Magnitude of Trump adviser Flynn's Russia scandal gains clarity

This is not true. The FBI said they found nothing, but that seems to be based more on the assumption that no one would be stupid enough to have such a discussion on a communication that was likely to be monitored. As we have seen over the last four weeks, the stupidity, arrogance and amateurishness of the Trump team cannot be underestimated.

One has to wonder why, if the FBI allegedly found nothing, why is Flynn walking back his claim now?

The report of the phone call(s) leaked out before the inauguration, and the Trump team got Pence to deflect criticism by saying that he talked to Flynn and took his word that the calls did not involve sanctions.

Now, Flynn has walked back from the claim, belatedly admitting that sanctions might have been discussed, which is in direct contradiction to the policy of the United States and a violation of the Logan Act.

So, Flynn lied to Pence, and is now hanging Pence out to dry. Or, Flynn told Pence the truth and Pence decided to lie about it. There is no options three.

In a normal adminstration, a loose cannon like Flynn would never have been considered for any security post, particularly after his prior behavior. In a normal adminstration, the National Security Advisor would be tendering his resignation or face dismissal in the face of this conduct.

That the Russians furnished Wikileaks with information that Julian Assange used in a series of carefully timed leaks to promote the campaign of Donald Trump is not in doubt. All of the world's major intelligence agencies have come to this conclusion. We await hearings in both the House and Senate on this. I suspect that they will be delayed as long as the GOP still sees value into clinging to Trumps dubious coatails. But the moment they come to the inevitable conclusion that he is a reckless and dangerous liability, a conclusion that this episode only hastens, this will be the weapon they use to remove him.

 

President Clinton demonstrated that is virtually impossible to remove a sitting President from office who will fight to stay. That was Clinton's great enduring contribution to political stability in the US.

 

Dude, did you even watch the interview? He was joking about CNN being fake news, taking a pot shot at Trump.

You're claiming that CNN pulled the plug on the interview (even though the interview continued after the technical difficulties) because Sanders made a joke about the President's catchphrase? You guys are beyond hope.

 

Where the (*)(*)(*)(*) have you been for the last 8 years.
You remember the whole make you fail campaign.

 

The magnitude is a mountain out of a molehill.

 

Can we add some perspective here

"In the late 1790s, a French trade embargo and jailing of U.S. seamen created animosity and unstable conditions between the United States and France. Logan sailed to France in the hope of presenting options to its government to improve relations with the United States and quell the growing anti-French sentiment in the United States. France responded by lifting the embargo and releasing the captives. Logan's return to the United States was marked by Republican praise and Federalist scorn. To prevent U.S. citizens from interfering with negotiations between the United States and foreign governments in the future, the Adams administration quickly introduced the bill that would become the Logan Act.

The Logan Act has remained almost unchanged and unused since its passage. The act is short and reads as follows:
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
The language of the act appears to encompass almost every communication between a U.S. citizen and a foreign government considered an attempt to influence negotiations between their two countries. Because the language is so broad in scope, legal scholars and judges have suggested that the Logan Act is unconstitutional. Historically, the act has been used more as a threat to those engaged in various political activities than as a weapon for prosecution. In fact, Logan Act violations have been discussed in almost every administration without any serious attempt at enforcement, and to date there have been no convictions and only one recorded indictment.

One example of the act's use as a threat of prosecution involved the Reverend jesse jackson. In 1984 Jackson took well-publicized trips to Cuba and Nicaragua and returned with several Cuban political prisoners seeking Asylum in the United States. President ronald reagan stated that Jackson's activities may have violated the law, but Jackson was not pursued beyond a threat.

The only Logan Act indictment occurred in 1803. It involved a Kentucky newspaper article that argued for the formation in the western United States of a separate nation allied to France. No prosecution followed."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Logan+Act

 

I'm afraid it is true.

The FBI looked into these phone calls and were monitoring them. You're trying to presuppose the FBI didn't listen to what was said.

As long as there were no specific quid-pro-quos, no law was broken. The FBI has told us they investigated and found no wrong doing, yet in your imagination the FBI is lying to us.

Here's the comments from the Reuters story: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN14X1YX

The three sources stressed to Reuters that they did not know who initiated the five calls between Flynn, a former three-star Army general who headed the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency under Obama, and Kislyak. Nor did they know the contents of the conversations, and declined to say how they learned of them.

One source said there was nothing intrinsically odd or wrong about a Russian diplomat speaking to a member of Trump's team following the U.S. announcement. Moscow, the source added, probably would want to have some sense of what Trump's team thought about the measures.

That sentiment was echoed Friday by State Department spokesman Mark Toner. "This building doesn’t see anything necessarily inappropriate about contact between members of the incoming administration and foreign officials," Toner said.

All you have is a phone call that, due to the timing, could potentially be a violation of the Logan Act.

Let's look at the Logan Act, shall we:

The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799 ) is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments having a dispute with the U.S. It was intended to prevent the undermining of the government's position.

So unless you have some written policy that was developed out of these phone calls, or some kind of legal agreements between Flynn and Russian government, all you have is conjecture.

Additionally, it is unclear what is restricted to incoming members of an administration with regards to the Logan Act.

Your claim that Russia furnished Wikileaks with information is also unsustainable, particularly when Assange has categorically denied he got it from the Russians multiple times. There is no proof of this, just more imagination and assumption.

 

You do know that the President and President-elect and their transistion team are not just mere citizens, they are on the federal payroll under funds appropriated by Congress.
And you do know that candidate Obama as a candidate without the authority of the US Government met and held discussions with foreign leaders even before he won the Presidency.

\\JULY 24, 2008


SDEROT, Israel — With a fanfare typically orchestrated for a visiting head of state, Senator Barack Obama dashed through a series of meetings with leaders on both sides of the Middle East conflict on Wednesday, pledging to protect Israel and prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Mr. Obama, who said he hoped his appearance here would open the door to a stronger bond with Jewish voters at home, pledged that if elected president he would not pressure Israel to accept concessions with Palestinians that would compromise security for Israelis. He also sought to allay concerns over his proposal to negotiate with Iran.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/us/politics/24obama.html

That he was a Senator is of no bearing as as a Senator he was not authorized to negotiate future US foreign policy under the Logan Act.

 

Is this supposed to respond to something from my post?
Sanders made a joke about CNN's Fake News and they clearly cut him off. I pointed out it was a joke - Of course, Sanders does not have the guts to actually point out that CNN is a Fake News Network. That is why he lost the nomination.


“22. CNN leaked primary debate question to Hillary through head of(*)
(*) (*) (*)(*)DNC
(*)

• “From time to time I get the questions in advance… Here’s one that worries me about HRC [death penalty].”


• The question was asked almost verbatim by CNN the next night.

• They helped Hillary cheat in a debate. Good chance it happened in other debates including presidential debates.

• Here is video evidence showing it.

• When confronted by Megyn Kelly, DNC lead Donna Brazile (the one responsible) pivots, dodges, and does everything she can to avoid answering the question. It really is quite embarrassing and cringe-worthy.”

• https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205

CNN helped the DNC rig the DP primaries. Do think Sanders still doesn't know?

 

Exactly.

The Logan Act specifically says "unauthorized citizens". I'm unclear on what limits an incoming administration has in transition, but I'm assuming it's going to be different than Dennis Rodman working on a nuclear treaty with Kim.

Additionally, one might note that the restrictions on Russia are still in effect that the Obama administration put in effect.

Where are the changes that might have resulted from such a phone call?

Oh and I couldn't resist...

....then Obama clearly lied by stabbing Israel in the back and fully negotiating with the Iranians. What a lying piece of trash that guy was.

 

Peachy! .So, now you were going to offer some PROOF for your statement in an earlier post that "Flynn reached out to a foreign power engaging in espionage and the deliberate subversion of our democratic election process to put into power Donald Trump, and told them not to worry that the sanctions would be removed when Trump was in the white house." Some PROOF from YOU would be a great way that you could tutor me to "try sticking to the facts"....

After all, and from your comments, I'm sure you would agree, only a "deranged" person would make charge like the one you made without having some means of being able to prove it.... Now, we stand in the presence of mastery! Speak, O Osiris!

."Dude! Just trust me... OK...? I see this stuff on the astral plane and esoteric places like that!"

 

LMAO, that is complete BS, those innovations happened because of Reagan tax cuts.

I guess the tax increases helped spur the innovation too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
The 1982 tax increase undid a third of the initial tax cut. In 1983 Reagan instituted a payroll tax increase on Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.

 

Yes, the interview was cut off for a commercial break and then continued after it. Your point? Technical difficulties happen, it's not always some Machiavellian bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Reagan was saddled with an all Democrat controlled Congress working hard to derail what Reagan was doing.

 

Still nothing whatsoever to support your Incompetent-in-Chief!

Why is that?

 

Given the damage that your Incompetent-in-Chief is doing to the GOP brand on a daily basis there comes a point when even they will have to stop the bleeding.

Of course they might want to continue losing themselves for the next couple of years but that is on them.

 

The First 100 Days: 100 of Obama's Lies, Blunders, Gaffes, and Abuses of Liberty.


I think like with OBarry, I'll give the guy a couple years at least

 

Wow.... The number of logical acrobatics that had to happen to lead to the SCs' concerns. Oh, if only Hillary had been elected, huh? I mean, her folks weren't talking to the Russians, were they?? LOL

 

Oh, stop pretending you don't know about CNN. Sanders was clearly cut off because he let the truth slip out of his mouth - CNN = Fake News.

Censoring Sanders was not "Machiavellian" - it was just another example of the reflexive stupidity of the entrenched corrupt political class - the party establishments and the MSM.

 

Funny to read squeals of anti-Trump morons Trump talks with Russians.

[video=youtube;MNxEDomUlXw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNxEDomUlXw[/video]

 

It can't be slander if it's true.

 

Very good-except that he wasn't a member of the Trump cabal when these conversations took place. So who gave Flynn authorization to share sensitive government policy information with Russia? And now Flynn says he 'can't remember' whether or not he mentioned sanctions in the conversation which he clearly remembers having?
If there is any doubt whatsoever about his veracity he needs to be gone. Now.
http://fortune.com/2017/02/12/michael-flynn-white-house-russia/

 

It can't true if it's slander.

 

The GOP brand has been despised since Nixon. Bush I & II, and their Gulf Wars I & II made the GOP toxic.

The GOP was saved by the Tea Party movement as an alternative to the even more deplorable DP. The Tea Party mowed down almost as many establishment Republicans as Democrats. That is why the GOP, like its partner the DP, hates Trump.

- - - Updated - - -

What an inconvenient video of the very inconvenient truth.

 

Hello, Snake! Allow me to present you with the same invitation I gave to your brother-in-spirit, Osiris (although he has twice declined).

PROOF, dear fellow! Do you have any proof?! And here I'm speaking specifically about the fake-news assertion that Russia 'hacked-the-election-to-elect-Trump' nonsense that radical Democrats have desperately tried to market among the, uh, challenged among us....

But, let's just say for a moment that Michael Flynn did speak to Russians shortly after President Trump was elected. Let's say that during the conversation(s) he gave the Russians hope that, maybe, perhaps, there might be some way that some of the measures taken against Russia by Obama might be lessened, reduced in scope, or eliminated. These types of gambits and overtures are not (NOT) at all uncommon among those who function at high government levels.

A smart negotiator, especially when he's newly appointed to his post, sizes up the people on the opposite side of the table, makes observations, and uses an intelligent strategy to decide what's important to them, and what's not! But, dirty, back-stabbing, conniving people illegally and unethically leak information from these highly-sensitive discussions in order to make Flynn look bad, and the next thing you know the radical Democrats are raving to have Flynn's head put on a spike!

THAT is what we've sunk to in this country, Snake... don't let it happen to you in Great Britain!