Trump sabotage
- Thread starter HighStickHarry
- Start date
What law did he break? It has only been speculated that he may have broken the law from everything I've read. Something about a civilian engaging in diplomacy on behalf of the US? If he's guilty, fry his ass or whatever is appropriate. People are tired of Washington DC political types not being held accountable regardless of party affiliation (well, for the most part, Hillary and her minions, cough cough ).
IMO private citizen does not equal incoming elected administration. I don't think that is the laws intent. I haven't read the transcripts of the call. I guess we have to wait until the Bernie supporter posts them since he has obviously read them.
Comparing that with what Hillary did with her pay to play scheme is very typical spin from a teenage Bernie supporter.
Comparing that with what Hillary did with her pay to play scheme is very typical spin from a teenage Bernie supporter.
Scares a democrat? Why would anything scare a democrat while Hillary Capone walks the streets with media protection.
And oops you forgot to address my question. How does the law read? What did Flynn say in the calls that was illegal. You said "he broke the law". Back up what you said. You have time before mommy has dinner ready.
Exactly.
But you have read a spin piece in the Washington Free Beacon, so I guess that makes you an expert now, right?
Who is this cat? Since he's got such lengthy history of calling out his own party, I'd like to evaluate some of his introspection from the Obama years.
Ha you cuck you edited your post to read he "might" have broken the law.
Schmuck. I wins the internet!!
Go right ahead, ask me about the Obama years. I'll tell you where I think Obama made mistakes.
I consume more news in a week than you have since middle school. How do I know this?
You support socialism. You are either a loser who can't compete or so uninformed you have no idea how socialism has played out through history.
I like this game. It will show that people aren't as open-minded as they tell themselves they are.
List the 15 biggest mistakes Obama made in office in a new thread.
There are two laws at issue here.
The first is the Logan Act which makes it a crime for a private citizen to communicate with a foreign government without proper authority in an attempt to influence the actions of the foreign government. Based on what we know, Flynn broke this law.
Federal law also prohibits someone from making a false statement when discussing a matter within the jurisdiction of the federal government if there is an intent to deceive a government agency about an important matter. Again, based on what we know in terms of Flynn's discussions with Pence, he broke this law too.
Could there be more that we don't know? I am sure. But going off what we know right now, Flynn broke the law. And that is why some Republicans have now started attacking the Logan Act itself.
Last edited:
And shifty, gets to claim introspection (authority on being team critical) without a history of being on the record in real time insisting on more out of President Obama. Ergo...knowing all the facts required for said criticism instead of being forced to err on the side of principle in a given moment.
Use a Sneaky snek.
Use a Sneaky snek.
What do we know? Without seeing the transcripts, it's tough to know, right? We don't know what he said, only that a conversation took place. A conversation isn't against the law nor is it evidence the law was broken. The Logan Act is fairly vaguely specific and hasn't produced but a single indictment in 1803 and no prosecutions ever. If it were a broad application, Dennis Rodman would be in jail. I think you should step outside of the party rhetoric and learn about the Logan Act. You'll be surprised that it likely isn't what you think it is.
Maybe, but nobody is going to touch that one outside of the political fodder.
Again, what do we actually know and what exactly did Flynn say/do that violates the Logan Act?
I haven't seen that at all. I'll bet you are going to actually look into the Logan Act after you read this though.
You asked and I answered.
Whether Flynn will actually be prosecuted is a whole other discussion.
You tell me. Was choosing not to enforce immigration laws good or bad?
Laws mean nothing anymore. Several presidents have shown that but now we have this congregation of liberal legal scholars calling up the 200 year old Logan act while in the same breath wanting illegals to have drivers licenses and the safety of their local government.
I actually am pretty much ready to co-sign this. It's not something new. I've been saying since he went up against Jeb - he's up against the neocons, libs, corporate media, international globalists, wall street, deep state and the idiots who lap up the establishment narrative like milk.
Of course, if you just KEEP saying what was considered rogue and daring in the primaries, you are now somehow both an alt right kook AND a team politics cheerleader. The same guys who resonated with me then, resonate with me now. Milo, Gavin, Stefan and Paul Joseph Watson. I am adding people to that list like Dave Rubin, who is a classical liberal, not a humorless progressive inquisitor like the SJW's have become.
I absolutely loathe the establishment. Hard not to root for someone who is taking it on. Or at least seems to be.
Your standard of proof much too high for message board and I think likely inconsistent with posts about prior "lapses" by others.
Maybe so. But knowledge of the Logan Act Flynn "broke" isn't difficult to come by these technology rich days. Outside of the usefulness of referring to a law that has resulted in one indictment and no prosecutions for political jabs, it's meaningless and actually overshadows the discussions of why Flynn lied, who had him make the calls if applicable, who leaked the info, and was the leak damaging in regards to a security standpoint etc etc. There's definitely plenty here to have dialogue about. The Logan Act conversation is just goats bleating.
Yes, without seeing the transcripts it is tough to know. However, we do know that those who have seen the transcripts believed Flynn had opened himself up to blackmail by the Russian government. That says a lot.
Going off what we know (which is all we can do at this point on a political message board), we know that Flynn had discussions with a Russian ambassador while he was a private citizen. That satisfies two of the three elements needed to prove a violation of the Logan Act. The third element, the intent element, is of course always the hardest to prove (remember Clinton?). However, looking at the surrounding circumstances and context of the calls, it would appear that an intent to influence a foreign government did exist. Those investigating this would know by now whether the intent element has been satisfied and the fact that Flynn is now gone strongly indicates what the federal investigators know.
Regarding the comments to Pence...Flynn made a false statement to a government official concerning a matter within the jurisdiction of the federal government. The final determination once again comes down to intent. But it is quite a stretch to think that Flynn can't recall whether or not he talked about the sanctions to the Russian ambassador. Which would again, tend to establish that Flynn broke the law here as well.
I know what the Logan Act is and I also can recognize partisan attacks on the Logan Act. When all one has left is to attack the validity of the law, then one should recognize that one is in trouble.
The Logan Act itself is not the issue. It is law. Attacking the Logan Act is just deflection.
You haven't seen Republicans attacking and/or questioning the Logan Act? You just did in your above post!
1. What "we know" about the content of the alleged conversation is based on attribution to anonymous sources declining to go on the record.
2. I challenge your assumption that what we do know....even that attributable to anonymous sources... establishes the clear intent to influence requirement of the third leg. Furthermore, the fact that he has resigned in no way indicates whether or not the federal investigators have established the intent element or are satisfied it exists. Plenty of reasons he might be out beyond that.
3. What you call "a stretch", I would call the presumption of innocence when it comes to decisions to prosecute a violation of the law. It in no way tends to establish he broke the law....in a court of law. Court of public opinion, maybe.
There's lots of "tends" and "appears" in your supposed proof he violated the law. Do I personally think he did? Sure. Would I go in and prosecute or claim I know he did based upon what you provided? Heck, no.
I know you haven't been around, but if you foolishly suggest my response is a result of a Pro-Trump bias you may end up laughed at by literally everyone posting on this board. Just saying....
Uh, no. Don't be obtuse. I'm not attacking the Logan Act. I'm stating a reality that it has resulted in a single indictment (1803) and zero prosecutions. Wishful thinking is just fine, but don't expect everyone to confuse it for facts at this point.
How can you claim context without having any clue what was said?
If it "says a lot," then what exactly does it say?
You're the one stating Flynn broke laws without offering anything to support it. Your rebuttal of "Republicans attacking and/or questioning the Logan Act" is devoid of any actual substance, so just stop on that one. I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm looking for what exactly you know about the specifics (sources) that makes you so certain Flynn broke the law. It seems the majority of us on here, despite looking at multiple media sources, haven't seen what you've seen to give us the same impression.
We know he called the Russian ambassador as a private citizen. There is no doubt about that.
As I stated above, that satisfies two of the three elements. The final element of intent is all that is left to be satisfied. I guess some may want to believe these calls that took place when they did had nothing to do with influencing the Russian government. Most people who think critically though have a hard time believing that.
Again, when one looks at the circumstances and context of those calls (which is allowed in determining intent), it isn't that hard to establish Flynn's intent. And when one has the transcripts, as the federal investigators do, it isn't hard at all.
Well neither would I. If I was the prosecutor, I'd have the transcripts and a lot more information. However, again, this is a political message board. We are simply discussing what we know.
btw, the prosectors who have seen most of the evidence believed that Flynn had misled senior administration officials and set himself up for blackmail by the Russian government. Again, rather damaging.
Any speculation on Flynn's motivations, any understanding he had with other parties in regards to the representations he was making to the Russian Government? Is that worth knowing at this point?
What were the circumstances and context? You keep posting this but don't answer that question. What was Flynn trying to influence. You're long on speculation presented as facts and very short on facts so far.
What if Flynn called to tell Igor Bullshitovich that Putey need not to worry about Obama's sanctions because Brother Biff would wipe his ass with them when he took office? Would that violate the Logan Act to the point of being prosecuted?
Is that an example of just how rare and egregious a violation of the Logan Act would be? Do you believe the Logan Act is useful outside any speculation of what Flynn might or might not have done?
Speculation ahead: How much gall does it take to speak on behalf of the US Government on issues of prominence before your boss has even taken the oath of office, and seemingly in direct contradiction to the then current administration? What if any defense would be acceptable in that circumstance?
Sure you were. You were attacking the validity of the Logan Act, regardless of whether what you posted was true or false.
The context of the calls.
No offense, but do I have to spell out everything to you? Can you not put anything together?
The acting Attorney General informed the White House that their national security advisor misled senior administration officials and possibly could be blackmailed by a foreign government. What do you think he misled senior administration officials about...the type of smartphone he uses? What do you think Russia would blackmail him with...his gym locker combination?
C'Mon Man!
I've given you plenty of support. You just don't want to accept it.
I am asking you to speculate if you care to... I can, but curious what you think.
Because I didn't know this was a question that needed to be answered. You seriously don't know what the circumstances and the context of those calls were? When they took place and what was going on?
Yes, that would violate the Logan Act.
Whether he would be prosecuted is another question though.
