Slashdot Mirror


Michael Flynn Resigns As Trump's National Security Adviser (go.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from ABC News: President Donald Trump's embattled national security adviser Michael Flynn, who faced questions about a call to the Russian ambassador prior to the inauguration, has resigned. Retired Army General Keith Kellogg was named acting national security adviser to replace Flynn. ABC News reported Monday that Flynn called Vice President Mike Pence on Friday to apologize for misleading him about his conversation with the ambassador in November. Flynn previously denied that he spoke about sanctions the U.S. imposed on Russia for its suspected interference in the 2016 election, a claim repeated by Pence in January. An administration official later claimed Pence was relying on information provided to him by Flynn. In his resignation later, Flynn cited the "fast pace of events" for "inadvertently" briefing "the Vice President Elect and others with incomplete information regarding [his] phone calls with the Russian Ambassador." You can view Flynn's full resignation letter, as provided by the White House, here.

20 of 895 comments (clear)

  1. I'm sure he had nothing to hide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Right?! This was just because of a miscommunication of a phone call, that's all. *waves hand*

    1. Re:I'm sure he had nothing to hide by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Funny

      And to combat this vile slander from WashPo, he bravely stood up to them, and resigned.

    2. Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So the real issue here is why Trump seems so keen to placate Russia, when the US's military and economic might literally dwarfs Russia's abilities.

      That is a really backwards way of looking at it. We do indeed have all the power in the bilateral relationship, but how should we use that power? The Russians are a very paranoid people, who think the whole world is out to "get them". By trying to push them down, we are playing into their paranoia, and making them turn inward. But the end result will not be good. They are going to keep Crimea and Donbas no matter what. So should we accept that and move on to other issues? Or should we try to "punish" them, and end up with a frozen conflict and instability in Ukraine, and continued military tensions with Poland and the Baltic countries, while the war in Syria goes on and on, and more and more refugees pour into Turkey and Europe? The Russians have had a bad couple decades, and they feel like the West, and especially America, is bullying them. Treating them with some respect may go a long way. This is not a zero-sum relationship.

    3. Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide by skam240 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Jesus, you could pass for Chamberlain in a heart beat.

      "So yeah, Germany has had it rough lately and isnt getting any respect (the The Treaty of Versailles was not kind to them). So what if they invaded a few countries? Let's just pretend we all didnt see it and know that nothing bad could possibly come from just letting Germany invade a little bit."

      I'm sure anyone living in the Baltic states felt very reasured by your post.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    4. Re: I'm sure he had nothing to hide by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure we don't need to worry about the Baltic states invading anyone.

      As to why we should worry about someone (Russia or otherwise) invading the Baltic states, do I really need to explain why we believe that countries shouldn't be allowed to just invade other countries? That's the core reason WW2 was fought, and why the UN was created - to basically outlaw aggressive war. Yes, I realize that hasn't eliminated war entirely, but every conflict fought since then has at least made some sort of excuse of operating within the UN framework. We do not want to go back to the pre-1914 world order where might makes right.

  2. So much winning... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is everybody tired of winning yet?

    General Michael Flynn's tenure as NSA adviser is the shortest in US history (24 days). The previous record-holder was 348 days (Reagan's first NSA director). And I guarantee that Reagan's NSA director didn't resign because he was too cozy with and taking money from the Russians.

    So much for "extreme vetting", I guess.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  3. Re:Pence is consolidating his position by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

    Unlike Flynn and Spicer, Pence cannot be fired. He was elected by the voters.

    You might want to google "Spiro Agnew".

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  4. Re: Whipslash? A suggestion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nerds care about politics when it's this fucked up. Therefore political news is nerd news.

  5. Re:That's not why he resigned by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 5, Informative

    You could try repeating facts, or, you know, come up with more Fake News like him being "paid by the Russians".

    Flynn Was Paid By Russia for 2015 Trip

    Trump adviser Michael T. Flynn on his dinner with Putin

    But don't let facts get in the way of calling everything "Fake News."

    --
    "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
  6. Re:Peaceful transition Obama DOJ gets revenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, let's see. On the one hand, we had a known philanderer playing "hide the cigar" with his intern. It was the worst-kept secret in Washington; you can't blackmail someone with something everyone already knows. On the other hand, we have a National Security Adviser forced to resign because he himself is a threat to national security. This, after engaging in back-door negotiations with America's competing superpower, and leaving some actual kompromat in the wake of his Moscow visits.

    Yes, totally equivalent situations. ::eyeroll::

  7. Re:Okay - that was quick. by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think that ability on their part is fading fast. The polls showing Trump's precipitous fall in popularity tell the story of a presidency in the kind of crisis that hasn't been seen since Iran-Contra or the Lewinsky affair, and, as with Watergate before it, those scandals didn't hit until second terms. The fact that one of Trump's longest supporters has been outed being chatty with the Russian Ambassador just weeks into the Presidency just blows me away. This is like a presidency on amphetamines.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  8. Emails by friedman101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Remember when like 70% of slashdot thought that it was a good idea to put this buffoon in power because Hillary was too "establishment" and was a dumbass about classified emails?

    Any regrets yet?

  9. Re:Time to start the pool on #PresidentTweety? by dbIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Trump's not senile. He just never grew up and has been a whining trust fund baby his entire life.

  10. Re:Okay - that was quick. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    You're wrong.
    It's illegal for a private citizen to engage in diplomacy for the US.

  11. Re:That's not why he resigned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fake news had a very specific meaning, which is propaganda consisting of outright lies masquerading as real news to influence public opinion in a given way. We're not talking about traditional media (many people now believe the majority of the MSM are "fake news", which is in itself a triumph of fake news) We know most of it comes out of Eastern Europe, and is supporting Russian moves to destabilise and break apart the west. And it appears to be succeeding. You'll notice I've not mentioned Trump even once in that, because this story has been around for a couple of years *before* the US elections, and I've been following it. What the alt-right has done is taken the term "fake news" when applied correctly to articles supporting their cause, and turned it around to mean "any news I don't like", be it real or fake.

  12. Re:Okay - that was quick. by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Tea Party did the same to Obama. Remember those angry townhalls to block health care which ultimately handed the houses to the same Republicans today? They cried against executive orders. Now they have no problem with them and are outraged Democrats are doing the same back

  13. Re:Okay - that was quick. by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The selection pool is actually limited to "very rich people" but Trump makes exceptions for people who have publicly said things he likes to hear. Trouble is he only TRUSTS rich people. Like many rich people, he assumes everybody who isn't rich is trying to rob him - and regardless of how he blew smoke up their asses on the campaign trail it's becoming extremely clear that he distrusts anybody who isn't very wealthy.
    You can see the fracture lines all over the white house and the ones struggling are constantly those who aren't rich. Bannon has caused some serious fuck-ups, up to getting himself on the national security commission (and leaks suggest Trump didn't like that and hadn't known what he was signing) ... but his position is secure, Trump trusts him because Bannon is rich. Reince Priebus and Sean Spicer on the other hand are getting constant flack from their boss - those two have actually done a halfway decent job, to the extent that it's possible in this administration. Spicer's sheer exasperation is visible every time he has to stand before the American people and say something flagrantly ridiculous because that's what the boss wants. Yet he had done it, even if he had to resort to prefacing it with "the president really does believe that..."

    Which is what you normally preface a statement with when you have difficulty accepting that the person under discussion can really belief something that stupid...

    But either way - he's done exactly the job Trump wanted him to do. The guy hitched his wagon to a star (even if it was a red dwarf) to jump the capitol-hill line to the front but he's been loyally toeing the boss's line ever since, and yet his loyalty isn't being rewarded, he's just getting crapped on because we won't believe the bullshit Trump sends him to relay.
    What's the real difference between Steve "I wasn't happy with how much power you gave me so I tricked you into giving me more because I'm just using you" Bannon and Sean "Yes sir, I'll tell them exactly what you want me to tell them" Spicer ? Spicer isn't rich.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  14. Re:Okay - that was quick. by neilo_1701D · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is like a presidency on amphetamines.

    This is like a presidency at amature hour.

    The really stupid thing is that for all the shaking-up that has been done to world leaders, the One China policy remains; Israel is still scolded; refugees are still being accepted; and there is no replacement for Obamacare on the horizon. For all the bravado, he has achieved nothing at the cost of the US's image and brand. Put another way, far from being the anti-Obama he portrayed himself to be, he has arrived at exactly the same policy positions.

    The #1 thing he could do right now to show some statesmanship is to get to California, stand by the Oroville Dam and declare US infrastructure be his priority. Forget the Great Wall of Mexico. Here is a genuine crisis that is symptomatic of a deeper problem, and here is a genuine crisis handed to him on a silver platter. He want to build? Build. He wants a short-term sugar high on jobs? Employ people to build. Yes thre is a cost; but what the heck; borrow the money. He could probably borrow enough to do most of this work and still be able to say he didn't raise the national debt as much as Obama did.

    But instead, he tweets about Nordstrom and how unfair they are to Ivanka.

  15. Re:For the US, not for a political party by MobyDisk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since you are the first potentially rational Trump supporter, I honestly want to understand your positions. Do you want a wall between the US and Mexico, and if so, why? Do you want to forgive Russia for the annexation of Crimea? Let's see..what else.... do you support ending the child care tax credit? Do you believe in global warming?

  16. Re:Okay - that was quick. by sg_oneill · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I kind of feel sorry for the people that brought his whole line about fighting money in politics and draining the swamp.

    Sure he fired all the policy wonks, but now he's just got a white house full of money-in-politics and nobody knows what they are doing, and all the people who would normally say "No Mr President thats an extremely bad idea" to an incoming greenhorn have been fired or sidelined. I mean it was obvious to me what was gonna happen, but i've been around the block a few times and seen plenty of similar types go into govenor roles and completely screw the whole place up. These alt-right people, I just dont know about . Pepe memes and actually believing fox-news conspiracy theories does not make for a particularly useful political movement.

    --
    Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.