I truly hope you’re right about him not literally calling for people to be taken out, Yet the passion and depth of hate he displayed especially toward Clinton during the campaign certainly seemed an invitation to get rid of her. You’re probably right that he wouldn’t have given a direct order for murder. He wants to deny responsibility. So what would you call it when you whip a crowd into a frenzy with one person named as the source of all the problems. If you set the stage, create the hatred and leave no doubt that that it would serve the greater good if someone were eliminated, can you really claim to be innocent if someone acts on that implied wish? I see him as totally amoral. He basically bragged that he could kill without losing his base. I think he’s right. Is he without responsibility if someone acts on the directed hate he encourages? Where would a reasonable court stand on this? I wonder if there is any difference between trump and the Philippine’s Duterte?
The source of this story? The intercept?
Not familiar with them.
Let’s face it. Trump would make up fake news just to expose it as such.
OTOH, you should become familiar with The Intercept. They aren’t perfect, but they’re a hell of a lot more reliable than CNN.
Oh, I can totally see Prince trying to set this sort of thing up. I just can’t see the administration being able to actually get it up and running. I may well be underestimating their competence but on present showing, I think I’m fairly ok.
Fair enough. I don’t think B is likely either. The story however just reads to me as “Prince would really like to flog his super spy services and has been touting for business to all the usual suspects”.
I can certainly see there being a desire in some quarters to set up a separate line of intelligence that tells Trump what he wants to hear (or what others want Trump to hear) - although why bother since he doesn’t bother with his briefings. If you want to influence Trump, just pump your story on Fox, et al.
Osama Bin Laden had a mercenary, quasi-military force. The USA was happy to fund his organisation to act in their supposed interests.
One could ask why Trump hasn’t pardoned Flynn?
This comes under the previously established Stupid Watergate heading
I’m no lawyer, but the way I’ve heard it described is roughly once you accept a pardon it is no longer possible for you to incriminate yourself for the crime for which you were pardoned. That means you can’t take the 5th on questions about that crime. Answers to questions about Trump may incriminate Flynn, so Trump would want Flynn to be able to refuse to answer those questions on 5th Amendment grounds.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
