Flynn to testify Trump 'directed him to make contact with the Russians': report

[aligncare]

If Trump wanted to tell the Russians not to worry about sanctions if he were elected....so what?

That's in no way illegal. Heck, let me say right now to Vladimir Putin that if I'm elected he doesn't need to worry about sanctions...please let me know what law I have now violated. OR.....let me answer for you...no law is broken by such an act. Its simply an expression of policy, which is what campaigns and politics are about.

This whole thing is absurd. Unless Flynn states that Trump told him he would drop sanctions in exchange for anti-Hillary intelligence releases (WIkileaks) during the campaign...it all adds up to zero. Since we all know nothing of the kind occurred, this is a silly political witch hunt mounted by Dems and establishment types.

Where is the crime...advocating a new policy and telling other nations what that policy will be if elected...is not against the law. If it were, every presidential candidate in our history would be a criminal.

Get with the program! It’s Russia Russia Russia!  Crooked Hillary would never have lost the election on her own without dirty, crooked Vladimir’s interference in our sacred election. So, Trump obviously colluded with Russia to defeat Hillary.

The entire Trump administration is dirty dirty dirty! 

[Right_in_Virginia]

FBI reviewed Flynn’s calls with Russian ambassador but found nothing illicit
Washington Post, Jan 23, 2017, Ellen Nakashima and Greg Miller

The FBI in late December reviewed intercepts of communications between the Russian ambassador to the United States and retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn — national security adviser to then-President-elect Trump — but has not found any evidence of wrongdoing or illicit ties to the Russian government, U.S. officials said.

The calls were picked up as part of routine electronic surveillance of Russian officials and agents in the United States, which is one of the FBI’s responsibilities, according to the U.S. officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss counterintelligence operations.


Read more:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-reviewed-flynns-calls-with-russian-ambassador-but-found-nothing-illicit/2017/01/23/aa83879a-e1ae-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.1588a182cf4f

[edpc]

The FBI in late December reviewed intercepts of communications between the Russian ambassador to the United States and retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn — national security adviser to then-President-elect Trump — but has not found any evidence of wrongdoing or illicit ties to the Russian government, U.S. officials said.

Which is why it was really dumb for him to lie to them about it.

[Mesaclone]

The Logan Act bans non-elected citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. If the 'assurance' is seen as any sort of negotiation or promise, it could be ugly.  Especially if it could be seen a undermining current sanctions on Russia.

This is still a big IF as it seems the reports don't have their date straight. As noted above, some say December, some are now saying September.

No. The Logan Act was put in place after a private citizen (George Logan) was negotiating directly with agents in France....it was NEVER intended to apply to elected and/or campaigning officials discussing policy...even future policy...with other nations and their representatives. The law was so poorly written and vague, that it has gone entirely unused for 218 years, and was put forward by a congress already notorious for the Alien and Sedition Acts. Its constitutionality hasn't been ruled against ONLY because no one has tried to enforce its vague strictures. The Logan Act does not apply to this situation at all, is unenforceable due to its absurd vagueness, AND was never intended to apply to elected...or striving to be elected...officials interacting with other nations.

Put plainly. It does not apply in any way to a candidate, or a President elect, talking future policy with ambassadors and other nations. Please stop pretending otherwise...and go read up on the history and application of the statute.

[Restored]

We'd have to arrest Jimmy Carter under the Logan Act if that were true

[edpc]

ABC just said this was regarding a September 2016 meeting- so before the election, which would be a violation of the Logan Act.

Really?  That’s odd, because they’d be contradicting their own reporting....

The retired Army general has promised his “full coordination” with the Mueller investigation, ABC News is reporting. Flynn is prepared to testify that Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians, in the context of plans to defeat ISIS.

................


That action in itself could have been illegal, owing to a centuries-old law prohibiting private citizens from negotiating on behalf of the United States with foreign entities. Flynn isn’t being charged in connection with the Logan Act.[/b]


http://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/analysis-michael-flynns-guilty-plea-opens-doors-closes/story?id=51515178

[ABX]

Really?  That’s odd, because they’d be contradicting their own reporting....

The retired Army general has promised his “full coordination” with the Mueller investigation, ABC News is reporting. Flynn is prepared to testify that Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians, in the context of plans to defeat ISIS.

................


That action in itself could have been illegal, owing to a centuries-old law prohibiting private citizens from negotiating on behalf of the United States with foreign entities. Flynn isn’t being charged in connection with the Logan Act.[/b]


http://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/analysis-michael-flynns-guilty-plea-opens-doors-closes/story?id=51515178

I can't be the only one who heard it. It was on the Rush break about 30-40 minutes ago.

[aligncare]

No. The Logan Act was put in place after a private citizen (George Logan) was negotiating directly with agents in France....it was NEVER intended to apply to elected and/or campaigning officials discussing policy...even future policy...with other nations and their representatives. The law was so poorly written and vague, that it has gone entirely unused for 218 years, and was put forward by a congress already notorious for the Alien and Sedition Acts. Its constitutionality hasn't been ruled against ONLY because no one has tried to enforce its vague strictures. The Logan Act does not apply to this situation at all, is unenforceable due to its absurd vagueness, AND was never intended to apply to elected...or striving to be elected...officials interacting with other nations.

Put plainly. It does not apply in any way to a candidate, or a President elect, talking future policy with ambassadors and other nations. Please stop pretending otherwise...and go read up on the history and application of the statute.

AbaraXas knows only one speed. Post the most misleading headline and negative spin story about Donald Trump.

I figure everybody’s got to have a hobby. That’s his.

[Mesaclone]

We'd have to arrest Jimmy Carter under the Logan Act if that were true

In fact, every president elect and/or presidential candidate we've ever had. Its utterly ridiculous to think that it violates the Logan Act for such candidates to discuss their future policies regarding sanctions, trade, military policy or...well...anything...in public and/or private with other nations. Not only would it defy common sense, it would stifle free speech during campaigns...a candidate could not utter that he would drop sanctions on nation X if he were elected, for example. That's stupid.

[Sanguine]

AbaraXas knows only one speed. Post the most misleading headline and negative spin story about Donald Trump.

I figure everybody’s got to have a hobby. That’s his.

Do you have any comments about the topic?  Or, is posting ad hominems your only talent?

[aligncare]

Do you have any comments about the topic?  Or, is posting ad hominems your only talent?

Do you?

[Mesaclone]

I can't be the only one who heard it. It was on the Rush break about 30-40 minutes ago.

1. Please cite previous assertions of the Logan Act.
2. Please cite how, under any interpretation of the 1st amendment, a candidate could not discuss his policy on sanctions, trade, military action or anything else in public and/or in private with other government officials around the world.
3. Further, cite any previous candidates or president-elects who did not discuss their future policies on these topics with the leaders and ambassadors of other nations.

I don't care if you "heard" it on Rush or a Justin Bieber blog you frequent...the Logan Act does not apply, is grotesquely unconstitutional, and bears no relevance to this discussion whatsoever. Feel free to refute that, but rather than just repeating what you've heard, please address the bullet points above.

[Mesaclone]

Do you have any comments about the topic?  Or, is posting ad hominems your only talent?

Is this not you making an ad hominem attack "is posting ad hominems your only talent"...criticizing ad hominem attacks?
Really? Can you not see the hypocrisy?

As for the post you are criticizing, it was a very mild rebuke of someone pointing out a very biased posting history of another poster.

[edpc]

I can't be the only one who heard it. It was on the Rush break about 30-40 minutes ago.

Still doesn't change the fact it contradicts their own reporting from 12:37 EST.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Do you?

 :thumbsup2:

[Sanguine]

Do you?

Yeah, I figured you wouldn't want to actually answer that question.

[aligncare]

Yeah, I figured you wouldn't want to actually answer that question.

Nor you.

[Idiot]

Wow, sure glad we choose Trump over Cruz right?

/s

You may have.   

[Mesaclone]

You may have.   

We should be glad of that, as Cruz would have lost badly and we'd be watching Hillary rule the nation as President/Dictator....with a 5 person liberal majority on the Supreme Court. Not sure why you'd find that outcome an improvement over the current situation by hey....whatever floats your boat.

[RoosGirl]

Oh good, another Trump/Cruz/Hillary thread.  Can someone direct me to the closest Roy Moore thread please?

[RoosGirl]

Is this not you making an ad hominem attack "is posting ad hominems your only talent"...criticizing ad hominem attacks?
Really? Can you not see the hypocrisy?

As for the post you are criticizing, it was a very mild rebuke of someone pointing out a very biased posting history of another poster.

I'd say most (but there's always the oddball) have a pretty consistent posting history.  What does that have to do with anything?

[Idiot]

We should be glad of that, as Cruz would have lost badly and we'd be watching Hillary rule the nation as President/Dictator....with a 5 person liberal majority on the Supreme Court. Not sure why you'd find that outcome an improvement over the current situation by hey....whatever floats your boat.

I just didn't vote for Trump....that's it.  I support him as our president.  Hillary would have been a complete disaster.

[Mesaclone]

I just didn't vote for Trump....that's it.  I support him as our president.  Hillary would have been a complete disaster.

And likewise, I would have supported Cruz. But unfortunately, he could not beat Hillary and that "Trumps" everything in my opinion...she wins, the country goes down IMHO.

[Frank Cannon]

Oh good, another Trump/Cruz/Hillary thread.  Can someone direct me to the closest Roy Moore thread please?

Just look around to where @CatherineofAragon is hanging out.

[Cripplecreek]

@mystery-ak -

Trump cares about no one but himself and his family, yet he put everyone out of his office and asked Comey to stop investigating Flynn, asked him several times to do that.  He had to have a reason and it had to be connected to him and his family because again, those are the only ones he cares about.  Flynn meant nothing to him - he wanted to stop this due to his and his family involvement.

Trump's willingness to commit treason isn't about harming America. The harm to America is incidental and meaningless ass long as Trump gets what he alone wants.