-by-blow attack on the framework deal with Tehran, which is scheduled to be finalized by June 30.

It 'suffers from severe deficiencies,' Flynn said, alleging that the plan's central plank – trusting Iran's mullahs will abandon their nuclear ambitions after a ten year cooling-off period, is 'wishful thinking.'

'Iran has every intention to build a nuclear weapon,' he argued, adding that 'it is clear that the nuclear deal is not a permanent fix but merely a placeholder.'

Flynn questioned the Obama administration's unwillingness to challenge Tehran's separate but parallel ballistic-missle program aimed at building 'preparedness to weaponize a missile for nuclear delivery.'

Iran's arsenal is already 'of high quality and growing,' he told lawmakers. 'Even today, their missiles cover most all of the Middle East, and the next generation will include ICBMs capable of attacking the American homeland.'

And 'Tehran already has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East.'

The question of how to approach Iran's growing missile program took on new significance on Wednesday when the Associated Press reported that the U.S. is considering suspending sanctions against banks and companies that participate in it.

That would be a major departure from assurances given repeatedly by the White House, which has consistently said it would only lift nuclear-related sanctions as part of a deal – leaving other economic sanctions regimes in place.

But now, based on interviews with unnamed officials, the AP reports that the Obama administration wants to reclassify sanctions on companies involved with ballistic missile production so that they're considered part of the nuclear framework.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the AP's Wednesday morning bombshell.

Administration officials have said on at least a dozen occasions that any suspended sanctions could be quickly restored if Iran violates the terms of a deal.

Flynn insisted on Wednesday that it's not so.

'The notion of "snap back" sanctions is fiction,' he said. 'The Iranian regime is already more economically stable than it was in November of 2013, while the international sanctions coalition that brought Tehran to the table in the first place is showing serious signs of strain.'

'It's unreasonable to believe that under these conditions we will be able to put the "Regime Sanctions Team" back together again.'

Flynn told Congress that any agreement the administration inks with Iran will be subject to a wide range of unknowns, since international inspectors are slated to only have '"managed access" to nuclear facilities, and only with significant prior notification.'

Iran’s nuclear program already 'has significant – and not fully disclosed – military dimensions,' he said. 'The intelligence community does not have complete “eyes on" the totality of the Iranian nuclear program, nor can it guarantee that we have identified all of Iran’s nuclear facilities and processes.'

California Rep. Ed Royce said there are too many question marks hanging in the air as the International Atomic Energy Agency has been frozen out of most areas in Tehran's nuclear facilities.

'How close is Iran to achieving a nuclear warhead?' Royce asked.

'Iran continues to stonewall the IAEA on key questions – including missile warhead design – that its inspectors began pressing for over three and a half years ago. We just don’t know.'

Wednesday's hearing was convened by Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who chairs the Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa.

 

President Trump took an oath to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. Does this include Democrats?

 

No, it is not politics. It is ignorance.

Well, not ignorance. Feigned ignorance.

I'm convinced Hush and the others are just pulling my chain with all this "fictional sources" nonsense.

I know they are not eleven years old. In this day and age, kids have no idea what journalism is or how news articles are sourced.

But the people on this thread are old enough to have learned civics. It wasn't always an elective.

So they have to be fucking with me. But one thing is surely plain: Hush is full of shit when he tells us to stick to the OP. That is obviously the absolute last thing he wants to do.