« Flynn and his Clearances | Main | The Comey firing »

09 May 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


If you were advising the President, we would all be better for it. However logical your suggestion may be, I believe our US government has a far too enigmatic approach to how we define - and deliver - transparency for that to happen.



Your advise would be the most sensible action. It seems both Yates and Clapper were hiding behind classification.

Is Flynn being railroaded? Robert Parry believes so.


Why is Trump not de-classifying the call transcript?


Col. - Thank you for this information. You have perhaps hit on exactly why those transcripts will not be declassified.
Ms. Yates did not strike me as a "pants of fire" type of public servant. If anything, her testimony led me to the conclusion that there is something on those transcripts that this administration does not want to release.

I wonder if we will ever know?



you are just guessing and from a partisan point of view. In fact, neither she nor Clapper could reveal the contents of the transcripts so long as they are classified because of sources and methods no matter how empty of incriminating information they may or may not be. In any event, the president should declassify them. pl


I really doubt that Trump, or the people around him (the dumbest guys in the room) know that he has this power.
If he knowa he has this power, why isn't he kicking the FBI's ass to discover the leakers?



It may be that they do not know. In any event the FBI already has the transcripts, so it is up to Trump to de-classify them. They cannot. They do not have the authority. pl


He will not release. It has now been reported both sons talked about Russia funding Trump Organization for some time. Trump is hiding something or he would reclassify and release.


I don't understand why Trump isn't simply saying "So Flynn talked to Russian ambo. That's okay. That was his job. I told him to do so."

Nobody could say anything about the (incoming) president doing foreign policy work in the interest of the United States. If he sends a trusted advisor to do a talking part of the job that is fine. Doesn't he have at east on in his team could show him that obvious way out?


"If Flynn were guilty of something more than chatting with this Russian diplomat or any others, the transcripts will show that." Agreed. I don't expect to see the transcripts, but I doubt it is Flynn that they are shielding. White House reactions so far indicate a mix of fear of the potential effects and acceptance of the substance of whatever happened. I know of no reason to suppose that Flynn was a rogue operator acting on his own.

All of which is not to accuse anyone of "treason". But at least purposes and affinities that they don't want becoming public.



I seem to remember that Trump tried that early on and then gave up on it. pl


I'm partisan, yet I agree 100%.

Presumably, one doesn't release the transcripts because such a release has already been subjected to cost and benefit analysis. At the same time it is impossible to make true assumptions about Flynn's actions/intent, as if one knows what the transcripts contain, unless one knows what the released transcripts contain.

I will hazard a prediction that the (currently mostly hidden) shape of the pre-election relations between the Trump campaign and the Russian government will eventually see the daylight. I have no idea whether this spells trouble.



is it illegal for Russian nationals to invest in US companies? When did that happen?

Account Deleted

There is perhaps another reason the transcripts remain classified, even if they are clean. Trump's team must be realists about the Dems sticking with the secret Russia links 'story' whatever happens to Flynn. Letting his name fill the allotted media space may actually be judged to be better than having another name there - or another story.

Flynn twisting in the wind with impossible to prove allegations swirling keeps the attack dogs busy. If this premise is correct, expect to see Flynn dangled for a while yet.


Perfectly legal - as long as a significant contribution is also made to the Clinton crime family AKA Clinton Global Initiative.


Any one know?
How did Flynn ever get ANY stars, much less three?
Not the brighterst bulb on the porch.


Certainly not! If Boris Badenof (see Wikipedia) buys the American corporation/person named "Billy Bob's Burgers" and then spends all of its profits on contributions to American politicians, that's just Freedom of Speech (see Supreme Court's Citizens United decision).

William R. Cumming

IMO the National Security Act of 1947 vests exclusive classification authority in the President. Many disagree with me!

William R. Cumming

IMO the National Security Act of 1947 vests exclusive classification authority in the President. Many disagree with me!


Colonel Lang, IMO no matter what these conversation' transcripts say, the media pundits, democrats and certain republicans will spin it against the administration and Flynn,
As you said make them look like traitors. I have old Russian American client( she left and immigrated back in early 90s) who she is in a successful business of artistic high end greeting cards, and lives and works in LA and NY, the other she told me, ever since the election and heavy democratic losses, alegedly due to Russian interference, Russians Americans are even afraid of calling Russia and check on thier parents and relatives, It reminded me of Iranians back in 80's. Now days calling or talking to Russians is an un American act?

Allen Thomson

Just an exercise in hopefully informed speculation, but what in the Flynn -> Kislyak conversations would have crossed a line that created the FBI/IC concerns? We're all agreed, I hope, that just talking about mutual national interests and views and hopes for the future would have been a perfectly legitimate thing for Trump's national security guy to have done.

Beyond that, what might it have been? Some sort of explicit quid pro quo, where the quid was active Russian help in getting Trump elected seems a possibility for line-crossing. What else?


Yes, except for atomic info which is created by a special law. But there also the president is the supreme classifying authority. Pat

Sent from my iPhone


Protege of McChrystal in the great post 9/11 CT world pat

Sent from my iPhone


The sources and methods for collecting an unencrypted telephone conversation over commercial carrier are well known. I can explain it here if anyone is interested.

Government agents go to each major public carrier and say, "Here's some black boxes, we want one of these inserted into each of your major links so we can tap off whatever we feel like."

The telco gives the traditional response of any person with a gun at their head, "Yes sir! No problem."

After that, they just tap off any data or phone call at any time. There you go... all sources and methods. Nothing to worry about.

As for the phone call itself, Flynn was merely scheduling a meeting, or that's the official story at any rate. Are you expecting me to believe the Russians have some super special way to fill in a diary? I'd say the concept of meeting invites is pretty widespread by now. Even if the North Koreans do discover how to book a room, they probably can't do a whole lot of harm with that knowledge.


The only thing I am expecting you to understand is that the product is classified because the government does not want to admit that it phone taps foreign ambassadors. This gives Yates and Clapper a perfect excuse not to discuss the matter in public. Have you ever been in government? pl

scott s.

Well I guess we now know. Comey is s-canned.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad