Yes and no.
The problem for Flynn, is that action was taken by the Russians as a result of his request.
When you agree with a foreign agent and action is taken, action that is contrary to US policy, you violate the Logan Act.
Had the Russians not acted until Trump was President, no harm, no foul.
All of this is about timing.
“When you agree with a foreign agent and action is taken, action that is contrary to US policy, you violate the Logan Act.”
No. At least, a lot of lawyers say it doesn’t. Not when EVERY transition team HAS to discuss upcoming policy BEFORE taking office.
CNN’s take back in February:
“Here’s the rub. The 218-year-old Logan Act has almost no track record, and no one has ever been prosecuted under it.
Only once, in 1803, was someone even indicted: a Kentucky farmer who wrote an article advocating for a separate Western nation allied with France. But the Louisiana Purchase later that year made the matter obsolete, the Congressional Research Service reported....
...In addition, the law’s mention of a person acting “without authority of the United States” could be an escape hatch, Vladeck has written.
Flynn wasn’t simply a private citizen; he was an adviser to the President-elect and soon would be given diplomatic powers. Legally speaking, his role may have granted him the “authority” to talk sanctions with Kislyak, Vladeck’s interpretation suggests.”
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/14/politics/michael-flynn-logan-act/
ABC’s take from teh same time:
” Even hypothetically, legal analyst Holloway said he “could not stand in court and make the argument that that is a private person” because Flynn was an official member of the Trump transition team and national security adviser appointee at the time of his conversations with Kislyak.
Professor Vladeck said, “It’s not clear to me that a member of the transition team like Gen. Flynn is even violating the Logan Act in so far it’s not clear that he’s acting ‘without the authority of the United States.’”
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/explaining-logan-act-dems-mike-flynn-violated/story?id=45481930
“Although Steve has previously suggested that the Logan Act couldn’t be used to prosecute members of the presidential transition team (if it could be used at all, given that it’s been moribund for over 200 years and is, in any event, a content-based restriction on speech), an exchange over e-mail between us about Steve’s prior post led to this Q&A that more fully fleshes out those arguments”:
https://www.justsecurity.org/37763/qa-michael-flynn-prosecuted-logan-act/
Also see:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/logan-act-flynn.html
I see critical thinking is not your strong point. How does asking the Russian not to over react to Obama’s sanctions go against American interests?