|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 1, 2017 10:30:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 1, 2017 10:55:58 GMT -5
Wonder what his deal involved? Will he give someone else up?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 1, 2017 13:07:11 GMT -5
Wonder what his deal involved? Will he give someone else up? Time will tell. But these “process crimes” (like lying to the FBI) are also a sign of a desperate prosecutor who needs to come up with something to justify his existence. This might be the only thing they can pin on Flynn. |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 1, 2017 13:34:52 GMT -5
Could be But a lot of times these are stepping stones to other people. Who's next?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 1, 2017 14:13:21 GMT -5
Could be But a lot of times these are stepping stones to other people. Who's next? Well, let’s look at the accusation against Flynn. He has been charged with lying to the FBI about his discussions with Russian officials focusing of foreign policy. The FBI is apparently basing its case on recordings it obtained under a FISA warrant for Ambassador Kislyak. While it is a crime to lie to the FBI about these conversations, the conversations themselves do not appear to involve campaign coordination. Rather they appear to be the normal sorts of outreach that a national security advisor would have with foreign counterparts during a transition. Usually when a prosecutor has a cooperating witness in a criminal scheme, he will have the cooperating witness plead guilty to said criminal scheme, because it proves the existence of the scheme. That hasn’t happened here. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 1, 2017 18:37:17 GMT -5
Could be But a lot of times these are stepping stones to other people. Who's next? Well, let’s look at the accusation against Flynn. He has been charged with lying to the FBI about his discussions with Russian officials focusing of foreign policy. The FBI is apparently basing its case on recordings it obtained under a FISA warrant for Ambassador Kislyak. While it is a crime to lie to the FBI about these conversations, the conversations themselves do not appear to involve campaign coordination. Rather they appear to be the normal sorts of outreach that a national security advisor would have with foreign counterparts during a transition. Usually when a prosecutor has a cooperating witness in a criminal scheme, he will have the cooperating witness plead guilty to said criminal scheme, because it proves the existence of the scheme. That hasn’t happened here. And Trump fired Flynn for exactly the same thing, lying to Pence. Of course, he only worked for Trump for 25 days, but he worked for The Puppet for several years. I think he was set up by The Puppet, because of personal animus. |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 1, 2017 19:33:51 GMT -5
Could be But a lot of times these are stepping stones to other people. Who's next? Well, let’s look at the accusation against Flynn. He has been charged with lying to the FBI about his discussions with Russian officials focusing of foreign policy. The FBI is apparently basing its case on recordings it obtained under a FISA warrant for Ambassador Kislyak. While it is a crime to lie to the FBI about these conversations, the conversations themselves do not appear to involve campaign coordination. Rather they appear to be the normal sorts of outreach that a national security advisor would have with foreign counterparts during a transition. Usually when a prosecutor has a cooperating witness in a criminal scheme, he will have the cooperating witness plead guilty to said criminal scheme, because it proves the existence of the scheme. That hasn’t happened here. Not so sure these are "normal" conversations, RJ, especially when the conversations involve sanctions just imposed a day before. There are also indications that "senior transition officials" knew what Flynn was doing. It's possible, fi true, that those officials (Trump Jr, Spicer, even Pence) actually knew what was going on and perhaps told Flynn to do it, to get in touch with the Russians. Someone mentioned Logan Act (since Flynn was not authorized to contact the Russians regarding any negotiations). Maybe he's charged with a lesser offense because he's going to testify against some higher-ups in the White House. Looks like the walls are starting to crumble. Whatever happens, it'll be interesting to watch. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 1, 2017 19:41:39 GMT -5
Well, let’s look at the accusation against Flynn. He has been charged with lying to the FBI about his discussions with Russian officials focusing of foreign policy. The FBI is apparently basing its case on recordings it obtained under a FISA warrant for Ambassador Kislyak. While it is a crime to lie to the FBI about these conversations, the conversations themselves do not appear to involve campaign coordination. Rather they appear to be the normal sorts of outreach that a national security advisor would have with foreign counterparts during a transition. Usually when a prosecutor has a cooperating witness in a criminal scheme, he will have the cooperating witness plead guilty to said criminal scheme, because it proves the existence of the scheme. That hasn’t happened here. Not so sure these are "normal" conversations, RJ, especially when the conversations involve sanctions just imposed a day before. There are also indications that "senior transition officials" knew what Flynn was doing. It's possible, fi true, that those officials (Trump Jr, Spicer, even Pence) actually knew what was going on and perhaps told Flynn to do it, to get in touch with the Russians. Someone mentioned Logan Act (since Flynn was not authorized to contact the Russians regarding any negotiations). Maybe he's charged with a lesser offense because he's going to testify against some higher-ups in the White House. Looks like the walls are starting to crumble. Whatever happens, it'll be interesting to watch. Part of his job is to contact other countries, including Russia, and open channels of communication with them. Whether they talked about sanctions, Syria, or grandchildren and golf, nothing about it was illegal. Discussing sanctions doesn't make it illegal. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 1, 2017 19:48:44 GMT -5
Well, let’s look at the accusation against Flynn. He has been charged with lying to the FBI about his discussions with Russian officials focusing of foreign policy. The FBI is apparently basing its case on recordings it obtained under a FISA warrant for Ambassador Kislyak. While it is a crime to lie to the FBI about these conversations, the conversations themselves do not appear to involve campaign coordination. Rather they appear to be the normal sorts of outreach that a national security advisor would have with foreign counterparts during a transition. Usually when a prosecutor has a cooperating witness in a criminal scheme, he will have the cooperating witness plead guilty to said criminal scheme, because it proves the existence of the scheme. That hasn’t happened here. Not so sure these are "normal" conversations, RJ, especially when the conversations involve sanctions just imposed a day before. There are also indications that "senior transition officials" knew what Flynn was doing. It's possible, fi true, that those officials (Trump Jr, Spicer, even Pence) actually knew what was going on and perhaps told Flynn to do it, to get in touch with the Russians. Someone mentioned Logan Act (since Flynn was not authorized to contact the Russians regarding any negotiations). Maybe he's charged with a lesser offense because he's going to testify against some higher-ups in the White House. Looks like the walls are starting to crumble. Whatever happens, it'll be interesting to watch. I would like to see someone charged under the Logan Act just so SCOTUS can finally rule it unconstitutional and put it out of its misery. A National Security advisor would be expected to reach out to his foreign counterparts. After all it will be the Trump administration that would have to deal with the consequences and fall-out of those sanctions the Obama administration imposed. Not reaching out to the Russians would be negligent. |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 1, 2017 20:04:20 GMT -5
Reaching out to a counterpart is one thing. Conducting foreign affairs without being in office or as a private citizen is not allowed. And if it's found out that Trump order him to contact Russian officals, we're now talking impeachment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 1, 2017 20:34:26 GMT -5
Reaching out to a counterpart is one thing. Conducting foreign affairs without being in office or as a private citizen is not allowed. And if it's found out that Trump order him to contact Russian officals, we're now talking impeachment. Again, not only no, but hell no. The national security advisor designee is gong to have to establish a relationship with the Russian government. The minute the new administration is sworn in, they'll be dealing with these issues. It is absurd to suggest they should wait until the inauguration before working with foreign governments. Literally every incoming administration ever has done this. The only reason anyone is concerned about it now is because of Trump, and Trump derangement syndrome. The Logan Act is a bunch of 18th Century claptrap that should have gone the way of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Only two people have ever been indicted under the Logan Act, the last one in 1852. No one has actually been prosecuted. Precisely because talking with a foreign government is a right guaranteed by the 1A. If this is what you're hanging your hat on, it's going to be another dreary Fitzmas. |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 1, 2017 22:28:50 GMT -5
Getting to know someone is one thing. Subverting and undermining the country's foreign policy, conducting rogue foreign policy, is something else. And, if Trump is the one that gave the order to contact the Russians he may have committed an impeachable offense.
Muller had a lot on Flynn. He could have piled on the charges, and he still could. But charging Flynn with a relative minor offense seems to mean he's going to do a lot of talking. The charging document notes that he talked with at least 2 member of the transition team about his conversations with the Russians -- reporting that he'd been called, calling back and giving the information he was told to give, and then calling the transition team members back to report what he had done. And that's the calls about sanctions. There were also a number of calls regarding a United Nations resolution about Israel.
Again, getting to know someone is one thing. Trying to subvert foreign policy, trying to conduct foreign policy when not in office is something completely different. I'm surprised that you don't see the distinction and the seriousness of what Flynn did.
|
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 2, 2017 9:16:36 GMT -5
Reaching out to a counterpart is one thing. Conducting foreign affairs without being in office or as a private citizen is not allowed. And if it's found out that Trump order him to contact Russian officals, we're now talking impeachment. You've been talking impeachment since the day Trump was nominated. You and the losers you worship want to criminalize actual statesmanship, if done by a Pub. You are simply terrified that Trump will show how corrupt, incompetent, and stupid The Puppet was, and that Trump will succeed far beyond anyone's expectations. He's already turned The Puppet's non recovery into a 3%+ economic growth, gotten unanimous approval from the UN about NK, even Russia and China agreeing, and set about correcting all the damage The Puppet did to our national reputation. He's succeeding where The Puppet surrendered, and that has you in hysterics. Even if Flynn spoke to "Russian officials", there is no law that he violated. "Russian officials" are exactly who he was supposed to speak to. After all, Trump was the President elect, and his cabinet choices weren't supposed to speak to the local Russian street sweeper, or train conductor. That's what The Puppet did, and was an abysmal failure. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 2, 2017 9:22:43 GMT -5
Getting to know someone is one thing. Subverting and undermining the country's foreign policy, conducting rogue foreign policy, is something else. And, if Trump is the one that gave the order to contact the Russians he may have committed an impeachable offense. Muller had a lot on Flynn. He could have piled on the charges, and he still could. But charging Flynn with a relative minor offense seems to mean he's going to do a lot of talking. The charging document notes that he talked with at least 2 member of the transition team about his conversations with the Russians -- reporting that he'd been called, calling back and giving the information he was told to give, and then calling the transition team members back to report what he had done. And that's the calls about sanctions. There were also a number of calls regarding a United Nations resolution about Israel. Again, getting to know someone is one thing. Trying to subvert foreign policy, trying to conduct foreign policy when not in office is something completely different. I'm surprised that you don't see the distinction and the seriousness of what Flynn did. How can you subvert something that doesn't exist? The Puppet had no 'foreign policy', he surrendered to every country he spoke to, along with every radical Communist organization. Trump has every right to have his prospective cabinet members speak to foreign officials, and discuss policy. There is no way for a "candidate" to "set foreign policy", and the idiot that wrote the claptrap that you are quoting conveniently left out that Trump was President elect at the time. A small difference. As a citizen, Trump, and all of his prospective cabinet, have the right to talk to anyone they want, about anything they want. Unlike The Gigolo, who met with the N Vietnamese, in an effort to surrender our country to them, Trump was a viable Presidential candidate all along, and was showing good sense if he had his people talk to foreign officials and discuss policy. Especially those countries he considered the most problematic to deal with. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 2, 2017 12:21:05 GMT -5
Getting to know someone is one thing. Subverting and undermining the country's foreign policy, conducting rogue foreign policy, is something else. And, if Trump is the one that gave the order to contact the Russians he may have committed an impeachable offense. Muller had a lot on Flynn. He could have piled on the charges, and he still could. But charging Flynn with a relative minor offense seems to mean he's going to do a lot of talking. The charging document notes that he talked with at least 2 member of the transition team about his conversations with the Russians -- reporting that he'd been called, calling back and giving the information he was told to give, and then calling the transition team members back to report what he had done. And that's the calls about sanctions. There were also a number of calls regarding a United Nations resolution about Israel. Again, getting to know someone is one thing. Trying to subvert foreign policy, trying to conduct foreign policy when not in office is something completely different. I'm surprised that you don't see the distinction and the seriousness of what Flynn did. When you’re working as the National Security Advisor designee, conducting foreign policy on behalf of the incoming administration isn’t “undermining the country’s foreign policy” it is conducting the country’s foreign policy. Literally every transition team ever has done this. It is normal, and indeed necessary. It isn’t impeachable. If Mueller thought Flynn had violated the Logan Act, and Flynn was cooperating, he would have had Flynn plead guilty to the Logan Act. That would establish the potentially impeachable offense against Trump. What Flynn plead guilty to is a “process crime.” If all Mueller ever gets are these sorts of charges, this investigation will go down as the witch hunt it is. |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 2, 2017 14:31:19 GMT -5
And the point, RJ, is that the Incoming president is not allowed to conduct foreign policy, only the sitting president. That's the point of the Logan
Act, that's what the Constitution says. You have admitted that what Flynn did was illegal. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 2, 2017 14:36:22 GMT -5
And the point, RJ, is that the Incoming president is not allowed to conduct foreign policy, only the sitting president. That's the point of the Logan Act, that's what the Constitution says. You have admitted that what Flynn did was illegal. Thank you. If that is "the point" it is demonstrably wrong. One can not simply flip a switch at the inauguration and turn the whole US foreign policy over to the incoming administration. Such an idea is ludicrous. |
|
|
|
Post by breakingbad on Dec 2, 2017 16:59:17 GMT -5
And the point, RJ, is that the Incoming president is not allowed to conduct foreign policy, only the sitting president. That's the point of the Logan Act, that's what the Constitution says. You have admitted that what Flynn did was illegal. Thank you. As much as you would love that to be true, it just isn't. Even Lefty Leon says as much... |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 2, 2017 17:09:39 GMT -5
Yahoo News/HuffPoFlynn is prepared to testify that the Trump administration directed him to contact Russian officials AFTER the election, during the transition, to discuss defeating ISIS. This is in NO WAY illegal. There is no campaign collusion here, as these contacts took place after Hillary lost to Trump. ABC, no doubt under the thrall of its own uncontrolled confirmation bias, initially reported the contacts took place prior to the election.
|
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 2, 2017 17:15:34 GMT -5
And the point, RJ, is that the Incoming president is not allowed to conduct foreign policy, only the sitting president. That's the point of the Logan Act, that's what the Constitution says. You have admitted that what Flynn did was illegal. Thank you. And Flynn wasn't accused of "conducting foreign policy". He was accused of lying to the FBI. Every incoming administration sets up contact with foreign officials, because they are the ones the administration will deal with when they are seated. Period. What you are claiming is that every administration, at least since TR has violated "the law", since every one of them contacted the officials from foreign nations that they would be working with. Discussion of current foreign policy is not "setting foreign policy". If that were the case, where is your outrage that The Gigolo tried to surrender the country to the N VN? He DID try to set foreign policy, as a civilian. |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 2, 2017 18:00:34 GMT -5
And the point, RJ, is that the Incoming president is not allowed to conduct foreign policy, only the sitting president. That's the point of the Logan Act, that's what the Constitution says. You have admitted that what Flynn did was illegal. Thank you. As much as you would love that to be true, it just isn't. Even Lefty Leon says as much...And Mr. Panetta admits that it's his opinion, not fact. At least not yet. |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 2, 2017 18:04:54 GMT -5
And the point, RJ, is that the Incoming president is not allowed to conduct foreign policy, only the sitting president. That's the point of the Logan Act, that's what the Constitution says. You have admitted that what Flynn did was illegal. Thank you. If that is "the point" it is demonstrably wrong. One can not simply flip a switch at the inauguration and turn the whole US foreign policy over to the incoming administration. Such an idea is ludicrous. So you want to ignore the Constitution? No private citizen -- and Flynn was a private citizen in December, as was Trump and his son-in-law also -- has the authority to engage in or conduct foreign affairs unless authorized by the President. No authorization, no ability to do it. Since you're making the claim, do you have examples of any prior incoming administrations conducting foreign affairs before taking office? |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 2, 2017 18:18:48 GMT -5
If that is "the point" it is demonstrably wrong. One can not simply flip a switch at the inauguration and turn the whole US foreign policy over to the incoming administration. Such an idea is ludicrous. So you want to ignore the Constitution? No private citizen -- and Flynn was a private citizen in December, as was Trump and his son-in-law also -- has the authority to engage in or conduct foreign affairs unless authorized by the President. No authorization, no ability to do it. Since you're making the claim, do you have examples of any prior incoming administrations conducting foreign affairs before taking office? No, he wasn't. He was part of the incoming Administration. He was absolutely authorized to talk to anyone he wanted about foreign policy. He couldn't set foreign policy, but he could talk to them about anything he wanted. Just as any citizen can talk to anyone he wants, even about foreign policy, any time he wants. He can't "set" foreign policy. As a member of the incoming Administration, he was absolutely allowed to discuss foreign policy. That's not "conducting" foreign policy. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 2, 2017 18:22:31 GMT -5
If that is "the point" it is demonstrably wrong. One can not simply flip a switch at the inauguration and turn the whole US foreign policy over to the incoming administration. Such an idea is ludicrous. So you want to ignore the Constitution? No private citizen -- and Flynn was a private citizen in December, as was Trump and his son-in-law also -- has the authority to engage in or conduct foreign affairs unless authorized by the President. No authorization, no ability to do it. Since you're making the claim, do you have examples of any prior incoming administrations conducting foreign affairs before taking office? Neither Trump, nor Flynn, nor Kushner were "private citizens" in December. They were the President Elect of the United States and members of his transition team. If you want to pretend transition teams do not work with foreign governments on policy goals prior to the inauguration, I'm not even going to try rebutting you. That assertion is absurd on its face. Finally, how about you familiarizing yourself with the Constitutuion? The First Amendment allows private citizens to conduct business with foreign governments. The only thing that limits that is the aforementioned Logan Act, which most legal scholars believe is unconstitutional, because of the 1A. Why do you hate freedom of speech so damn much? |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 2, 2017 18:31:43 GMT -5
So you want to ignore the Constitution? No private citizen -- and Flynn was a private citizen in December, as was Trump and his son-in-law also -- has the authority to engage in or conduct foreign affairs unless authorized by the President. No authorization, no ability to do it. Since you're making the claim, do you have examples of any prior incoming administrations conducting foreign affairs before taking office? No, he wasn't. He was part of the incoming Administration. He was absolutely authorized to talk to anyone he wanted about foreign policy. He couldn't set foreign policy, but he could talk to them about anything he wanted. Just as any citizen can talk to anyone he wants, even about foreign policy, any time he wants. He can't "set" foreign policy. As a member of the incoming Administration, he was absolutely allowed to discuss foreign policy. That's not "conducting" foreign policy. That's just it. It really is conducting foreign policy. Working with the Russians to figure out what is going to happen to US-Russian relations on January 21 is both setting foreign policy, and conducting it. And it's vitally important for both countries to know that prior to January 20. This is a necessary function and an absolute duty of the transition team. This was Flynn doing his duty. It is in no way a crime. |
|
