Posted on 12/04/2017 6:52:33 AM PST by Golden Eagle
“Why would Flynn need to be told to contact the Russians when, according to democrats, Trump and his whole team had been colluding with them all along?”
LOL!!! EXCELLENT point!!!
Now, why doesn’t ANYBODY in this administration ask this same question???
You make a great point in the abstract. However, technically Mueller's case seems to have dropped any pretense of pre-election collusion, and is now focusing on Flynn's connections AFTER the election, and specifically phone calls to Russia and Israel regarding Obama policies or plans that Trump wanted to thwart. This is where the discussion will soon be focused, if not already later today.
“And, supposedly, the Russian responded that they had in fact changed their policy after Flynn’s call”
What “policy” did they change. Here’s a hint - none!
The Russians not (over)reacting aggressively to Obozo’s sanctions (as Flynn requested) is not them changing a policy.
I think you are 1000% correct! And every Republican should be going into 100% war mode (against this Democrat plot) and be screaming about it form the highest peaks.
Wait, did I just say Republicans go into war mode?!?!
Nevermind.......
Exactly what policy change AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES did Russia implement after this contact with the Trump transition team?
100% agree... but, when and how does this stop?
Logan Act violations? Well, maybe. But first investigate:
Jesse Jackson
James Earl Carter
Ted Kennedy - who actually asked the COMMUNIST Soviet Union’s leadership to intervene in the 1984 election to stop Reagan from being elected.
Dennis Rodman
William Jefferson Clinton - Uranium One, anyone?
Barrack Hussein Obama
Investigate those people first, and convict THEM of violating the Logan Act, and then we can talk about Trump and his (former) aides (and, BTW, there’s no case there WHATSOEVER).
I do get what York is saying, that the Obama and Clinton people, and other assorted Leftists, WANT to use the Logan Act to bring down Trump. Hell, they’d use a 3-legged, talking, octogenarian, Skittles-crapping unicorn to bring him down - if they thought that it might work. But it STILL bothers me that the people that I have listed above have never been investigated for such violations, which are clear as day.
Ok fine, they changed their “plans,” supposedly, according to recorded phone calls. It still meets Mueller’s definition of a Logan Act violation, and he’s the one arresting people right now. As I said I don’t support their interpretation, but we need to at least come to grips with what we’re facing to better challenge it, because nothing has slowed him down yet.
Logan act? Wouldnt that apply to Obama’s shadow government OFA and trips abroads following Trump footsteps in copycat
Great question, and the answer is obviously none, as far as we conservatives are concerned. The issue seems to be that Obama was the President then, so his actions and desires were considered the official interests of the United States, as horrible as that seems.
It's very hard to wrap our heads around it, I understand, but that is the point of this post. Not to agree with them, but to dissect in order to counter.
“using an obscure law that hasn’t successfully convicted anyone in over 200+ years”
Not only has it not convicted anyone, it is a law where no one has ever gone to trial! In over 200 years, one person has been charged with violating it (in the 1800s). That case was dropped before it went to trial. There has never been a court case for violating the Logan Act. Not in 220 years.
So...if someone thinks the Logan Act is going to bring down Trump...they need to pull their heads out of their butts!
“Ok fine, they changed their “plans,” supposedly,”
Oh, so we KNOW for sure what the Russians’ plans were?? Oh wait, now I see you threw in a “supposedly” also.
So which is it, did they or did they not change their plans/policy? Source??
I don’t doubt you’re sincerity regarding not supporting the (apparent) IC interpretation of Logan, and that you’re honestly laying out what you think the plan of attack is against Trump. I”m just pointing out that I don’t think all your facts are accurate.
I’m not saying it’s likely, but I’m not assuming it’s impossible, either, in this current climate. We need to at least have a defense better than “this law has never been used before” if it is in fact a law.
Source??
I already said it was covered in the article. I say supposedly because what is on those tapes exactly is still unknown, to most everyone. Thanks for understanding I am only trying to formulate a defense, not carry their case forward.
The whole purpose of the "Russia collusion" nonsense was to concoct a story that would retroactively justify the illegal surveillance of the Trump campaign that had been going on for months.
They never bothered concocting a story before the election because they assumed Hillary Clinton would win and the phony FISA warrants to conduct this surveillance would never come to light.
except the only one CURRENTLY violating the Logan Act is Odumbass, the former ‘leader’ of the free world.
OK -- then let's go a step further ...
Exactly what policy change did Russia adopt that weighed against or contradicted anything the Obama administration did?
The contacts started after Trump won. The transition team had every
right and duty to contact heads of states of many countries.
Nothing illegal about that.
Byron York is dreaming.
This is another great point to make in the battle for public opinion.
Again, it’s in the article that no one wants to read. It is long, so I understand, but that also contributed to why I thought it was worthy of a thread.
Excerpted:
On the day Sherman appeared, Flynn spoke on the phone with Kislyak about that pending U.N. resolution concerning Israeli settlements. “Flynn informed the Russian ambassador about the incoming administration’s opposition to the resolution, and requested that Russia vote against or delay the resolution,” said the “Statement of the Offense,” the Mueller document released with Flynn’s guilty plea. The next day, Dec. 23, the two men spoke again and Kislyak informed Flynn that Russia would not do as the Trump team requested.
A few days later, on Dec. 29, Flynn and Kislyak spoke again, according to the Mueller statement. This time the subject was the new sanctions Obama imposed on Russia in retaliation for election meddling. Flynn “requested that Russia not escalate the situation and only respond to the U.S. sanctions in a reciprocal manner.”
Two days later, on Dec. 31, Kislyak called Flynn to say that “Russia had chosen not to retaliate in response to Flynn’s request.”
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.