Skip to comments.White House Counsel Knew in January Flynn Probably Violated the Law
Posted on 12/21/2017 9:43:49 PM PST by SSS Two
Don McGahn was looking at whether the national security advisor violated federal laws just days after Trump moved into the White House.
The White House turned over records this fall to special counsel Robert Mueller revealing that in the very first days of the Trump presidency, Don McGahn researched federal law dealing both with lying to federal investigators and with violations of the Logan Act, a centuries-old federal law that prohibits private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments, according to three people with direct knowledge of the confidential government documents.
The records reflected concerns that McGahn, the White House counsel, had that Michael Flynn, then the presidents national security advisor, had possibly violated either one or both laws at the time, according to two of the sources. The disclosure that these records exist and that they are in the possession of the special counsel could bolster any potential obstruction of justice case against President Donald Trump.
The records that McGahn turned over to the special counsel, portions of which were read to this reporter, indicate he researched both statutes and warned Trump about Flynns possible violations.
McGahn conducted the analysis shortly after learning that Flynn, on Dec. 29, 2016 while Barack Obama was still president had counseled the Russian ambassador to the United States at the time, Sergey Kislyak, not to retaliate against U.S. economic sanctions imposed against Russia by the outgoing administration.
McGahn believed that Flynn, and possibly anyone who authorized or approved of such contacts, would be in potential violation of the Logan Act, according to two of the sources, both of whom work in the administration.
(Excerpt) Read more at foreignpolicy.com ...
But let's stipulate that it isn't unconstitutional for purposes of discussion. What Flynn is accused of doesn't even violate the Logan Act. The Logan Act purports to prohibit negotiating with foreign governments. According to published reports, Flynn didn't negotiate with anyone - foreign or domestic. Negotiation requires a discussion of give and take. Flynn made a request. He asked the Russians not to retaliate against U.S. sanctions. No account even suggests that Flynn asked for something in return.
Plus, if he was acting on behalf of the president elect, he wasnt negotiating as a private citizen.
how would anyone know he violated anything until he was charged?....still grasping at straws.
this McGhan dont sound too bright...
More I’ve heard about it, Flynn’s crime seems completely insignificant.
Logan Act my ass. In Sept of 2008, Obama went to Iraq and met with their leaders. He convinced them to not sign the status of forces agreement with Bush because he would be president in a few months.
Or howzabout McCain who has negotiated against America all over the world.
Or Obama again, who goes on tours meeting governmental leaders right after everywhere Trump goes.
Let’s not forget California governor Jerry Brown, who recently went to Europe negotiating with foreign governments as though he were the head of state, instead of the head of an individual American state.
Right on que. Trump has a big week and the Russia Collusion thing seems to be hitting a wall. Time for some leaks and a pivot to obstruction of justice to keep Mueller coup detat alive and well.
It’s already been stated that Obama gave his approval to these contacts. Lawyers can research the legality of things all they want. It requires legal contortions to argue Trump obstructed justice to cover up some tiny non-crime.
SSS Two: You are right about the Logan Act. The act concerns “negotiations” by a private citizen with a government, an action that only certified govt diplomats can legally do.
Now, if you want to prosecute someone who did violate the Logan Act, just look at what both comrade Tom Hayden and his puppet wife Jane Fonda have said publicly about their relationships with the Viet Cong/PRG and the No. Vietnamese, esp. during their October, 1973 trip to get their marching orders from them about setting up a formal anti-aid lobbying campaign re US military aid to SVN.
I just had and misplaced a “testimony/study” about the communists criminally misusing the tax-exempt status of churches and foundations to launder money to the Hanoi Lobby and its constituent components for lobbying activities during the Vietnam war. It was attached as a “Statement” to the House Ways & Means Committee in 1987 re the hearings on possible revision of the tax-exempt status laws.
This study focused on not only the Logan Act, but also the Foreign Agents Registration Act and the Lobbying Act of 1946. Most of these laws were never enforced because the IRS felt that they were too ambiguous concerning what percentage of time/tax exempt money could be allowed for limited lobbying if that was not the main purpose of the tax-exempt (educational, charitable, etc) organization.
The Communist Party USA set up several such tax-exempt organizations to get tax-deductible donates for aid to the Viet Cong, Pathet Lao, and No. Vietnamese, including the Bach Mai Hospital/Fund, “FRIENDSHIPMENT”, etc.
Hayden’s own Indochina Peace Campaign took over running the “Coalition to Stop Funding the War” which was made up largely of national church organizations who funneled tax-exempt donations to the Hanoi Lobby.
The “Indochina Peace Campaign” was led by Hayden, Fonda, Bill Zimmerman (Medical Aid to Indochina, another pro-communist tax-exempt front), Don Luce, etc. Hayden openly admitted that he got his orders from the No. Vietnamese and their puppet front in So. Vietnam, the PRG (Provisional Revolutionary Govt/National Liberation Front-Viet Cong).
Human Events newspaper and a few others ran stories about how the IPC was able to operate on Capital Hill do to the help of Marxist congressmen giving them office space.
More on some aspects of this issue will be coming out in an article and/books next year on Vietnam.
When the Left talks about the Logan Act, tell them to blow it out their ignorant asses because, like hot gas, it has no substance. The government refused to prosecute legitimate cases under it when it had a chance, esp. with Hayden and his Hanoi Lobby operations, but Watergate derailed a hearing into it which might have actually brought the Logan Act to life.
So why is it wrong not to want a retaliation against our sanctions...? In other words, the Russians were asked to turn the other cheek? Wow...put Flynn in jail for 200 years..../sarcasm!
Believe me you can dismiss this entire pile of horse manure from this Left Wing rag.
Saw the Logan Act. Stopped reading.
Lying to the FBI should not be a crime. No one should be forced to talk to or tell the truth to the Federal Government unless under Oath and even then they should not talk at all without an iron clad immunity agreement.
Negotiation requires a discussion of give and take. Flynn made a request. He asked the Russians not to retaliate against U.S. sanctions. No account even suggests that Flynn asked for something in return.
Good observation. But the free speech issue is serious. If you were to meet with the Russian ambassador and say, “I’m going to oppose sanctions as a politically involved private citizen, and I urge your govetnment to go easy on the Ukraine,” you would be engaging in free speech — even though you would be hoping for a quid pro quo. The reason is that there is nothing illegal about politically opposing sanctions on a country with whom we are not at war, or urging that country not to invade a country that we are supporting.
They would have to prove intent that the research of those statutes were directly because of Flynn and not, say, because of Obama’s alleged violations of Logan.
Headline written with contemptible cunning: He “Knew” that Flynn “Probably” broke the law. Meant to convey to the reader that a senior administration official had actual knowledge of criminal conduct, when the body of the article makes clear that he man researched the topic and only concluded that there was a probability, which information was handed over to the special counsel. What the hell is wrong with that? Yes, the headline includes the word “Probably” but including “Knew” implies some sort of guilty knowledge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.