Flynn charged with one count of making false statement

a reply to: Sillyolme

Plus this just now:

Jared Kushner Can’t Pass His Security Clearance Investigation, Officials Say
www.newsweek.com...

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: soberbacchus

As part of the transition team the Logan act does not apply.

It is not illegal to speak to the Russians or meet with them over foreign policy issues.

????

You just make stuff up. Its wild. Have you figured out Flynn was not indicted but rather charged yet?

And yes, it is Illegal for a transition team to conduct foreign policy when they are not in office.

Asking the Russians to delay a UN vote or assuring them that Sanctions would be reversed and telling them not to react is absolutely conducting foreign policy and undermining the United States Government.

That's based on a law from 1799. Only twice in 218 years has anyone ever tried to enforce it, and both times they failed. It would be the ultimate Hail Mary pass if Mueller tried to indict anyone on it.

Considering the law violates the 1st and 5th amendments its no wonder its not used.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: soberbacchus

As part of the transition team the Logan act does not apply.

It is not illegal to speak to the Russians or meet with them over foreign policy issues.

????

You just make stuff up. Its wild. Have you figured out Flynn was not indicted but rather charged yet?

And yes, it is Illegal for a transition team to conduct foreign policy when they are not in office.

Asking the Russians to delay a UN vote or assuring them that Sanctions would be reversed and telling them not to react is absolutely conducting foreign policy and undermining the United States Government.

That's based on a law from 1799. Only twice in 218 years has anyone ever tried to enforce it, and both times they failed. It would be the ultimate Hail Mary pass if Mueller tried to indict anyone on it.

Considering the law violates the 1st and 5th amendments its no wonder its not used.

So does the FARA act, now that you mention it. I suspect that it would be declared unconstitutional if someone stood their ground and fought it in court.

Here's a pattern I've noticed about the right wing regarding anyone they like being investigated.

1) "He didn't do it"
2) "Ok, he did it. But it wasn't illegal"
3) *turns out it was illegal* ....*crickets*

originally posted by: Eshel
Here's a pattern I've noticed about the right wing regarding anyone they like being investigated.

1) "He didn't do it"
2) "Ok, he did it. But it wasn't illegal"
3) *turns out it was illegal* ....*crickets*

Whereas you guys on the left have no standards so you just openly embrace your bad guys.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: Sillyolme

Plus this just now:

Jared Kushner Can’t Pass His Security Clearance Investigation, Officials Say
www.newsweek.com...

The President is the final authority for security clearance and can allow it for anyone he sees fit. I dont think you want to go down the road of people and qualified for security clearance when your standing in your huge glass house.

originally posted by: Eshel
Here's a pattern I've noticed about the right wing regarding anyone they like being investigated.

1) "He didn't do it"
2) "Ok, he did it. But it wasn't illegal"
3) *turns out it was illegal* ....*crickets*

More like
1) "He didn't do it"..but Hillary did
2) "Ok, he did it. But it wasn't illegal"..BUT HILLARY
3) *turns out it was illegal* ....BUT HILLARY!!!!!!!

a reply to: soberbacchus

I repeat. No standards. You embrace it.

originally posted by: amazing
Imagine if Obama would have done this. All the conservatives on ATS would be calling for his impeachment but because Trump is a "Republican" You defend this.

Projecting much?

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: soberbacchus

As part of the transition team the Logan act does not apply.

It is not illegal to speak to the Russians or meet with them over foreign policy issues.

????

You just make stuff up. Its wild. Have you figured out Flynn was not indicted but rather charged yet?

And yes, it is Illegal for a transition team to conduct foreign policy when they are not in office.

Asking the Russians to delay a UN vote or assuring them that Sanctions would be reversed and telling them not to react is absolutely conducting foreign policy and undermining the United States Government.

That's based on a law from 1799. Only twice in 218 years has anyone ever tried to enforce it, and both times they failed. It would be the ultimate Hail Mary pass if Mueller tried to indict anyone on it.

Considering the law violates the 1st and 5th amendments its no wonder its not used.

So does the FARA act, now that you mention it. I suspect that it would be declared unconstitutional if someone stood their ground and fought it in court.

The FARA act is different as it requires the person in question to notify the Federal government that they are acting on behalf of and in the interest of another foreign government inside the United States.

Far different than telling a US citizen they cant speak to people of a foreign government / country.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Sillyolme

I told you guys that like five pages back. Get with the program.

I had to leave. When I went out when there were nine pages. When I came back there were eighteen. So I skipped a few. sorry dude.
I didn't sign up for any program.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Whereas you guys on the left have no standards so you just openly embrace your bad guys.

childish

a reply to: soberbacchus

He had to have something good to offer them.
Now we know it was kushner.

a reply to: Sillyolme

You missed the 12 pages of the typical Trumpeters deflecting, misdirecting, Hillarying, fake news-ing, and Obama'ing. I even think there was some muslim brotherhood BS in there somewhere.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I imagine that would depend on just what they were talking about??
I most certainly would hope that something like this:
www.nytimes.com...

would break some law somewhere???

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: soberbacchus

He had to have something good to offer them.
Now we know it was kushner.

What law or laws did Kushner break?

a reply to: fiverx313

No more so than what I replied to.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: soberbacchus

He had to have something good to offer them.
Now we know it was kushner.

What law or laws did Kushner break?

Clearly he directed Flynn to contact Russia to collude to help Trump win an election that took place in November ... in December!

You know how dumb these Republicans are! sheesh!

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: soberbacchus

As part of the transition team the Logan act does not apply.

It is not illegal to speak to the Russians or meet with them over foreign policy issues.

????

You just make stuff up. Its wild. Have you figured out Flynn was not indicted but rather charged yet?

And yes, it is Illegal for a transition team to conduct foreign policy when they are not in office.

Asking the Russians to delay a UN vote or assuring them that Sanctions would be reversed and telling them not to react is absolutely conducting foreign policy and undermining the United States Government.

That's based on a law from 1799. Only twice in 218 years has anyone ever tried to enforce it, and both times they failed. It would be the ultimate Hail Mary pass if Mueller tried to indict anyone on it.

Considering the law violates the 1st and 5th amendments its no wonder its not used.

So does the FARA act, now that you mention it. I suspect that it would be declared unconstitutional if someone stood their ground and fought it in court.

The FARA act is different as it requires the person in question to notify the Federal government that they are acting on behalf of and in the interest of another foreign government inside the United States.

Far different than telling a US citizen they cant speak to people of a foreign government / country.

I would argue it has the effect of criminalizing dealings with foreign governments, unless the person jumps thru a bunch of administrative hoops. Plus, the way it is employed suggests it's mainly a political tool. As such, strict scrutiny should be applied to judge it's constitutionality.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: soberbacchus

Uhm yeah...

Flynn was indicted.

How do you think they got the charge? From a grand jury. Also take note of the dates of the incident.

2016.

It's dated yesterday dude. The conversations in question were in 2016. Before they should have been talking to anybody about undermining sanctions the Obama administration had just entered. For instance...