Break off discussion from the Trump thread.
I got most of my information from Greenwald’s podcast on the subject.
Obviously not going to listen to 200 podcasts but link to something you think is a good summary of your point of view and I’ll read it.
It seems like pre-diplomacy by an incoming senior administration official is one of the LEAST extreme cases of the Logan Act? Letting foreign powers know how the new administration is going to shift foreign policy seems like a thing any administration should be doing during the transition, right?
Keed I agree with you a lot but you’re straight up trolling. You clearly don’t even know the facts of the case. Stop.
Don’t have the time to devote to this stuff atm. The arguments have been rehashed in detail in many places. Don’t listen to GG. He’s basically a semi-smart crank, and is fundamentally flawed.
Listen to Popehat or Preet or many others for accurate information. I haven’t listened to the latest All The President’s Lawyers, but it’s an excellent podcast and the most recent 30 min episode is on Flynn.
I may be wrong but starting a thread devoted to the subject seems like an odd choice if I’m trolling. The trolling play would be to have continued the discussion in the high volume Trump thread.
I’ll try to listen to that. Any articles I can read that encapsulate your viewpoint?
Pretty much any news story not put out by The Intercept.
Right I’m asking you to recommend one you think is good.
Flynn’s lies mattered not because of some technicality about the Logan Act, Flynn’s lies mattered because they may have concealed a deal between Trump and Russia over sanctions.
We still remain unaware of what exactly was said to dissuade the Russians from retaliating and if the Russians asked for anything in return. We still don’t know whether Flynn acted on his own or was directed by tRUmp. We also have no idea whether Pence had been deceived when he delivered a false reassurance on national television or if he was actively involved in the deception.
Maybe this one can be a starting point for the two of you to debate.
I didn’t read the whole thing but I don’t think it’s a good starting point because it is examining minutia in excruciating detail. And none of her disputes with Greenwald seem to inform what I’m actually interested in discussing – what was Flynn actually guilty of and what was he investigated for? And was the Logan Act actually the underlying crime he was being investigated for when the FBI said Flynn lied?
As I understand the case, Flynn wasn’t being investigated in the sense of being suspected of committing a crime, but was being interviewed as part of a counterintelligence investigation of Russia. He’s guilty of lying about his contacts with the Russian ambassador and discussion of sanctions in a way that materially impeded the counterintelligence investigation.
The implication is that Robert Mueller had enough evidence to suspect but not prove that Donald Trump was aware of Flynn’s contacts and felt that Flynn’s lies prevented him from finding out. So, Flynn may have lied to prevent a Russia investigation from turning into a Trump investigation.
Any mention of the Logan Act feels like a red herring. It was explicitly said not to be one of the charges that were being considered before a plea deal was reached.
All this can be gleaned from documents that Wheeler links to.
How could a lie he told about his conversation with the Russian have materially impeded the counterintelligence investigation when the FBI had a transcript of the conversation? And my understanding is that Flynn knew that the FBI had such a transcript and referred to it in his interview, which, then he went on to purposefully lie to the FBI after that? Maybe he’s that dumb, I don’t know.
Lying to the police shouldn’t be a crime.
Maybe they wanted to see if he would be honest. If he answered truthfully, then they would feel comfortable asking him about other things, maybe if Trump knew about the call. If he lied, then he closed off that avenue of questioning.
Maybe he agreed to be the fall guy to protect Trump and Trump is supposed to have his back in return and keep him out of prison.
Maybe not. But since it is, I don’t think max leniency should be given to a guy who (a) knows it’s a crime because he has worked in the intelligence service for years (b) has a super sensitive job as the National Security Advisor and (c) is only getting leniency as a reward for being a good little soldier and not turning on his boss. I’m sorry but until Bill Barr starts cutting loose whole cell blocks full of people who got thrown in jail when a cop planted evidence on them or actually beat confessions out of them, he doesn’t get to cynically weaponize my outrage about the justice system in support of Flynn.
any other steps or is it pardon time?
Several. Flynn can appeal to the SCOTUS, though he’s a dog to get them to hear the case. Then the judge conducts the hearing he originally wanted to, which Flynn is likely to win. If he loses, he can start the s appeals of the actual decision all over.