Flynn's departure -- an enigmatic ejection
Exclusive: Alan Keyes asks why general was sacrificed to a 'media-generated' scandal
Published: 22 hours ago
Something about the resignation of Michael Flynn makes no sense to me. As the chief of the National Security Council’s staff, the national security adviser has, during my lifetime, always been one of the president’s most important and confidential advisers. The job has required frequent contact with the chief executive, as well as a relationship involving the utmost trust, discretion and confidentiality. Given its nature, it’s hard to accept the notion that the occupant of that position would engage in an ongoing dialogue with another nation’s ambassador without being sure that all he did and said had his president’s approval. It’s especially hard to see this happening in the very early stages of the NSA’s tenure.
Yet this is precisely what we are supposed to believe was the case with Michael Flynn’s conversations with Russia’s ambassador to the United States. And what is more, we are supposed to believe it happened during the always delicate transition period, when the president-elect’s associates and advisers are the main focal point of public attention, there being no coteries of departmental and agency officials to share the burden.
Read more at
http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/flynns-departure-an-enigmatic-ejection/#8gGUBuxhlf3X59MA.99
