Quantcast
Connect with us

WATCH: Al Franken brilliantly connects the dots on why Trump took so long to fire Flynn

Published

on

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) pieced “a puzzle together” on Monday during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, reasoning that Donald Trump may have been so reluctant to fire embattled former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn because other people in his administration similarly colluded with Russian operatives.

“The intelligence communities have concluded, all 17 of them, that Russia interfered with this election, and we all know that’s right,” Franken began during his line of questioning for former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former acting Attorney General Sally Yates.

“One of the questions is why do [Russians] favor Donald Trump?” Franken explained, listing of the many connections between Trump campaign and administration officials and Russian operatives, including Jeff Sessions, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Rex Tillerson, Jared Kusher and Flynn.

“Now, going to Flynn, he appeared during the campaign on Russia Today. Russia Today is the propaganda arm of the Russian government. General, since you’ve retired have you appeared on Russia Today?”

“No, not wittingly, no,” Clapper replied.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Okay. And Flynn received $37,000 for sitting next to [Russian president Vladimir] Putin at the tenth anniversary of Russia Today. All this seems very odd to me and raised a lot of questions.”

Yates explained that she brought those concerns directly to the Trump administration, which was confused by why it is “an issue for the Department of Justice if one White House official lies to another.”

“Okay, I don’t understand why he didn’t understand that,” Franken said. “General Flynn after that for 18 days stayed [at the White House]. There are policies that deal with who gets clearance, security clearance and not. Executive Order 12986 outlines the rules for security clearances, and it says that when there’s a credible allegation that raises concern about someone’s fitness to access classified information, that person’s clearance should be suspended pending investigation.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“The executive order also states the clearance holders must always demonstrate, quote, trustworthiness, honesty, reliability, discretion and sound judgement, as well as freedom from allegiances and potential for coercion,” Franken continued. “And yet the White House counsel did not understand why the Department of Justice was concerned? “

“The president was told about this in late January, according to the press secretary, so now he’s got a guy who has been … clearly compromised. He’s lied to the vice president, and [Trump] keeps him on, and he lets him be in all these classified meetings,” Franken continued.

“Is it possible that the reason that he didn’t fire him then was that, well, if I fire him for talking to the Russians about sanctions, what about all the other people on my team who coordinated?” Franken asked

ADVERTISEMENT

“I mean, isn’t it possible that the reason—because you ask yourselves, why wouldn’t you fire a guy who did this? And all I can think of is that he would say, well, we’ve got all these other people in the administration who have had contacts,” he added. “We have all these other people in the administration who coordinated, who were talking.”

“We’re trying to put a puzzle together here, everybody,” Franken said. “And maybe, just maybe, he didn’t get rid of a guy who lied to the vice president, who got paid by the Russians, who went on Russia Today because there are other people in his administration who met secretly with the Russians and didn’t reveal it until later—until they were caught.”

“That may be why it took him 18 days—until it came public—to get rid of Mike Flynn, who was a danger to this republic,” Franken said.
Watch the video below, via CNN:

ADVERTISEMENT


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected]. Send news tips to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Facebook

Bill Barr’s DOJ won’t indict Trump while he’s in office — but 27 Democratic AGs can: Ex-Obama lawyer

Published

on

Former special counsel Robert Mueller decided he could not indict President Donald Trump while he is in office, but that is not the only mechanism for legal accountability.

Former Obama administration acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal explained to MSNBC anchor Lawrence O'Donnell on Thursday how there is another option.

"Last night a former Watergate assistant special prosecutor, Jill Wine-Banks, made a point about indicting a president that had not occurred to me," O'Donnell noted, introducing a clip.

"The evidence of all the elements of the crime has been established and were he not protected by the Office of Legal Counsel -- an opinion by the way that I think is flawed constitutionally and legally -- I think it’s incorrect. It’s time for someone to challenge it or change it. It may take a state prosecutor indicting the president to take it to the Supreme Court for a decision and whether you can cover up your own crime and get away with it," she noted.

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trump can be indicted — right now — regardless of DOJ rule: Trump’s GOP challenger

Published

on

President Donald Trump can be indicted right now, a former top Republican prosecutor explained to MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell on Thursday.

The host of "The Last Word" interviewed Bill Weld, the former Republican governor of Massachuttes who is currently challenging the sitting president for the 2020 GOP nomination.

Prior to his career in elected office, Weld was a top federal prosecutor.

In 1981, Weld was nominated by Ronald Reagan to be the United States Attorney for Massachuttes. After receiving positive media coverage for his anti-corruption court victories, in 1986 Reagan promoted Weld to head the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Mueller admitted Trump’s sworn answers weren’t all ‘truthful’ — and now Democrats are zeroing in: report

Published

on

It was almost a throwaway moment, but under questioning by Florida Democrat Rep. Val Demings, former Special Counsel Robert Mueller let slip a new admission in his congressional testimony Wednesday with the potential to alter the terrain of the impeachment debate.

The Florida lawmaker pressed the ex-Marine on the president’s sworn written answers to questions provided by the special counsel, given in lieu of a formal interview, which Donald Trump refused.

“Isn’t it fair to say that the president’s written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete — because he didn’t answer many of your questions — but where he did that his answers showed he wasn’t always being truthful?” Demings asked Mueller in the hearing.

Continue Reading
 
 
 

Copyright © 2019 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | For corrections or concerns, please email [email protected]

Join Me. Try Raw Story Investigates for $1. Invest in Journalism. Escape Ads.
close-image