CatBus

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Are people with autism capable of making their own decisions?

You mentioned earlier you should learn more about autism. Just go with that 😉

I stated that badly. What I should have asked was "Are there cases where autism renders people incapable of making their own decisions.

Possibly, but not in any of the cases I’ve known (but I’m just Random Internet Dude, not Autism Specialist Dude). Younger than 18, they’re a minor, over 18 they’re good to go. The problem of course is that people with significant neurological impairment are often more hidden from view, so people don’t know about them.

And as I’m sure Frink can attest, “high functioning” is problematic label. It basically means you can often navigate the world and even pass for neurotypical. It also means when you tell people you’re autistic and need some sort of accommodation, you get the side-eye like you’re either making it up or being too demanding. Like when Rex Tillerson wants everyone in the State Department to know he doesn’t like to make eye contact, and the liberal blogs go off on him and I think to myself, “Yeah, like that.”

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Curing a disease, no problem. Curing an identity, them’s fighting words.

What about curing a disability?

As I think I’ve said before, in their lexicon, disabilities are identities. Deafness is a subset of disabilities. Therefore, from that viewpoint, deafness is an identity.

DominicCobb said:

However, it’s hard to imagine everyone with a disability thinks the same way. What about the deaf people who want to hear? Should “cures” be shunned by the larger community even when some would welcome them?

At least WRT cochlear implants, many deaf people do in fact opt for the implants, and (at least as far as I know–I’m not Mr. Cochlear Implant) the cures are not shunned by the larger community at all. A large part (maybe most) of the deaf community treats them like poison, but almost all of the hearing community treats them like “We fixed your deafness. You’re welcome.” And later “We have no idea why you’re being so unreasonable, just get the implants and stop asking us for interpreters. It’s not necessary anymore.”

Warbler said:

Are people with autism capable of making their own decisions?

You mentioned earlier you should learn more about autism. Just go with that 😉

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Maybe, but shouldn’t the cure be there for those that want it?

This gets into the weeds pretty fast. The problem is not necessarily the “cure” per se. It’s the subtext that anyone who doesn’t opt for it is being unreasonable. It’s the issues that arise when people stop spending money on ADA compliance when you could just take a pill for it. It’s the minority group becoming even more invisible as their numbers diminish. It’s the loss of cultural connections between family members.

This are problems that have to be dealt with, but I can’t see this problems are justification for denying “the cure” to those that want it.

And of course it’s treating a disability as if it were a disease.

How about we treat a disability as a disability instead of a person’s race, or religion?

That’s not going to fly with this group. Race, religion, sexual orientation, and disabilities are all in a bucket called “identities”. Yes, they’re different from each other, but the basic concept of curing an identity is problematic (and people seriously also try to cure sexual orientation like a disease, and disability advocates see that as a parallel). Curing a disease, no problem. Curing an identity, them’s fighting words.

Warbler said:

But deaf people would still have the problem of not being able to hear.

Not to jump straight to crude jokes, but it applies. Everybody has problems. Yes, even if everyone could sign and every phone has a visual ring indicator and so on, people would still have the problem of not being able to hear. And some people would have the trouble of being an asshole (seriously not aimed at anyone, but the concept works so run with it). Deafness is a pretty small problem. Hell, I have combination skin (does anyone remember that commercial?), that’s a problem too.

Warbler said:

I guess I am not able to understand how a mental difficult can be considered a superpower. But I do have to say that you did not answer my question. Are you saying that he wouldn’t have his nerve and creativity without the autism?

You’d have to ask him; I don’t even know that person. Temple Grandin is an example of a person who feels she owes much of her livelihood to tapping the potential of her autism that would not otherwise be available. Most people only know of autism from Rain Man, and there’s a lot more to it than Wapner at 4. They see it not as a mental difficulty–it’s a neurological difference that can lead to social difficulties. That said, it’s an ill-defined “spectrum”, so even that statement was dumbing it down too much for my tastes.

Warbler said:

Maybe, but shouldn’t the cure be there for those that want it?

This gets into the weeds pretty fast. The problem is not necessarily the “cure” per se. It’s the subtext that anyone who doesn’t opt for it is being unreasonable. It’s the issues that arise when people stop spending money on ADA compliance when you could just take a pill for it. It’s the minority group becoming even more invisible as their numbers diminish. It’s the loss of cultural connections between family members. And of course it’s treating a disability as if it were a disease.

Warbler said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Warbler said:

Was Jesus wrong to make the lame walk and the blind see?

The ex-leper sketch from ‘Life of Brian’ covers that pretty well 😉…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTJFwwJ7VF8

The ex-leper forgets that now that he is cures, he doesn’t have to beg for money. He can get a job and earn it.

Some people might not want to be “cured” because it’s part of who they are. It might not define them but it’s an important part.

Maybe, but shouldn’t the cure be there for those that want it?

I was watching that Oscar nominated Documentary ‘A Life Animated’ the other week about this guy Owen Suskind (he has Autism) and how he uses Disney films to help him relate to the world. At the end he delivers a speech on Autism to a lecture theater and writes an animated short to express himself. I know I wouldn’t have the nerve to do the first, or the creativity to do the second.

So are you saying he wouldn’t have the nerve or creativity without autism?

Many autistic people treat autism like a superpower, which they can tap to accomplish lots of useful things. It just happens that the world is also littered with Kryptonite.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

One more thing:

CatBus said:

But then there’s things like cochlear implants. They don’t remove the barriers for deafness, they remove the deafness, which is a different thing entirely.

But doesn’t removing the deafness also remove the barriers?

Sure, and according the many deaf advocates, it does it in exactly the same way curing blackness would remove problems with hailing cabs, counting on the police, and getting through in-person job interviews. That’s the core argument.

Maybe this going to offend and show by ignorance, but blackness isn’t a disease or disability. Deafness is a disability.

To which they’d say: You can be born black, you can be born deaf. You can become deaf, you can become Mormon. You communicate in Spanish, you communicate in ASL. The difficulties you face in life, with people understanding you, are very much the same. The problem in all of those cases isn’t with who you are. Disabilities are different things than diseases. In their lexicon, blackness, disabilities, Mormonism, and Spanish-speaking-a-tivity are in one group. Diseases are another thing entirely.

Warbler said:

One more thing:

CatBus said:

But then there’s things like cochlear implants. They don’t remove the barriers for deafness, they remove the deafness, which is a different thing entirely.

But doesn’t removing the deafness also remove the barriers?

Sure, and according the many deaf advocates, it does it in exactly the same way curing blackness would remove problems with hailing cabs, counting on the police, and getting through in-person job interviews. That’s the core argument.

No, Warb, I don’t think any less of you. This is actually pretty wonky deep-level stuff here, and jumping from zero background into the deep end is a kinda hard transition–in spite of my attempts to dumb it down, but you asked 😉

I referenced a documentary on cochlear implants: for a more nuanced and detailed discussion, I recommend giving it a try. It’s called Sound and Fury. There are probably others too. There’s complexity to the arguments certainly. But since it’s so far outside the mainstream culture, you’re doing well simply to know there’s an argument at all.

As for Jesus curing the lepers… Bloody do-gooder. (Life of Brian reference)

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Fuck everybody.

😉

Well, autism isn’t something that you can “cure” in somebody. Now, if it were focused on determining specific causes and means of prevention, that would be different.

How do you know we won’t be able to cure in the future(maybe a couple hundred years from now)?

Well, to answer the question seriously and completely requires a bit of a historical disability rights primer. You don’t have to agree with this 100%, I’m just presenting this as background information.

The easiest gateway to understanding is to consider the deaf community, cochlear implants, etc. Deafness can be caused by maladies, but it’s not a malady in itself. Some proportion of the human population has always been deaf, and the deaf community considers itself simply part of the natural variation in humanity–not that much different than variations in height–there’s a bell curve, but not sitting at the average is simply not a problem that needs addressing. That’s not to say that a society designed for the middle of the bell curve doesn’t present difficulties for them, but those difficulties are the things to be managed, not the people. i.e. tall/short people may have a hard time finding clothes, being at the right height for photo booths, etc, but those are problems that can be managed. Similarly, deaf people can run into issues talking to people who don’t understand their language. The solutions in those scenarios would be teaching more people to sign, using interpreters, or–technology FTW–texting.

But then there’s things like cochlear implants. They don’t remove the barriers for deafness, they remove the deafness, which is a different thing entirely. You don’t have to know very much about deaf culture to see how this presents a real threat to deaf identity. There’s at least one documentary about the bitter and divisive struggle that has raged over cochlear implants. To deaf community activists, it’s very much like someone invented a cure for blackness, and sells it with the promise of how much easier it will be when you can hail cabs, get help from the police, and make it through in-person job interviews. All of these promises quite possibly being true, but missing the larger point.

Autism is in a similar place. It’s not neurotypical, but it’s within the natural variation of humanity. Many of the problems are simply with interacting with the society at large, and can be addressed individually without changing the identity of the person.

Anyway, that’s the background on that. Again, there’s a whole lot of wild twists and cul-de-sacs I avoided to keep things as simple as possible. So basically, “curing autism” is not something some people would want to pursue even if it were scientifically feasible, but “things that make being autistic in a non-autistic world a lot easier” are.

TV’s Frink said:

4 part series on our Liar-In-Chief from the LA Times.

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-ed-our-dishonest-president/

“Nothing prepared us for the magnitude of this train wreck” will probably go down with “Nobody anticipated the breach of the levees” and “Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated” as far as delusional statements go.

Meanwhile, I’m predicting McConnell will go nuclear the second the filibuster gets in his way. Which is fine–the filibuster was a meaningless fig leaf anyway if that’s how he was going to treat it.

CatBus said:

Wow. Okay. Moving right along.

So there’s a saying (I’m too young to know if it’s true) that in 1969, Nixon voters could be found everywhere. In 1974, they were getting scarce. And by 1976, you couldn’t find anyone who’d voted for Nixon.

HA Goodman started an interesting trend. At first, he was just a fairly transparent Republican operative, right? This libertarian Republican who decided to jump right into supporting a Socialist, but rarely actually says very much about his newfound love for those lefty policies–instead he pretty much does nothing but attack the Democratic Party. But “from the left”, get it? Not from the right. Maybe he’ll convince an unsuspecting reporter or voter to think he’s not a Republican, and try to initiate a narrative about the chasm between Bernie and Hillary. You’ve got Goodman’s followers booing Bernie at the convention to, uh, show their love for Bernie (or something, I’m sure it made sense to them). That made some headlines, and it kinda worked for a while, successfully drawing the media’s focus away from the actual lack of any serious split between Bernie and Hillary.

But then something odd happened after the election. He (and others) kept going, he’s still doing his Bernie supporter schtick. And this is what’s interesting about it. Using Goodman’s precedent, Trump voters can pretend to be Bernie supporters, as a means of hiding their shame. Now I’m sure most Trump voters aren’t ashamed, but already there’s this small sad tribe of Trump voters who can’t come out and be honest with the world. Are they, like the disappearing Nixon voters, the wave of the future?

Looks like these ashamed Trump voters pretending to be Bernie supporters have a new target. Surprise! It’s Bernie! Who could have seen that coming?

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

I agree that the lawyer’s letter being fake is equally plausible as someone leaning on the law firm not to sue CNN (as in: not remotely).

As is the possibility that the Senate Committee rejected a deal that they were never offered because the letter making the offer was forged and the whole testimony-for-immunity offer is fake news and never happened. 😉

There are many ways to see it … hence the word “theory”.

I think you’re missing a word in front of “theory” though.

Empire is at 2.0, Jedi 2.5. I don’t do menus.

I agree that the lawyer’s letter being fake is equally plausible as someone leaning on the law firm not to sue CNN (as in: not remotely).

As is the possibility that the Senate Committee rejected a deal that they were never offered because the letter making the offer was forged and the whole testimony-for-immunity offer is fake news and never happened. 😉

Jetrell Fo said:

I read the letter. There isn’t even an official signature from the attorney on it, statements are legal documents, they should be signed.

So your theory is forgery? Unknown forger or do we have a suspect? Not perhaps that this letter isn’t actually a statement or a legal document, but a mere offer, and doesn’t require one?

Either way, forging documents from a well-backed law firm and then publishing them on your website seems like a recipe for getting sued out of existence. Why do you think the law firm is showing so much restraint? You think maybe they’re getting leaned on?

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

CatBus said:

So, Pravda on the Checkout Line is pushing the story that Flynn was a Russian spy. While traditionally, nothing resembling the truth can ever come out of that place, for the past several months, people have had some success applying the principles of Kremlinology to the tabloid. i.e. you don’t ever learn the truth per se, but you learn who’s in, who’s out (as in out of favor, not necessarily out of a job), and who’s going to fall off a roof next week.

Aaaand now we know why Flynn is out of favor:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-flynn-offers-to-testify-in-exchange-for-immunity-1490912959

That said, this sort of thing has been a double-fake-out before, where they ask for immunity and then proceed to testify to nothing as serious as a jaywalking offense, and in the meantime, suck up all the media coverage a la Al Capone’s vault. Also worth noting nobody’s yet taken him up on his offer.

I haven’t seen anything myself that confirms or denies that Flynn is out of favor and asking for immunity in exchange for his testimony. There isn’t even any irrefutable proof that he was asked to resign due to wrongdoing of any kind. It could be entirely true, it might not be, but I wouldn’t even bet my mother’s retirement on this article’s substance or lack of.

😉

If you’re being sarcastic, I admit I missed it entirely, LOL. If not, I’m ok.

“Out of favor” was tongue-in-cheek Kremlinology-speak (and who doesn’t smile when saying “Out like Flynn”?). Asking for immunity… the link’s right there. Feel free to click. I know the Wall Street Journal’s not up there with Zerohedge in your book, but there are some who consider it a fairly reputable source.

Your sarcasm aside, this … “according to officials with knowledge of the matter.” … does not equal accurate. This scenario is being floated around so much with articles from the press that I fail to jump for joy every time I read a story with this so called confirmation included.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-clapper-no-evidence-of-collusion-between-trump-and-russia-890509379597

If Flynn is actually seeking immunity for testimony, he may be wanting discuss crimes committed that helped start this “russian narrative” mess. There is an article in NPR that reports, as other outlets have, that Flynn would not be charged with wrongdoing because he did nothing wrong.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/15/515437291/intelligence-official-transcripts-of-flynns-calls-dont-show-criminal-wrongdoing

Sorry, try CNN, maybe they have proof. 😉

Okay:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politics/michael-flynn-immunity-testimony/index.html

I’m sure that letter’s a Photoshop, though.

Also:
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/31/senate-intelligence-committee-turned-down-flynns-request-for-immunity-nbc.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/note-flynns-story/story?id=46486968

Even Fox News and Trump are on board:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/31/trump-backs-flynn-says-ex-adviser-should-seek-immunity-amid-witch-hunt.html

But regarding the substance of the news, I’m glad the Senate’s rejected the deal. This seems like an Oliver North deal to me.

How could or would an unnamed Congressional Aide either really know or confirm such details?

If they’re in one of the offices working on either of the two Congressional investigations into the matter. There are three investigations into the Russian matters–the House, which is only nominally active, the Senate, which is only slightly more active, and the FBI, which is active. Based on that, I’d say a Senate Aide for one of the Senators on the relevant committee. The chair of the Senate committee allows the Democrats to be involved with committee business, so it could be either party. If it was the House, it’d have to be a Republican.

If it’s true and legal they should be able to name the aide, no?

Media traditionally do not name their sources for a whole host of reasons. That’s why you always see “unnamed <position> staffer”. Generally you only see named sources in cases where under no circumstances could anyone consider the issue controversial.

The Trump tweet came today, after we started this discussion. I read your link. Thanks for posting it.

The news broke yesterday. As is often the case with breaking news, more always comes out later.

If Flynn did indeed meet with someone it would have been behind closed doors because he hasn’t testified as far as I know. As for the “controversial issue” point, there is nothing to show that this unnamed person was or could even have been part of a closed door meeting. It’s all if, if, and if at this point.

I’ll wait til it’s confirmed by Flynn himself to believe this.

So, the letter from Flynn’s lawyer in the CNN article? Photoshop?

You mean the cartoon that the link you put up led to? You’re joking right?

No, the letter from Flynn’s lawyer in the CNN article I linked. I’m assuming there’s a reason you still think there’s a chance he may not have really offered testimony in exchange for immunity, even after that.

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

CatBus said:

So, Pravda on the Checkout Line is pushing the story that Flynn was a Russian spy. While traditionally, nothing resembling the truth can ever come out of that place, for the past several months, people have had some success applying the principles of Kremlinology to the tabloid. i.e. you don’t ever learn the truth per se, but you learn who’s in, who’s out (as in out of favor, not necessarily out of a job), and who’s going to fall off a roof next week.

Aaaand now we know why Flynn is out of favor:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-flynn-offers-to-testify-in-exchange-for-immunity-1490912959

That said, this sort of thing has been a double-fake-out before, where they ask for immunity and then proceed to testify to nothing as serious as a jaywalking offense, and in the meantime, suck up all the media coverage a la Al Capone’s vault. Also worth noting nobody’s yet taken him up on his offer.

I haven’t seen anything myself that confirms or denies that Flynn is out of favor and asking for immunity in exchange for his testimony. There isn’t even any irrefutable proof that he was asked to resign due to wrongdoing of any kind. It could be entirely true, it might not be, but I wouldn’t even bet my mother’s retirement on this article’s substance or lack of.

😉

If you’re being sarcastic, I admit I missed it entirely, LOL. If not, I’m ok.

“Out of favor” was tongue-in-cheek Kremlinology-speak (and who doesn’t smile when saying “Out like Flynn”?). Asking for immunity… the link’s right there. Feel free to click. I know the Wall Street Journal’s not up there with Zerohedge in your book, but there are some who consider it a fairly reputable source.

Your sarcasm aside, this … “according to officials with knowledge of the matter.” … does not equal accurate. This scenario is being floated around so much with articles from the press that I fail to jump for joy every time I read a story with this so called confirmation included.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-clapper-no-evidence-of-collusion-between-trump-and-russia-890509379597

If Flynn is actually seeking immunity for testimony, he may be wanting discuss crimes committed that helped start this “russian narrative” mess. There is an article in NPR that reports, as other outlets have, that Flynn would not be charged with wrongdoing because he did nothing wrong.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/15/515437291/intelligence-official-transcripts-of-flynns-calls-dont-show-criminal-wrongdoing

Sorry, try CNN, maybe they have proof. 😉

Okay:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politics/michael-flynn-immunity-testimony/index.html

I’m sure that letter’s a Photoshop, though.

Also:
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/31/senate-intelligence-committee-turned-down-flynns-request-for-immunity-nbc.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/note-flynns-story/story?id=46486968

Even Fox News and Trump are on board:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/31/trump-backs-flynn-says-ex-adviser-should-seek-immunity-amid-witch-hunt.html

But regarding the substance of the news, I’m glad the Senate’s rejected the deal. This seems like an Oliver North deal to me.

How could or would an unnamed Congressional Aide either really know or confirm such details?

If they’re in one of the offices working on either of the two Congressional investigations into the matter. There are three investigations into the Russian matters–the House, which is only nominally active, the Senate, which is only slightly more active, and the FBI, which is active. Based on that, I’d say a Senate Aide for one of the Senators on the relevant committee. The chair of the Senate committee allows the Democrats to be involved with committee business, so it could be either party. If it was the House, it’d have to be a Republican.

If it’s true and legal they should be able to name the aide, no?

Media traditionally do not name their sources for a whole host of reasons. That’s why you always see “unnamed <position> staffer”. Generally you only see named sources in cases where under no circumstances could anyone consider the issue controversial.

The Trump tweet came today, after we started this discussion. I read your link. Thanks for posting it.

The news broke yesterday. As is often the case with breaking news, more always comes out later.

If Flynn did indeed meet with someone it would have been behind closed doors because he hasn’t testified as far as I know. As for the “controversial issue” point, there is nothing to show that this unnamed person was or could even have been part of a closed door meeting. It’s all if, if, and if at this point.

I’ll wait til it’s confirmed by Flynn himself to believe this.

So, the letter from Flynn’s lawyer in the CNN article? Photoshop?

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

CatBus said:

So, Pravda on the Checkout Line is pushing the story that Flynn was a Russian spy. While traditionally, nothing resembling the truth can ever come out of that place, for the past several months, people have had some success applying the principles of Kremlinology to the tabloid. i.e. you don’t ever learn the truth per se, but you learn who’s in, who’s out (as in out of favor, not necessarily out of a job), and who’s going to fall off a roof next week.

Aaaand now we know why Flynn is out of favor:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-flynn-offers-to-testify-in-exchange-for-immunity-1490912959

That said, this sort of thing has been a double-fake-out before, where they ask for immunity and then proceed to testify to nothing as serious as a jaywalking offense, and in the meantime, suck up all the media coverage a la Al Capone’s vault. Also worth noting nobody’s yet taken him up on his offer.

I haven’t seen anything myself that confirms or denies that Flynn is out of favor and asking for immunity in exchange for his testimony. There isn’t even any irrefutable proof that he was asked to resign due to wrongdoing of any kind. It could be entirely true, it might not be, but I wouldn’t even bet my mother’s retirement on this article’s substance or lack of.

😉

If you’re being sarcastic, I admit I missed it entirely, LOL. If not, I’m ok.

“Out of favor” was tongue-in-cheek Kremlinology-speak (and who doesn’t smile when saying “Out like Flynn”?). Asking for immunity… the link’s right there. Feel free to click. I know the Wall Street Journal’s not up there with Zerohedge in your book, but there are some who consider it a fairly reputable source.

Your sarcasm aside, this … “according to officials with knowledge of the matter.” … does not equal accurate. This scenario is being floated around so much with articles from the press that I fail to jump for joy every time I read a story with this so called confirmation included.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-clapper-no-evidence-of-collusion-between-trump-and-russia-890509379597

If Flynn is actually seeking immunity for testimony, he may be wanting discuss crimes committed that helped start this “russian narrative” mess. There is an article in NPR that reports, as other outlets have, that Flynn would not be charged with wrongdoing because he did nothing wrong.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/15/515437291/intelligence-official-transcripts-of-flynns-calls-dont-show-criminal-wrongdoing

Sorry, try CNN, maybe they have proof. 😉

Okay:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politics/michael-flynn-immunity-testimony/index.html

I’m sure that letter’s a Photoshop, though.

Also:
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/31/senate-intelligence-committee-turned-down-flynns-request-for-immunity-nbc.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/note-flynns-story/story?id=46486968

Even Fox News and Trump are on board:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/31/trump-backs-flynn-says-ex-adviser-should-seek-immunity-amid-witch-hunt.html

But regarding the substance of the news, I’m glad the Senate’s rejected the deal. This seems like an Oliver North deal to me.

How could or would an unnamed Congressional Aide either really know or confirm such details?

If they’re in one of the offices working on either of the two Congressional investigations into the matter. There are three investigations into the Russian matters–the House, which is only nominally active, the Senate, which is only slightly more active, and the FBI, which is active. Based on that, I’d say a Senate Aide for one of the Senators on the relevant committee. The chair of the Senate committee allows the Democrats to be involved with committee business, so it could be either party. If it was the House, it’d have to be a Republican.

If it’s true and legal they should be able to name the aide, no?

Media traditionally do not name their sources for a whole host of reasons. That’s why you always see “unnamed <position> staffer”. Generally you only see named sources in cases where under no circumstances could anyone consider the issue controversial.

The Trump tweet came today, after we started this discussion. I read your link. Thanks for posting it.

The news broke yesterday. As is often the case with breaking news, more always comes out later.

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

CatBus said:

So, Pravda on the Checkout Line is pushing the story that Flynn was a Russian spy. While traditionally, nothing resembling the truth can ever come out of that place, for the past several months, people have had some success applying the principles of Kremlinology to the tabloid. i.e. you don’t ever learn the truth per se, but you learn who’s in, who’s out (as in out of favor, not necessarily out of a job), and who’s going to fall off a roof next week.

Aaaand now we know why Flynn is out of favor:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-flynn-offers-to-testify-in-exchange-for-immunity-1490912959

That said, this sort of thing has been a double-fake-out before, where they ask for immunity and then proceed to testify to nothing as serious as a jaywalking offense, and in the meantime, suck up all the media coverage a la Al Capone’s vault. Also worth noting nobody’s yet taken him up on his offer.

I haven’t seen anything myself that confirms or denies that Flynn is out of favor and asking for immunity in exchange for his testimony. There isn’t even any irrefutable proof that he was asked to resign due to wrongdoing of any kind. It could be entirely true, it might not be, but I wouldn’t even bet my mother’s retirement on this article’s substance or lack of.

😉

If you’re being sarcastic, I admit I missed it entirely, LOL. If not, I’m ok.

“Out of favor” was tongue-in-cheek Kremlinology-speak (and who doesn’t smile when saying “Out like Flynn”?). Asking for immunity… the link’s right there. Feel free to click. I know the Wall Street Journal’s not up there with Zerohedge in your book, but there are some who consider it a fairly reputable source.

Your sarcasm aside, this … “according to officials with knowledge of the matter.” … does not equal accurate. This scenario is being floated around so much with articles from the press that I fail to jump for joy every time I read a story with this so called confirmation included.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-clapper-no-evidence-of-collusion-between-trump-and-russia-890509379597

If Flynn is actually seeking immunity for testimony, he may be wanting discuss crimes committed that helped start this “russian narrative” mess. There is an article in NPR that reports, as other outlets have, that Flynn would not be charged with wrongdoing because he did nothing wrong.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/15/515437291/intelligence-official-transcripts-of-flynns-calls-dont-show-criminal-wrongdoing

Sorry, try CNN, maybe they have proof. 😉

Okay:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politics/michael-flynn-immunity-testimony/index.html

I’m sure that letter’s a Photoshop, though.

Also:
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/31/senate-intelligence-committee-turned-down-flynns-request-for-immunity-nbc.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/note-flynns-story/story?id=46486968

Even Fox News and Trump are on board:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/31/trump-backs-flynn-says-ex-adviser-should-seek-immunity-amid-witch-hunt.html

But regarding the substance of the news, I’m glad the Senate’s rejected the deal. This seems like an Oliver North deal to me.

I remember back in the days when conspiracy theories made at least a casual attempt to explain the observable facts, albeit in a needlessly convoluted manner. Now I’ve got to go chase these kids off my lawn.