>>>As he accuses parts of his own government to work against him on what I perceive as minimal evidence (like focusing on leaks to fire a broadside at NSA and FBI)
>
>Leaking classified information (which by definition a tapped call between a US citizen and a foreign diplomat would be) is a felony crime or could even be treason in the US. It's actually very serious, since state apparatus used to selectively leak against political opponents, is one of the warning signs of a police state.

Telling un- or at least half-truth about a phone call to authorities and VP (which might have been against US laws if strictly checked for mandate of Flynn phoning when not sworn in as part of Gov) is something the press should write about in the function of keeping the ones in power honest. This is the dilemma whistleblower laws need to adress...

>
>My view: this isn't Flynn's first rodeo, he held senior spook positions under Obama and must have known that calls to a Rusky diplomat would be tapped. We are to believe he nevertheless broke the law on such a call, then lied to the VP about it. Something isn't connecting for me. I have a horrible feeling that Flynn is one of those "too honest for his own good" types who resigned to protect his senior officers and administration, because that's what honor dictates.
>
>Interestingly, the president does have the power to remove the classified status and publish. So depending what is in any transcribed Flynn conversations- which can't be much if the FBI decided not to pursue further- I wonder whether Trump will release the information as another nail in the coffin for his fake news targets? You can just imagine the twitter thunders about sleazy innuendo, illegal leaks and fake news to take down a good and honorable man etc etc.
>

My take on the situation is that the call was just the "official" reason to put him out, with something held in reverse should the topic rise again.
The action was launched somewhere in intelligence community, was clearly a political hatchet job instead of looking for information flows in suspected ursus-huggers.

>>>Arguing for vigilance should never be a mistake in almost all thinkable scenarios ;-)
>
>IMHO the biggest risk is that the more people race around waving their hands screaming "fire!" or "wolf!" over every issue, the more likely it is that a real wolf will be able to sneak past because nobody takes any notice any more.

Vigilance # continuos false alarms. Not trusting the ones in power served IMHO the US quite well and should be kept as attitude - even if today the MSM gives lots of reason to distrust them as well ;-)

Given that MSM is not the only one trying to sell non-facts, Trump smear campaign can move to newspeak scenarios where each side is aiming to surpass the other on lies not distrusted/totally debunked in the eyes of at least 30% - which is not a good direction IMHO.