Quantcast
Connect with us

WATCH: Maddow details the ‘lurid saga’ of Mike Flynn changing position on a major NATO question — for $600,000 payoff

Published

on

MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow on Monday reported on how Michael Flynn changed his position on a major national security issue involving a NATO ally — in return for money.

The events occurred during the heat of the 2016 presidential campaign, when Flynn was a retired United States Army Lieutenant General and top advisor to Donald Trump.

Maddow reminded of 2016 attempted coup in Turkey — which has the second largest army of any NATO allies.

ADVERTISEMENT

“And that night in Cleveland, Ohio, the top national security adviser to the Donald Trump campaign, he himself was giving a speech to a conservative group in Cleveland, and he diverged from his prepared remarks to tell people about this coup that was at this moment breaking out in turkey,” Maddow noted.

“And Mike Flynn basically explained to that conservative audience that night in Cleveland, as the coup was going on, that the coup was basically awesome, that it was something that that audience there should literally applaud because basically, it would be great if the Turkish government was overthrown in that coup that night,” she explained.

“Thanks to a new federal felony indictment that was just unveiled today, now we know prosecutors say it took at most 11 days for Mike Flynn, Donald Trump’s national security adviser, to do an absolute U-turn on that important national security issue in exchange for a big pile of money,” Maddow reported.

The Flynn Group charged $600,000 for the about-face.

Maddow noted on how Flynn wanted to return Fethullah Gülen, a Turkish cleric living in Pennsylvania, to the country.

ADVERTISEMENT

“For the low, low price of $600,000, he will not only stop telling Americans that they should applaud that coup, he will help the government that was the target of that coup hunt down the guy they’re blaming it on,” Maddow explained.

“National security matters affect all of us and you can’t get anywhere near the lurid story of Mike Flynn and his lies to investigators and his schemes and his foreign entanglements that he was covering up while he was involved in these sensitive matters, all the ways he was caught, all the warnings and the red flags flying around, you can’t get anywhere near this lurid saga of Mike Flynn as a national security and counterintelligence disaster at the highest levels of this administration without at least wondering why the Trump administration did not care about any of this,” Maddow noted.

“Flynn as national security adviser — given what we now know what was going on with Flynn and what we now know the law enforcement community and the intelligence agencies knew what was going on with Flynn and what they warned the incoming Trump folks about Flynn — Flynn as national security adviser is something that just seems impossible in retrospect,” Maddow concluded.

ADVERTISEMENT

Watch:

ADVERTISEMENT


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

2020 Election

Trump’s latest national security adviser is undercutting FBI Director Wray to quash report of new Russian meddling: report

Published

on

In a scorching column for the Daily Beast, historian David Rothkopf accused Donald Trump's latest national security director, Robert O'Brien, of undercutting the United States intelligence services and uses his comments about recent reports of new Russian election meddling to make the case that he is contradicting FBI Director Christopher Wray to please the president.

According to Rothkopf, "For just over a century, since America arrived as a major force on the global stage, we have feared that should our enemies defeat us, it would be on the battlefield or via a devastating nuclear onslaught. We never could have imagined that an enemy might take another approach altogether: infecting us with a presidential virus who this week gutted our national security leadership structures like a fish."

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Decoding the Christian paradox: Evangelical historian explains how right-wingers ignore Jesus to support a corrupt and greedy president

Published

on

To quote the bumper sticker: "What would Jesus do?"

Assuming that he existed and held the views imputed to him, Jesus Christ would not support Donald Trump.

Donald Trump's behavior, values, policies and their consequences are the opposite of what Jesus Christ represented. Trump has put migrants and refugees in cages and delighted in their suffering. He feels contempt for the poor, the sick, the vulnerable and the needy. He has lied at least 16,000 times. He is corrupt and wildly greedy.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

America could be on the verge of a huge shift to the left — here’s what you can expect

Published

on

By

A new socialist movement is cohering in the US, thanks in large part to the popular class politics of Bernie Sanders. But as that movement grows and progresses, it is bound to run into dangerous obstacles and thorny contradictions. The new US socialist movement is without a single "line" or monolithic political position. That's a strength of the movement, since none of us has all the answers. Still, many people in the movement, ourselves included, feel strongly about certain approaches to strategy. One approach we feel strongly about is what we call "the democratic road to socialism," or the idea that we need to make good use of the democratic structures and processes available to us (and to improve and expand them) in order to advance our cause.A country like the United States has both a well-developed capitalist state, beholden to the capitalist class and armed to the teeth, and mechanisms for democratic participation in that state that allow people to exercise some measure of control over their representatives. Even though their choices are limited, their representatives are bought off by the rich, and the capitalist class holds the entire system hostage with the threat of devastating economic retaliation if things don't go their way, the system does have some basic democratic elements that its citizens largely affirm and occasionally participate in.This is a tricky situation to navigate. If the democratic capitalist state were less developed, it might be possible to convince people to simply storm the gates, tear up the old rules, and start fresh in a socialist society. This is what socialists tried to do in Russia in 1917: the state was weak and after centuries of autocratic rule it didn't have much legitimacy in the eyes of most Russians, so revolutionaries could get popular support for scrapping it and starting over.
Continue Reading
 
 
close-image