• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sources: Kushner directed Flynn to contact Russian ambassador

phattonez said:
And the crime is, what, exactly?
Click to expand...

That's what I'm trying to find out. What was the contact for? It can't be for the collusion thing since it was after the election.
 
phattonez said:
And the crime is, what, exactly?
Click to expand...

Where have you been??? It has been kicked around that it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act
The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that details the fine and/or imprisonment of unauthorized citizens who negotiate with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States.
Click to expand...

But it could be part of all sorts of criminal acts including conspiracy, lying to the FBI (Kushner met with the FBI about Flynn), obstruction, etc.

I would have to be something really UNIMPORTANT for Mueller to give Flynn a sweetheart deal for in part, that information?
Is that what you're saying? Or are you saying we know the inner workings of Mueller's team?

Mueller will be the one to tell you what criminal charges are worth our time, not forum posters.

Flynn appears to have gotten a sweetheart deal in part at least, to finger Kushner. It would be absurd to suggest Mueller did this without knowing that it would lead to criminal charges or a deal with Kushner, which would lead you know, one step higher.
 
Mach said:
Where have you been??? It has been kicked around that it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act


But it could be part of all sorts of criminal acts including conspiracy, lying to the FBI (Kushner met with the FBI about Flynn), obstruction, etc.

I would have to be something really UNIMPORTANT for Mueller to give Flynn a sweetheart deal for in part, that information?
Is that what you're saying? Or are you saying we know the inner workings of Mueller's team?

Mueller will be the one to tell you what criminal charges are worth our time, not forum posters.

Flynn appears to have gotten a sweetheart deal in part at least, to finger Kushner. It would be absurd to suggest Mueller did this without knowing that it would lead to criminal charges or a deal with Kushner, which would lead you know, one step higher.
Click to expand...

Well they all may have a family reunion, behind bars.
 
holbritter said:
That's what I'm trying to find out. What was the contact for? It can't be for the collusion thing since it was after the election.
Click to expand...

see above.

There is no crime for "collusion", you'll need to update your understanding of that to get that part resolved.
No, any number of those crimes are still applicable.
And just so you know, quid pro quo is quid pro quo. It is not necessary that the return favor occur before the deal...that would be absurd to assume.

How would they even find evidence of Putin directly asking Trump to do X for Y? They would never say that. Putin would never be so stupid. Even if they were taped, Putin would never say that, this guy is former KGB and has run Russia for a long time. If that's the only thing you think is relevant, that's really worrisome.
 
holbritter said:
That's what I'm trying to find out. What was the contact for? It can't be for the collusion thing since it was after the election.
Click to expand...

JANFU said:
Logan Act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act
Click to expand...

I'd also add: bear in mind that Nixon didn't go down for the break-in. He went down for the cover-up.




Team Trump has been fighting this since day 1, including personal contacts by Trump with congress critters pushing them to end investigation (ie, potential obstruction charge). Flynn himself just went down for obstruction. One wonders whether they've already dug themselves in.
 
Why was it important to tell Russia not to react "harshly" to news of the sanctions? Does "harshly" mean something we're not seeing?
 
Mach said:
Where have you been??? It has been kicked around that it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act


But it could be part of all sorts of criminal acts including conspiracy, lying to the FBI (Kushner met with the FBI about Flynn), obstruction, etc.

I would have to be something really UNIMPORTANT for Mueller to give Flynn a sweetheart deal for in part, that information?
Is that what you're saying? Or are you saying we know the inner workings of Mueller's team?

Mueller will be the one to tell you what criminal charges are worth our time, not forum posters.

Flynn appears to have gotten a sweetheart deal in part at least, to finger Kushner. It would be absurd to suggest Mueller did this without knowing that it would lead to criminal charges or a deal with Kushner, which would lead you know, one step higher.
Click to expand...

The Logan Act????!!! Ha Ha Ha.
Flynn was the incoming NSA director. I would suspect he would be authorized to talk to the Russian ambassador.
 
Mr Person said:
I'd also add: bear in mind that Nixon didn't go down for the break-in. He went down for the cover-up.




Team Trump has been fighting this since day 1, including personal contacts by Trump with congress critters pushing them to end investigation (ie, potential obstruction charge). Flynn himself just went down for obstruction. One wonders whether they've already dug themselves in.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, from the several people who directed Flynn in his contacts with the Russian Ambassador, to those that were briefed. That could be a tad higher than 2 or 3.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The Logan Act????!!! Ha Ha Ha.
Flynn was the incoming NSA director. I would suspect he would be authorized to talk to the Russian ambassador.
Click to expand...

No to undermine present foreign policy. Let me tell ya, they ain't laughing in the WH or within the Trump family.
 
Last edited:
Mach said:
see above.

There is no crime for "collusion", you'll need to update your understanding of that to get that part resolved.
No, any number of those crimes are still applicable.
And just so you know, quid pro quo is quid pro quo. It is not necessary that the return favor occur before the deal...that would be absurd to assume.

How would they even find evidence of Putin directly asking Trump to do X for Y? They would never say that. Putin would never be so stupid. Even if they were taped, Putin would never say that, this guy is former KGB and has run Russia for a long time. If that's the only thing you think is relevant, that's really worrisome.
Click to expand...

That's practically all anyone posts about....Russian collusion. I didn't know about the Logan Act being in the mix, that's why I'm asking questions....sorry to bother you.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The Logan Act????!!! Ha Ha Ha.
Flynn was the incoming NSA director. I would suspect he would be authorized to talk to the Russian ambassador.
Click to expand...

Not so sure. And it's not merely talk. Apparently negotiations.
 
JANFU said:
Not to undermine present foreign policy. Let me tell ya, they ain't laughing in the WH or within the Trump family.
Click to expand...

How do we know it would undermine anything? Obama after all promised full cooperation with the transition.
 
ecofarm said:
Not so sure. And it's not merely talk. Apparently negotiations.
Click to expand...

And? Trump, not Obama, would need to deal with the fallout from the sanctions.
 
Mr Person said:
I'd also add: bear in mind that Nixon didn't go down for the break-in. He went down for the cover-up.




Team Trump has been fighting this since day 1, including personal contacts by Trump with congress critters pushing them to end investigation (ie, potential obstruction charge). Flynn himself just went down for obstruction. One wonders whether they've already dug themselves in.
Click to expand...

Nobody has ever been prosecuted for violating the Logan Act. It comes up all the time and its ignored. First time for everything though.
 
I've got a problem the 2nd charge in the Statement of Offense. The charge in that section is that Flynn's false statements impeded the investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election. Since these discussions between Flynn and Kislyak happened in December of 2016 they could not have influenced the election as the election had been over for damned near 2 months at that point.

Yeah, it looks like Flynn lied to the FBI but I have no idea why he chose to do so as it appears that he did nothing wrong in his communications.

If these guys decide to go after Trump for a Logan Act violation and succeed it will set an absurd precedent for all future administrations. A finding that Trump and/or his campaign violated the Act and a prosecution based on that finding will mean that no future elected official can have any contact with any foreign entity between the time of their election and the date they take office. That will absolutely cripple any candidate's ability to begin performing their Constitutional duties in a timely manner. It will also allow the outgoing administration to totally submarine any policy they anticipate the incoming administration will implement.
 
Athanasius68 said:
And? Trump, not Obama, would need to deal with the fallout from the sanctions.
Click to expand...

Flynn was apparently negotiating on behalf of the US without actually being the NSA. Things he was negotiating, as directed by Kushner:

1. Russia not react "harshly" to news of US sanctions. Everyone knew the sanctions were coming. No one should be surprised. What is the "harsh" response. Russia did nothing.

2. UN votes.

Does "gonnabe NSA" qualify someone for such negotiations? Is there something more going on.
 
Samhain said:
Nobody has ever been prosecuted for violating the Logan Act. It comes up all the time and its ignored. First time for everything though.
Click to expand...

That's true.

My point was that even if nobody gets prosecuted for a Logan Act violation, they might have done something like Flynn and end up going down for obstructing justice or something. Time will tell....
 
Lutherf said:
I've got a problem the 2nd charge in the Statement of Offense. The charge in that section is that Flynn's false statements impeded the investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election. Since these discussions between Flynn and Kislyak happened in December of 2016 they could not have influenced the election as the election had been over for damned near 2 months at that point.

Yeah, it looks like Flynn lied to the FBI but I have no idea why he chose to do so as it appears that he did nothing wrong in his communications.
Click to expand...

These things could be resulting from previous contact and deals prior to the election. Even if they are not, what's going on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom