I may have to become a scofflaw.

Fernandina Beach, a very dog friendly place, is about to pass a “tethering ordinance” that I will violate, until forced to comply.

I “own or am owned by” two dogs, a Bouvier des Flandres (Poppy) and a Black Russian Terrier (Konna), who are sometime tethered when I walk them downtown, by myself.  Both are frequently seen downtown, at the dog park and at the many dog friendly restaurants.  Konna has his AKC Canine Good Citizen Title, does monthly visits to Council on Ageing, and has a blog (konnabrt.blogspot.com) with over 4,500 page views, while Poppy is an AKC Bench Show Champion (CCH Obvious Smart Alec).

If the proposed tethering ordinance (bit.ly/2qABI2q) is enacted we will be in violation.  When I am walking them downtown alone (happen infrequently) and either; go into 4th St. Deli or Amelia Tavern to order food to go or eat outside, go into the coffee shop for a cup of coffee to go, the ice cream shop for a cone, which is shared with them, or make a trip into the comfort station.  We will be in violation of:

• Sec. 18-4, f, (1) A dog or cat may be tethered when it is in visual range of the owner, and the owner is located outside with the tethered animal.
  • I am sometimes out of visual range (walls) and I am not outside with the tethered animal.  PS, the human, unobstructed, visual range is 3.1 miles (bit.ly/1akqeAf).
• Sec. 18-4, g, (2) The tether has the following properties: it is at least five times the length of the tethered animal’s body, as measured from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail; it terminates at both ends with a swivel; it does not weigh more than 10% of the tethered animal’s weight, and it is free of tangles;
  • Both are large dogs, 85-lbs, with body lengths in excess of 30-in.  Our standard walking lead is 5-ft vice 12.5-ft (150-in) and only has a swivel at the collar end.  I use a carabiner to secure the lead around a post or other fixed object at the various locations.
• Sec. 18-4, g, (4) If there are multiple dogs or cats, each dog or cat must be tethered separately. The tethering of each dog or cat must be in accordance with the requirements of this Code;
  • Konna & Poppy are tethered to the same object.  They are in either sit or down stay, which they usually obey.  I frequently get comments from passersby, who have stopped to admire them, on how well behaved they are.  I sometimes have to step out to reinforce the command.
• Sec. 18-4, g, (6) The dog or cat has access to water, adequate shelter, and dry ground;
  • They have neither water nor shelter while tethered.  Thanks to the many merchants downtown they have access to water as we do our walk.
• Sec. 18-4, g, (9) … No animal shall be tethered so that it has access to public property, including easements and rights-of-way or property owned by another private individual or entity.
  • We are always either on public or property owned by another private individual or entity.

Note: the last of our violations would also cover any dog, tethered with its owners on the beach, under a cabana, with water, while the owners take a quick dip in the ocean.

Unless the commission see fit to add an exception to cover my situation and the owner on the beach, I guess, I will be in violation, I hope I get a sympathetic judge to hear my appeal.  This is a case where I will be a scofflaw, until forced to comply.

Trump’s Campaign 18 Secret Contact With Russian – Bombshell or Dud

INDEPENDENT [UK] – Andrew Griffin, 5/18/17

Headline – Donald Trump campaign repeatedly met with Russia to set up secret communications channel, report reveals

Tagline – Previously secret meetings revealed ahead of huge FBI investigation

Opening Paragraph – Donald Trump’s campaign made contact with Russia at least 18 times during his presidential race {April and November 2016}, according to a new report {Reuters article cited below}.  The interactions had previously been kept secret {e.g. not disclosed to the Independent} by the campaign but are now being reviewed as part of the FBI and congressional investigation into Trump’s relationship with Russia.

---

Later the author acknowledged that that the “In January, the Trump White House initially denied any contacts with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign. The White House and advisers to the campaign have since confirmed four meetings between Kislyak {Russian Ambassador} and Trump advisers during that time.

---

{Is is reasonable to speculate that these are UNMASKED NSA intercepts? Confirmed by Reuters “Members of the Senate and House intelligence committees have gone to the CIA and the National Security Agency to review transcripts and other documents related to contacts between Trump campaign advisers and associates and Russian officials and others with links to Putin, people with knowledge of those investigations told Reuters”}

Before going further let’s get the most important item out front [emphasis mine] :

The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far {have only part of 18 have been reviewed or are more expected?}. But the disclosure could increase the pressure on Trump and his aides to provide the FBI and Congress with a full account of interactions with Russian officials and others with links to the Kremlin during and immediately after the 2016 election.

---

NB! Pressure to provide the FBI with full account of interactions will come in the form of a subpoena.   The Congressional Investigations also have subpoena power if they choose to use them, even though executive privilege will be an issue.

---

Bombshell No. 1 –

Conversations between members of Trump’s team and high-ranking officials including setting up a special backchannel for communications between the President and Putin, Reuters reported. That would allow the two talk without involving US national security officials. {NSA or White House National Security Council?}

The Washington Post Reported on this on April 3rd 2017 therefore not so secret:

The United Arab Emirates arranged a secret meeting in January between Blackwater founder Erik Prince and a Russian close to President Vladi­mir Putin as part of an apparent effort to establish a back-channel line of communication between Moscow and President-elect Donald Trump, according to U.S., European and Arab officials.

The meeting took place around Jan. 11 — nine days before Trump’s inauguration — in the Seychelles islands in the Indian Ocean, officials said.

…
Though Prince had no formal role with the Trump campaign or transition team, he presented himself as an unofficial envoy for Trump to high-ranking Emiratis involved in setting up his meeting with the Putin confidant, according to the officials, who did not identify the Russian.

…

Prince was an avid supporter of Trump. After the Republican convention, he contributed $250,000 to Trump’s campaign, the national party and a pro-Trump super PAC led by GOP mega-donor Rebekah Mercer, records show {to each or in total?}. He has ties to people in Trump’s circle, including Stephen K. Bannon, now serving as the president’s chief strategist and senior counselor. Prince’s sister Betsy DeVos serves as education secretary in the Trump administration. And Prince was seen in the Trump transition offices in New York in December.

Bloomberg links also links Prince to the Trump campaign:

In the very public, post-election parade of dignitaries, confidantes and job-seekers filing in and out of Donald Trump’s marquee Manhattan tower, Blackwater founder Erik Prince was largely out of sight. And yet Prince was very much a presence, providing advice to Trump’s inner circle, including his top national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, according to people familiar with his{Prince’s}activities.

In the Post Article, op. cit., both the White House and Prince deny any connection:

“We are not aware of any meetings, and Erik Prince had no role in the transition,” said Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary.

…

A Prince spokesman said in a statement: “Erik had no role on the transition team. This is a complete fabrication. The meeting had nothing to do with President Trump. Why is the so-called under-resourced intelligence community messing around with surveillance of American citizens when they should be hunting terrorists?”

Remaining Bombshells –

The Reuters Article which was the source for the Independent article provides more details:

Six {33%} of the previously undisclosed contacts described to Reuters were phone calls between Sergei Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador to the United States, and Trump advisers, including Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser, three current and former officials said.

Conversations between Flynn and Kislyak accelerated after the Nov. 8 vote as the two discussed establishing a back channel for communication between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin that could bypass the U.S. national security bureaucracy, which both sides considered hostile to improved relations, four current U.S. officials said.  {Where the conversations prior to Nov 8th, the previously disclosed chance meeting at public events?}

… discussions focused on mending U.S.-Russian economic relations strained by sanctions imposed on Moscow, cooperating in fighting Islamic State in Syria and containing a more assertive China, the sources said.  {sounds to me like things that incoming administration would want to discuss, no reports of collusion to influence elections}

…

One of those contacts was by Viktor Medvedchuk, a Ukrainian oligarch and politician, according to one person with detailed knowledge of the exchange and two others familiar with the issue.

It was not clear with whom Medvedchuk was in contact within the Trump campaign but the themes included U.S.-Russia cooperation, the sources said. Putin is godfather to Medvedchuk’s daughter.

Medvedchuk denied having any contact with anyone in the Trump campaign.  {Sounds like this is no consensus on what constitutes “Trump Campaign”}

“I am not acquainted with any of Donald Trump’s close associates, therefore no such conversation could have taken place,” he said in an email to Reuters.

In the conversations during the campaign, Russian officials emphasized a pragmatic, business-style approach and stressed to Trump associates that they could make deals by focusing on common economic and other interests and leaving contentious issues aside, the sources said.  {real bombshell there}

IMHO DUD

 

Michael Flynn RT’s 10th Anniversary Celebration Speaking Engagement.

In December of 2015, Michael Flynn, Jill Stein (2012 & 2016 Presidential Candidate), Ken Livingston (London Mayor 2005), Raymond McGovern (CIA officer turned political activist) and others attended Information, messages, politics: the shape-shifting powers of today’s world, a conference, in Russia, to celebrate RT’s 10th anniversary.

Mr. Flynn was a paid speaker, via Leading Authorities, Inc. (his speaker’s Bureau) for which he was paid  $33,750, the lower end of his fee range of $30,000 – $50,000.

Leading Authorities Payment for Fynn’s RT Speach.

Flynn reported the trip to his former employer, the Defense Intelligent Agency, both before and upon his return as was required.  He did not report his speaker’s fee to Army as it was from a US company.  [NB! – DIA’s security officer would have to have approve the trip and would have debriefed him upon return]

In an interview with Dana Priest he described the “gig”:

The gig was to do an interview with [RT correspondent] Sophie Shevardnadze. It was an interview in front of the forum, probably 200 people in the audience. My purpose there was I was asked to talk about radical Islam in the Middle East. They asked me to talk about what was going on in the situation unfolding in the Middle East. … The speaking agreement was done before Russian went into Syria, which was actually more interesting to me because … one of my discussions, I talked about the attacks in France … and the negative role that Iran was playing where I thought Russian could actually have a role. The statement that I made was actually: “Russia ought to get Iran to back out of the proxy wars they are involved in,” to include Syria, so we, the rest of the international community, could settle this situation down.

Part of the conference was a dinner, which was attended by Russian President Vladimir Putin, there are photos of Flynn sitting with Putin.

Somewhere I read that these were publicity shots as Putin moved from table to table, that is Jill Stein in the right foreground.

An example of the reporting making the claim that Flynn was paid by RT rather than Leading Authorities, Inc.

[Elijah] Cummings [ranking memberHouse Oversight Committee] announced in his letter, which was addressed to the oversight committee chairman, Jason Chaffetz: “The oversight committee has in our possession documents that appear to indicate that General Flynn lied to investigators who interviewed him in 2016 as part of his security clearance renewal.

“Specifically, the committee has obtained a report of investigation dated March 14, 2016, showing that General Flynn told security clearance investigators that he was paid ‘by US companies’ when he traveled to Moscow in December 2015 to dine at a gala with Russian president Vladimir Putin,” the letter continued. “The actual source of the funds for general Flynn’s trip was not a US company, but the Russian media propaganda arm, RT.”

The Guardian

The images of the check and invoice from Leading Authorities, Inc.

Micheal Flynn and the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA)

In my lay opinion, for what it’s worth, Flynn Intel Group LLC, had no need to file a FARA registration, based on the work it did for Inovo, between August and October of 2016.

Micheal Flynn’s firm, Flynn Intel Group LLC,  entered into a contract with Inovo BV, a Dutch Firm on August 9, 2016.  After doing so, his firm  registered a new client for existing registrant,  IAW Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 on September 30, 2016 with an effective date of September 15, 2016.  The identified lobbyist was Robert Kelly.  It expected to do less than $5,000 for lobbying.

He was not obligated to register under The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) as his firm wasn’t  “an agent representing the interests of foreign principal [1] in a political or quasi-political capacity [2].”

Flynn Intel Group was assigned a task to “investigate Fethullah Gulen, a Turkish cleric who lives in Pennsylvania” specifically; “to perform investigative research” on Mr. Gulen and “develop a short film piece on the results of its investigation.”

Mr. Gulen is represented by a prominent Washington lobbyist Tony Podesta  brother and partner in Podesta Group with John D. Podesta, HRC’s campaign manager.
Podesta Group has strong ties to Russia, they represent (as of 2016) the interests of Russia’s largest financial institution Sberbank of Russia, which controls approximately 30 percent of Russian banking assets.

On October 2nd 2016 Mr. Flynn had an Op-Ed article in The Hill “Our ally Turkey is in crisis and needs our support” which referenced Mr. Gulen.

The “short film piece” was never produced.

Flynn Intel Group was closed when Mr. Flynn was appoint to a White House National Security Advisor position.

In a letter to the Justice Department March 14th, Mr. Flynn’s lawyer said that he did not initially register as a foreign agent because the firm that hired him was not a foreign government. But the lawyer, Robert K. Kelner, said Mr. Flynn had decided to register after the fact because “the engagement could be construed to have principally benefited the Republic of Turkey.”

I could find no evidence of any “lobbying” done by Robert Kelly of Flynn Intel Group.

[1] The term “foreign principal” includes —

1.  a government of a foreign country and a foreign political party;
2.  a person outside of the United States, unless it is established that such person is an individual and a citizen of and domiciled within the United States, or that such person is not an individual and is organized under or created by the laws of the United States or of any State or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and has its principal place of business within the United States; and
3. a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.

[2]  “Political or quasi-political capacity” includes —

1. engages within the United States in political activities for or in the interests of such foreign principal;
2. acts within the United States as a public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee or political consultant for or in the interests of such foreign principal;
3. within the United States solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses contributions, loans, money, or other things of value for or in the interest of such foreign principal; or
4. within the United States represents the interests of such foreign principal before any agency or official of the Government of the United States;

As far as I can tell Flynn’s company did none of these acts.

 

Using the concept of Trump’s prior utterances Obamacare would be Unconstitutional.

The 9th Circuit Court has stayed the implementation of the travel ban executive order using the logic that it unconstitutional based on utterances by candidate Trump vice the language of the order.

If this same logic had been used the individual mandate of Obamacare would have been ruled unconstitutional based on President Obama’s claim that it was not a tax.

The controlling opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld the mandate as a tax, although concluded it was not valid as an exercise of Congress’ commerce clause power. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined in the outcome.

June 28, 2012

But President Obama, in an interview with ABC News George Stephanopoulos denies that the individual mandate is not a tax.

This position was reiterated by an Obama spokesman after the Supreme Court ruling.

A top surrogate for President Obama insisted Friday that the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act was not a tax — despite the fact that the Supreme Court narrowly preserved the law on those grounds.

“Don’t believe the hype that the other side is selling,” Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick told reporters on a conference call.

“This is a penalty,” Patrick said. “It’s about dealing with the freeloaders.”

June 29, 2012

Myth of Trump/Obama Employment Recovery

President Trump bragged about his job creation on April 9th, as reported by CNN

“We’ve created over 600,000 jobs already over a very short period of time and it’s going to really start catching on now,” Trump said Tuesday at the White House, flanked by his top advisers and the CEOs who are members of his Business Advisory Council.

But if we plot the Average Civilian Work Force for the 1st quarter of 2010 – 2017 we get a different picture, focusing on the trend (red) for 2014 – 2016, we find the 2017 value significantly below the projected value. To use the beltway buzz word, the curve has bent downward when we want it to bend upward.

Likewise President Obama frequently boasted of his job recovery, if we use the same metric we find a 10M job deficit compared to the 1979 – 2008 trend line.  Yes his growth rate was close, but not equal, to the ’79 – ’08 rate.  But, there was no recovery.

Republican’s Revisionist History

On May 9th Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein penned a memorandum to the AG.

Laying out the reasons FBI Director Comey should be replaced.

The problem with this paragraph is Directory Comey did not usurp the Attorney General’s authority, it was delegated to him by the Attorney General, who endorsed his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution.

The NY Times (MARK LANDLER, MATT APUZZO and AMY CHOZICK) reported on July 1st: under the headline “Loretta Lynch to Accept F.B.I. Recommendations in Clinton Email Inquiry”

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, conceding that her airport meeting with former President Bill Clinton this week had cast a shadow over the federal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s personal email account, said Friday that she would accept whatever recommendations career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director made about whether to bring charges in the case.

Presumably this was followed up by a formal delegation of authority, which IMHO was clearly her intent.

On the day of Comey’s announcement the NY Times ran the headline “F.B.I. Director James Comey Recommends No Charges for Hillary Clinton on Email”

NB! Comey “recommends” vice “concluded”

In the preamble to his remarks he said (emphasis mine):

Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.

After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.

This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.

I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.

On July 6th USA Today reported “Loretta Lynch makes it official: No charges in Hillary Clinton email probe” (emphasis mine)

“Late this afternoon, I met with FBI Director James Comey and career prosecutors and agents who conducted the investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email system during her time as Secretary of State,” she said. “I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation.”

Recapping:

1. Lynch delegated recommendation authority to Comey
2. Comey announces his recommendation, arrived at without consultation with Justice Department.
3. Lynch accepts Comey’s recommendation after reviewing it with Comey, career prosecutors and agents who conducted the investigation.

Where in this process did Comey usurp the AG’s authority?

New Conspiracy Theory

Let’s start a new conspiracy theory;

1) Fact: CIA created and “lost” hacking software that allows mimicking and leaving the “fingerprint” of opposition hackers”
2) Fact:  The largest reported hacks of US interest were Chinese, Sony & OPM.
3) Fact:  China has a history of interfering in US elections “In February 1997, officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced they had uncovered evidence that the government of China had sought to make illegal foreign contributions to the Democratic National Committee.”

Theory:  China, posing as Russian hackers, hacked the DNC & Podesta and released the information via WikiLeaks.

Evidence:  China is benefiting from the election of DJT.

Action Required:  Congress commission a bipartisan “blue ribbon” commission to investigate China’s interference in US elections.

Hillary Clinton & Donald Trump Retained Morgan Lewis “Russia Law Firm of the Year” in 2016

Hillary’s campaign retained James Hamilton to be their “vetter”.

Insiders expect Jim Hamilton of the firm Morgan Lewis to play a key role in the vetting efforts. In the past, Hamilton served as the Clinton-Gore transition counsel for nominations; as the principal Clinton White House vetter for Supreme Court nominations; and as a vice presidential vetter for the Al Gore, John Kerry and Barack Obama presidential campaigns. He’s part of the Clinton’s trusted inner circle, and one D.C. lawyer called him the “dean of vetting.”

NANCY COOK and ANDREW RESTUCCIA  10/27/16

James Hamilton is in the Washington DC office of Morgan Lewis.

Morgan Lewis was recognized by Chamber & Partner as “Russian Law Firm of the Year”

MOSCOW, May 2, 2016: Morgan Lewis has been recognized by Chambers & Partners’ 2016 Chambers Europe guide as Russia Law Firm of the Year. The prestigious honor was announced at the publication’s recent annual awards dinner in London, where firms from 24 countries were recognized.

Morgan Lewis Press Release 5/2/2016

Two other members of the firm’s DC office, Morgan Lewis & Bochius LLP, are currently and have been Donald J. Trump and The Trump Organization tax consultants since 2005.

On March 8, 2017 they released a letter detailing that; “Trump owes no debts to Russian persons or entities, there are no “equity investments by Russians persons or entities” in Trump-controlled properties, and Trump has no investments in Russian entities.”

 

Did Democrats Make Up Facts or Divulge Classified Information?

In the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism hearing on Russian Interference in 2016 Election, held May 8, 2017, former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was extremely careful to not reveal classified information.  She repeatedly referred to General Flynn’s “underlying conduct” and refusing to acknowledge that the underlying conduct involved discussions with the Russian Ambassador about sanctions.

I HAD TWO IN-PERSON MEETINGS AND ONE PHONE CALL WITH THE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL ABOUT MR. FLYNN. THE FIRST MEETING OCCURRED ON JANUARY 26th. I CALLED DONE [sic] McGANN FIRST THING THAT MORNING AND TOLD HIM THAT I HAD A VERY SENSITIVE MATTER THAT I NEEDED TO DISCUSS WITH HIM, THAT I COULDN’T TALK ABOUT IT ON THE PHONE AND THAT I NEEDED TO COME SEE HIM AND HE AGREED TO MEET WITH ME LATER THAT AFTERNOON. I TOOK A SENIOR MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION WHO WAS OVERSEEING THIS MATTER WITH ME TO MEET WITH MR. McGANN. WE MET WITH HIS OFFICE AT THE WHITE HOUSE SO WE COULD DISCUSS CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IN HIS OFFICE. WE BEGAN OUR MEETING TELLING HIM THAT THERE HAD BEEN PRESS ACCOUNTS OF STATEMENTS FROM THE VICE PRESIDENT AND OTHERS THAT RELATED CONDUCT THAT FL [sic] FLYNN HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN, THAT WE KNEW NOT TO BE THE TRUTH. AND AS I TELL YOU WHAT HAPPENED HERE, AGAIN I’M GOING TO BE VERY CAREFUL NOT TO REVEAL CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.  …

SO I TOLD THEM AGAIN THAT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF PRESS ACCOUNTS, STATEMENTS THAT HAD BEEN MADE BY THE VICE PRESIDENT AND OTHER HIGH RANKING WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS ABOUT GENERAL FLYNN’S CONDUCT THAT WE KNEW TO BE UNTRUE. AND WE TOLD THEM HOW WE KNEW THAT — HOW WE HAD THIS INFORMATION, HOW WE HAD ACQUIRED IT AND HOW WE KNEW THAT IT WAS UNTRUE AND WE WALKED — THE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL WHO ALSO HAD AN ASSOCIATE THERE WITH HIM THROUGH GENERAL FLYNN’S UNDERLYING CONDUCT, THE CONTENTS OF WHICH I OBVIOUSLY CANNOT GO THROUGH WITH YOU TODAY BECAUSE IT’S CLASSIFIED BUT WE TOOK HIM THROUGH A FAIR AMOUNT OF DETAIL ABOUT THE UNDERLYING CONDUCT WHAT GENERAL FLYNN HAD DONE AND THEN WE WALKED THROUGH THE VARIOUS PRESS ACCOUNTS AND HOW IT HAD BEEN FALSELY REPORTED. WE ALSO TOLD THE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL THAT GENERAL FLYNN HAD BEEN INTERVIEWED BY THE FBI ON FEBRUARY 24th. MR. McGANN ASKED ME HOW HE DID AND I DECLINED TO GIVE HIM AN ANSWER TO THAT. AND WE THEN WALKED THROUGH WITH MR. McGANN ESSENTIALLY WHY WE WERE TELLING HIM ABOUT THIS AND THE FIRST THING WE DID WAS TO EXPLAIN TO MR. McGANN THAT THE UNDERLYING CONDUCT THAT GENERAL FLYNN HAD ENGAGED IN WAS PROBLEMATIC IN AND OF ITSELF. SECONDLY, WE TOLD HIM WE FELT LIKE THE VICE PRESIDENT AND OTHERS WERE ENTITLED TO KNOW THAT THE INFORMATION THAT THEY WERE CONVEYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WASN’T TRUE AND WE WANTED TO MAKE IT REALLY CLEAR RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE THAT WE WERE NOT ACCUSING VICE PRESIDENT PENCE OF KNOWINGLY PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Later in the hearing various Democratic Senator referred to General Flynn’s discussions with the Russian Ambassador regarding sanctions.  If they had learned this in a classified briefing then they are guilty of disclosing classified information.  Otherwise, they were making up facts, which if they knew to be untrue would be considered a lie.

That General Flynn talked to the Ambassador is FACT, to the best of my knowledge what he talked about is speculation, based on Feb. 9, 2017 NY Times un-sourced article.  This will remain the case until:

1. One of the nine undisclosed sources of the NY Times article either:
   1. Gives the NY Times a copy of the Classified document for them to publish
   2. Come forward and goes on the record, facing prosecution for a criminal violation of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Section 798, with penalties of up to 10 years in jail, a large fine or both.
2. The President or the Classifying Authority at NSA, declassifies the document.
3. General Flynn gives a detail account of the call to the Ambassador.