Replies

It’s AMAZING how frequently people will pipe into a subject with a passionate opinion about something they clearly don’t have ANY understanding about.

I was not aware that citing or quoting various laws exhibited a passionate opinion.

Wut? Why in the world do you think this has anything to do with the “Logan Act?”

The Logan Act is a criminal statute and 37 U.S.C. 908 is not. The subject of 37 U.S.C. is PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES. Upon retirement, Flynn was made aware of the legal reporting requirement by a letter which stated, “The penalty for violating this law is suspension of retirement pay for military members during the period of the violation.”

This isn’t the only governing statute on the subject.

The cited statute only governs pay and allowances. It has nothing to do with a criminal prosecution. It is AMAZING how someone who can thinks a statute on pay and allowances is a governing statute for a criminal case opines about people who will "pipe into a subject with a passionate opinion about something they clearly don’t have ANY understanding about."

Moreover, Article I, Section 9 deals with restrctions upon the Leglsiative powers of Congress.

Section 9.
The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.
No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

Allegations against Flynn have generally focused upon alleged conduct in delivering a paid speech in Russia, and alleged lobbying for Turkey.

In making speeches, Michael Flynn worked for Leading Authorities Inc. (https://www.leadingauthorities.com/) The House Committee on Government Reform published documents related to Flynn on March 16, 2017. Included is the following exchange:

Q: Tell me about the RT relationship?
A. I was asked by my speaker's bureau, LAI. I do public speaking. It was in Russia. It was a paid speaking opportunity. I get paid so much. The speaker's bureau got paid so much, based on our contract.
[...]
The Oversight Committee has now obtained numerous documents confirming that RT was the source of these funds.
Specifically, the Committee has obtained a document labeled "Event Sheet" indicating that RT transferred funds in the amount of $45,386 to General Flynn's speakers' bureau, Leading Authorities, Inc., which included a $33,750 payment to General Flynn, $386 to cover the cost of visas, and a 25% commission of $ 11,250 for Leading Authorities.

LAI contracted with RT for the speech. LAI was paid by RT. Flynn worked under contract with LAI, and LAI paid Flynn pursuant to the contract between LAI and Flynn for services rendered to LAI. Whether Flynn gave a speech in New York or Russia, that is how it worked.

Michael Flynn was not employed by any king, prince, or foreign state. He accepted no emolument from any king, prince, or foreign state. In the alleged case of lobbying for Turkey, Bijan Rafiekian was a partner with Flynn in the Flynn Intelligence Group (FIG). "The Court held a hearing on the Motions on September 12, 2019, at the conclusion of which it took them under advisement. For the reasons stated below, the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law for the jury to convict Rafiekian on either count."

The Turkish lobbying case against Flynn died with the Rafiekian dismissal for insufficient evidence as a matter of law.

United States v. Rafiekian, et al, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, No. 18-cr-00457 (24 Sep 2019)

In summary, the following evidence was presented:
Rafiekian was the Vice-Chairman, Director, Secretary, and Treasurer of the Flynn Intel Group (“FIG”), which he co-founded and co-owned with retired Lt. Gen Michael Flynn, FIG’s Chairman and CEO. Alptekin is a Turkish businessman who is the owner of Inovo, BV, a Dutch company located in the Netherlands, and who was previously the Chairman of the Turkish-American Business Council.
On or about September 8, 2016, Flynn, on behalf of FIG, and Alptekin, on behalf of Inovo, entered into a written agreement, titled the Independent Advisory Services Agreement (the “Agreement”). See GEX 58 at 6. The Agreement stated that “[Inovo] is desirous of engaging [FIG] for a specified scope of work aimed at design and delivery of a series of results in discovery, analysis, packaging and presentation of findings in a credible, durable and easy to disseminate format over a period of three months from the execution of this agreement.” Id. The Agreement described the contemplated work as an “independent study and investigation engagement,” and specified that “[FIG’s] team” dedicated to the engagement would include Sphere Consulting (“Sphere”), “a top-tier public affairs and strategic reputation management firm based in Washington DC with global reach.” Id. With regard to the nature of the relationship between FIG and Inovo, the Agreement stated:
[FIG] is not an employee or agent of [Inovo]. [FIG] is an independent contractor engaged for specific purpose of providing advice relating to assisting the client with accomplishing the objectives of this engagement. [Inovo] expects [FIG] to act with complete objectivity in the design and execution of its investigative mission pertaining to this engagement. Further, [Inovo] is by no means dictating to [FIG] a specific predetermined outcome or a particular result. [FIG] acts in good faith and on the basis of best effort to obtain the goals of the engagement. The parties to this agreement recognize that [FIG] is not in a position to guarantee results in matters outside of [FIG]’s control.
Id. As to the scope of services, the Agreement provided:
[FIG] will activate its investigative laboratory comprised of its most senior principals including but not limited to former Director of United States Central Intelligence Agency, Former Director of the United States Defense Intelligence Agency, Former [C]hairman of the Audit Committee of the Export Import Bank of the United States, former Director of Intelligence for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Former Special Operations (Green Beret) investigator and intelligence officer, former Deputy Assistant Director of Federal Bureau of Investigations of the United States, [fjormer senior legal counsel to the United States Senate Committee on Intelligence, two senior former FBI specialist investigators, Chairman of the Asymmetric Institute of the Department of Military Studies at Johns Hopkins University and the head of Flynn Intel Group’s Special Operations Cyber Force. [FIG] has also retained an experienced filming and production crew with top-quality experience with outlets such as Reuters, Aljazeera, CNN, France 24 and other major media outlets. [FIG] shall hold weekly calls throughout the engagement over the period of 90 days to report engagement progress to [Inovo]. [FIG]’s Public Affairs unit will continue its specialized work throughout the engagement period. Lieutenant General Michael T. Flynn, Ret. U.S. Army, former Director of Defense Intelligence Agency shall lead this engagement.

Also from Rafiekian:

Nor has the Government presented sufficient evidence for a rational jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Rafiekian conspired with Alptekin or anyone else to violate 22 U.S.C. § 618(a)(2). There is no evidence of discussions or suggestions, let alone an agreement, express or implied, to either avoid filing under FARA or to cause the filing of a false FARA registration statement. As referenced above, following his conversations with Alptekin in August 2016 and in anticipation of FIG’s engagement with Inovo pertaining to Gulen, Rafiekian consulted with two law firms concerning his obligations to register under FARA before ultimately filing under the LDA in accordance with the legal advice he obtained. Likewise, Sphere, the experienced consultants retained by FIG, also considered their registration obligations and chose to file under the LDA after consulting with legal counsel. See Trial Tr. 639:15-640:2, [Doc. No. 331] (Miller). The Government contends that these filings simply reflected Rafiekian’s misrepresentations to his lawyers and to his consultants concerning his true relationship with the Turkish government or on whose behalf he and FIG were acting. But for the reasons discussed above, there is no evidence sufficient to establish that Rafiekian was, or thought he was, working as an agent of the Turkish government, or that the “client” was not, in fact, Inovo.
Nor can any conspiracy to violate FARA be inferred from the FARA filing itself for the reasons previously stated in the Court’s July 9, 2019 Order, which is incorporated herein by reference. See [Doc. No. 292 at 8-11, 29-31]. The superseding indictment alleges that the alleged conspiracy began from at least July 2016; but the DOJ did not even raise the specter of a need for a FARA filing until its letter to Flynn dated November 30, 2016 (which did not become known to Flynn until December 24, 2016), by which time FIG had ceased operations and was not performing any work for Inovo or anyone else. More centrally, there is no evidence of any communications between Rafiekian and anyone else concerning the substance of any FARA filing other than with Covington during its investigation into whether a FARA filing was necessary after it was retained by FIG and Flynn in December 2016 or early January 2017.
The Government claims “the three co-conspirators [Rafiekian, Flynn, and Alptekin] again gave substantially identical explanations [in the FARA filings] that the jury plainly deemed false and used as further evidence of a concerted agreement to lie.” [Doc. No. 365 at 20]. But that contention ignores the lack of evidence to establish the presumed conspiracy, or any agreement, among these three individuals concerning the FARA filing, as discussed above. In fact, until the eve of trial, the Government contended that Flynn was not part of the alleged conspiracy. There were also material differences in the explanations these individuals gave to Covington, particularly by Alptekin, but even accepting the Government’s characterization, no inference of a conspiracy could be drawn from those statement by themselves. See Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564-566 (2007) (parallel conduct by itself does not plausibly allege a conspiratorial agreement). For the above reasons, the Government failed to present substantial evidence for a rational juror to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Rafiekian knowingly participated in a conspiracy to (1) act as an unregistered agent of a foreign government in violation of Section 951; and (2) make willful and material false statements and omissions in a FARA filing in violation of 22 U.S.C. § 618(a)(2).

I strongly suspect the Logan Act because there has been a notorious effort to invoke the Logan Act against Flynn for several years now, and it is a criminal statute with criminal penalties.

The U.S. Supreme Court declared two emoluments cases against Donald Trump to be moot when Joe Biden was sworn in as President. Curiously, former President Trump was not recalled to duty but was subjected to an impeachment trial, a proceeding applicable to officers of the United States. However, the Supreme Court dismissed two Trump emoluments clause cases as moot when Joe Biden was sworn in.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF11086.pdf

Congressional Research Service, The Emoluments Clauses of the U.S.Constitution, updated 21 Janaury 2021.

Kevin J. Hickey, Legislative Attorney
Michael A. Foster, Legislative Attorney

Significant Litigation Involving the Emoluments Clauses
There had been no substantial litigation concerning the Emoluments Clauses until 2017, when a number of private parties, state attorneys general, and Members of Congress filed lawsuits against then-President Trump. These suits alleged that his retention of certain business and financial interests during his presidency—and his failure to seek congressional approval of interests relating to foreign governments—violated the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses. Three major federal lawsuits concerning the Emoluments Clauses were filed. Following the swearing-in of President Joe Biden in January 2021, however, the Supreme Court instructed the appellate courts to dismiss two of the cases as moot, and denied review in a third case that had been dismissed by a lower court. It thus appears that the cases will not yield definitive higher-court precedent regarding the meaning and scope of the Emoluments Clauses.
In Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington (CREW) v. Trump, No. 17-CV-458 (S.D.N.Y.), a nonprofit government ethics watchdog, along with various organizations and individuals associated with the hospitality industries in New York and Washington, DC, alleged violations of the Domestic and Foreign Emoluments Clauses through then-President Trump’s receipt of payments from the federal government and various foreign properties. For example, plaintiffs alleged that the Trump International Hotel’s continuing lease with the General Services Administration violated the Domestic Emoluments Clause, and that payments for services made to the Trump International Hotel by agents of foreign governments violated the Foreign Emoluments Clause. Then-President Trump moved to dismiss the suit, asserting that the plaintiffs lacked standing, and that the term “emoluments” did not extend to arm’s-length commercial transactions. The district court dismissed the case for lack of standing, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that the hospitality-industry plaintiffs had standing based on a theory of competitive harm resulting from the allegedly unlawful conduct. On January 25, 2021, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Second Circuit’s judgment without addressing the merits, and remanded the case to the appellate court with instructions to dismiss the case as moot in light of the end of Mr. Trump’s term as President.
In District of Columbia v. Trump, No. 17-1596 (D. Md.), the District of Columbia and the State of Maryland sued then-President Trump, alleging violations of the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses similar to those alleged in the CREW lawsuit. Then-President Trump moved to dismiss based on standing and a failure to state a claim. In a series of rulings, the district court held that the plaintiffs had standing based on alleged injuries related to the Trump International Hotel and that the plaintiffs had stated a claim because the term “emolument” reached any “profit, gain, or advantage, of more than de minimis value.” After the full Fourth Circuit declined to order the district court to certify an immediate appeal, then-President Trump sought review from the Supreme Court. Following the swearing-in of President Biden, the Supreme Court vacated the Fourth Circuit’s judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case as moot.

Also from the Congressional Research Service memo:

The Meaning of the Term “Emolument”
Black’s Law Dictionary defines an “emolument” as an “advantage, profit, or gain received as a result of one’s employment or one’s holding of office.”

Michael Flynn was not an employee of RT when he gave a paid speech in Russia; nor was he a United States officer.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/logan-act-and-its-limits

The Logan Act and its Limits
By Daniel J. Hemel, Eric A. Posner
Thursday, December 7, 2017, 12:07 PM
[Excerpt]
Former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s guilty plea in federal court last week has awoken interest in the long-dormant Logan Act. We argued in a New York Times op-ed on Monday that members of the Trump transition team, including Flynn, ran afoul of that statute in December 2016 when they urged Russia to veto a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Several others have raised the prospect of Logan Act liability as well.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/logan-act-michael-flynn-trump-russia/516774/

What Is the Logan Act and What Does It Have to Do With Flynn?
An obscure federal law is attracting attention amid controversy over the former National Security Adviser’s contacts with Russia.
Clare Foran
February 15, 2017
The Atlantic

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/496926-logan-act-is-the-last-refuge-for-the-american-prosecutorial-scoundrel

Logan Act is the last refuge for the American prosecutorial scoundrel
By Jonathan Turley, The Hill, opinion contributor 05/09/20 10:00 AM EDT

37 U.S.C. 908 is not a criminal statute. Upon retirement, Flynn was made aware of the requirement by a letter which stated, “The penalty for violating this law is suspension of retirement pay for military members during the period of the violation.”

37 U.S.C. 908 explicitly applies only to employment for compensation falling under Section 9 of Article 1 of the Constitution.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/37/908

37 U.S. Code § 908 - Employment of reserves and retired members by foreign governments
(a) Congressional Consent.—Subject to subsection (b), Congress consents to the following persons accepting civil employment (and compensation for that employment) for which the consent of Congress is required by the last paragraph of section 9 of article I of the Constitution, related to acceptance of emoluments, offices, or titles from a foreign government:
(1) Retired members of the uniformed services.
(2) Members of a reserve component of the armed forces.
(3) Members of the Commissioned Reserve Corps [1] of the Public Health Service.
(b) Approval Required.—
A person described in subsection (a) may accept employment or compensation described in that subsection only if the Secretary concerned and the Secretary of State approve the employment.
(c) Annual Reports on Approvals for Retired General and Flag Officers.—
Not later than January 31 each year, the Secretaries of the military departments, after consulting with the Secretary of State, shall jointly submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a report on each approval under subsection (b) for employment or compensation described in subsection (a) for a retired member of the armed forces in general or flag officer grade that was issued during the preceding year.
(d) Military Service in Foreign Armed Forces.—
For a provision of law providing the consent of Congress to service in the military forces of certain foreign nations, see section 1060 of title 10.
(Added Pub. L. 97–295, § 3(6)(A), Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1304; amended Pub. L. 102–25, title VII, § 702(b)(1), (c), Apr. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 117; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title XIV, § 1433(c), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1834; Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title X, § 1070(d)(6), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2858; Pub. L. 116–92, div. A, title VI, § 651(a), Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 1431.)

Failure to obtain prior approval risks loss of retirement pay for the affected period, pursuant to 37 U.S.C. 908. The Trump cases indicate that there is no constitutional liability under the emoluments clause for a former officer of the United States. While the Senate found Trump fell under the jurisdiction of the legislative branch for impeachment purposes, the Supreme Court found he did not fall under the jurisdiction of the judicial branch for purposes of criminal prosecution under the emoluments clause.

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep105/usrep105244/usrep105244.pdf

United States v Tyler, 105 US 244 (1882) is a Supreme Court opinion which found in 1882,

It is impossible to hold that men who are by statute declared to be a part of the army, who may wear its uniform, whose names shall be borne upon its register, who may be assigned by their superior officers to specified duties by detail as other officers are, who are subject to the rules and articles of war, and may be tried, not by a jury, as other citizens are, but by a military court-martial, for any breach of those rules, and who may finally be dismissed on such trial from the service in disgrace, are still not in the military service.
[...]
We are of opinion that retired officers are in the military service of the government, and that the increased pay of ten per cent for each five years' service applies to the years so passed in the service after retirement as well as before.

With respect to the administrative matter of what pay they are entitled to, retired members are members of the military service. As for trial of a retired member at court-martial, the member is recalled to active duty. However, he may only be tried by the military for offenses which occurred when he was on active duty. A non-service related trial would have to be in a judicial branch Article III court.

As for Michael Flynn, the same sewage is being recycled, but there is no apparent case to be made.