Well, THAT was a short tenure.

[HankB]

Michael Flynn resigned as Trump's national security adviser.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn-resigns/ar-AAmS0ZI?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=U270DHP

[TommyGunn]

It was bound to happen, Flynn was almost duty-bound to fall on his sword.
What political bullcr@p.  Over a NONcrime.   There was no crime -- just a cover-up. 

[DittoHead]

I'm a little disappointed there was no dramatic televised event where Trump yells "you're fired!" at the end.

[Hawkmoon]

National security advisors are supposed to talk to the President. OUR President, not the other guy's president.

Petraeus is a smart guy, but I think it would be a huge mistake for Trump to trust him. I don't know anything about Hayward.

[Blakenzy]

Petraeus is a smart guy, but I think it would be a huge mistake for Trump to trust him. I don't know anything about Hayward.

Agreed.

Petraeus is the guy who promotes covert insurgents and cloak and dagger as better than a uniformed standing army. Yeah... Lybia, Syria.

[Ben]

Flynn likely screwed up. I'm not sure if it was worth stepping down or not.

I've gotta say, I'm getting much more concerned about the backstory, which is leak after leak regarding FOUO and higher information related to internal planning of the administration. I don't believe I'm overreacting to say it borders on treason. I think I'd have no problem with seeing every civil servant that was hired by the Obama admin and that interacts with the White House either transferred or given an early out. Or if caught leaking information, sent to the pokey.

It's getting clear that there needs to be some housecleaning of civil servants who believe they are "the resistance" and not actual civil servants.

[TommyGunn]

Flynn likely screwed up. I'm not sure if it was worth stepping down or not.

I've gotta say, I'm getting much more concerned about the backstory, which is leak after leak regarding FOUO and higher information related to internal planning of the administration. I don't believe I'm overreacting to say it borders on treason. I think I'd have no problem with seeing every civil servant that was hired by the Obama admin and that interacts with the White House either transferred or given an early out. Or if caught leaking information, sent to the pokey.

It's getting clear that there needs to be some housecleaning of civil servants who believe they are "the resistance" and not actual civil servants.

AMEN!

[HankB]

^^^^^^^^^^
What Ben and TommyGunn said.

[DittoHead]

I think I'd have no problem with seeing every civil servant that was hired by the Obama admin and that interacts with the White House either transferred or given an early out.

While that might be a logical place to start looking, it would be naive to think that these leaks only goes as deep as few Obama admin leftovers. A significant portion of the IC seems to be against him.

A senior National Security Agency official explained that NSA was systematically holding back some of the “good stuff” from the White House, in an unprecedented move. For decades, NSA has prepared special reports for the president’s eyes only, containing enormously sensitive intelligence. In the last three weeks, however, NSA has ceased doing this, fearing Trump and his staff cannot keep their best SIGINT secrets.

What’s going on was explained lucidly by a senior Pentagon intelligence official, who stated that “since January 20, we’ve assumed that the Kremlin has ears inside the SITROOM,” meaning the White House Situation Room, the 5,500 square-foot conference room in the West Wing where the president and his top staffers get intelligence briefings. “There’s not much the Russians don’t know at this point,” the official added in wry frustration.

[MechAg94]

As opposed to the Congressmen who are famous for blabbing secrets to the media.  

I guess I can expect any intelligence agency to be suspicious of any group.  I am not sure I have an issue with leaving out a few details as long as it doesn't affect decision making.

[De Selby]

As opposed to the Congressmen who are famous for blabbing secrets to the media.  

I guess I can expect any intelligence agency to be suspicious of any group.  I am not sure I have an issue with leaving out a few details as long as it doesn't affect decision making.

Guess what?  It's not up to the agency to decide what the president uses and doesn't.

[Ben]

As opposed to the Congressmen who are famous for blabbing secrets to the media.  

Exactly. The first step is reducing the number of people who have access to FOUO stuff (which doesn't require a clearance) or else restricting the FOUO data, and working your way out from there. Some of this stuff could easily be leaked by White House or congressional interns, for example, that are sitting in on meetings or otherwise might have access to it via making copies, etc. Also other support staff in administrative roles.

I don't know the full list of leaked stuff, but so far what I've seen has been unclassified. Which makes sense, since most people (Hillary and staff excepted) know how serious it is to leak classified data. Cleared intelligence people would be way down my list for leaks at this point. My first step would be severely restricting access to meetings and strategy sessions and fully tracking data dissemination.

Certainly a bunch of the Trump staff could use some security training as well, so they know when to keep their mouths shut. Coming in from the private sector, they're not expected to know any better initially, but they definitely need to learn.

[KD5NRH]

Certainly a bunch of the Trump staff could use some security training as well, so they know when to keep their mouths shut. Coming in from the private sector, they're not expected to know any better initially, but they definitely need to learn.

Not sure who you've worked for, but most companies are pretty good about training anyone that has access to their deeper secrets.  Frankly, I'd bet the janitor that emptied Trump's office trash can had better training (and a much greater fear of real consequences) in handling sensitive information than some of Hillary's handpicked staff.

[dm1333]

I've got no issue with Flynn resigning.  He lied about this to the VP who then went out and publicly defended Flynn.  Ha d he been upfront about it right off the bat I'd feel differently.

[KD5NRH]

I've got no issue with Flynn resigning.  He lied about this to the VP who then went out and publicly defended Flynn.  Ha d he been upfront about it right off the bat I'd feel differently.

This.  You don't BS the boss when you know full well he's going to use your BS to defend you, then look a fool when the truth comes to light.

[Ben]

Not sure who you've worked for, but most companies are pretty good about training anyone that has access to their deeper secrets.  Frankly, I'd bet the janitor that emptied Trump's office trash can had better training (and a much greater fear of real consequences) in handling sensitive information than some of Hillary's handpicked staff.

The federal government, and held a clearance. Not sure who you've worked for, but fed.gov sucks regarding standardized training.

[Monkeyleg]

I don't think Trump should have let him go. He just gave the Dem's the first scalp they wanted.

I heard on Rush today that someone from the intelligence community who heard the conversation said there was nothing to it. Not being able to remember who that was, I can't be really strong on that statement.

However, the Dem's are touting the Logan Act, which was passed in 1799 and which has never been used.

I think firing Flynn weakens Trump. Standing by him would have been the stronger move, especially considering how this all came about.

Further, this happened under Obama's watch, and the monitoring of the call was under Obama's watch. The story came from someone likely in the Obama camp.

Reagan didn't let Ed Meese go when he was under fire for his involvement in Iran Contra.

[Scout26]

I've got no issue with Flynn resigning.  He lied about this to the VP who then went out and publicly defended Flynn.  Ha d he been upfront about it right off the bat I'd feel differently.

This.  So much this.

[MechAg94]

Further, this happened under Obama's watch, and the monitoring of the call was under Obama's watch. The story came from someone likely in the Obama camp.

This is what I am hearing discussed this evening.  We had a foreign national who was being monitored who called a US citizen.  That phone call was monitored and the call was shared with Obama's people (one of whom leaked it).  That is supposed to be illegal I think.

[Scout26]

My understanding is the conversation went something to the effect of:

Russian:  Obama is going to sanction us ?!??!?!  Help !!!!

Flynn:  We take over in three weeks, we can discuss it then.


If that's the case, then Trump should have stuck by him.

[MechAg94]

My understanding is the conversation went something to the effect of:

Russian:  Obama is going to sanction us ?!??!?!  Help !!!!

Flynn:  We take over in three weeks, we can discuss it then.


If that's the case, then Trump should have stuck by him.

If that was all he said then there should have been no issue of lying to the VP.  I think some of these guys double down on things instead of just saying what happened.

The question is how much stuff like this do former Obama people have saved from the transition period when they were still in charge to try to embarrass Trump officials.  I really do hope they figure out who leaked the conversation and prosecute.