Byron York: In Trump-Russia probe, was it all about the Logan Act?

Washington Examiner ^ | Byron York

[Golden Eagle]

The documents outlining Michael Flynn's guilty plea in the Trump-Russia investigation do not allege collusion or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the 2016 election. They do, however, suggest that the Obama Justice Department was intensely interested in Flynn's discussions with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak about policy issues — sanctions against Russia, a United Nations resolution on Israel — during the presidential transition, when Barack Obama was still in the White House and Donald Trump was preparing to take office.

At the time, top Justice officials suspected Flynn of violating the Logan Act, the 218-year-old law under which no one has ever been prosecuted, that prohibits private citizens from acting on behalf of the United States in disputes with foreign governments. Starting in the summer of 2016 and intensifying in the transition period, the Logan Act, while mostly unknown to the general public, became a hot topic of conversation among some Democrats. A number of lawmakers, former officials, and commentators called on the Obama administration to investigate the Trump team for a possible Logan Act violations — and to do it while Democrats still controlled the executive branch.

At the same time, inside the Obama Justice Department, it appears the Logan Act became a paramount concern among some key officials in the critical weeks of December 2016 and January 2017. Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates has told Congress that the Logan Act was the first reason she intervened in the Flynn case — the reason FBI agents were sent to the White House to interview Flynn in the Trump administration's early days. It was that interview, held on Jan. 24, 2017, that ultimately led to Flynn's guilty plea.

[JGT]

I think many of you are missing the overall point. The supposed “violation” of the Logan Act, whether it was wrongly applied or not, was the basis for the FISA court surveillance warrant on the Trump team. This was the justification put forth in the last weeks of the Obama Admin to wiretap everyone associated with the new administration.

[Alberta's Child]

I figured those were the two items the article would cite, since those were the only ones I've seen discussed in recent days.

1. On the subject of the U.N. resolution about the Israeli settlements, there's probably nothing that anyone could do that could be construed as acting against the interests of the United States. The United States abstained from voting on the resolution, which means (by definition) it was asserting that it had NO interests in the matter.

2. In terms of Russia's decision not to retaliate against the U.S. for the sanctions imposed by Obama, any allegation that this was somehow against the interests of the United States is laughable on its face. "I convinced them not to retaliate against the U.S., so I was obviously acting against our interests." WTF? LOL.

[Golden Eagle]

Good thinking. On #2, those were my exact thoughts, but as you say since it’s a circular argument, it’s hard to put down in words. On #1, it’s possible to come to that conclusion, so thanks for sharing.

Overall excellent post! Other Freepers should take note as these issues are where the goalposts will soon be moved.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

especially in a case like this where all of the evidence indicates that the requests made to the Russians were ultimately for the BENEFIT of the United States (i.e., asking the Russians not to react in an aggressive, adversarial manner to the sanctions that the Obama administration was imposing on them).

Did he have a “RESET” button he wanted to give them?