Natl Security Advisor Flynn may have violated law speaking w/ Russians

NewRoxFan · Feb 10, 2017

I posted earlier news on this in the trump cabinet thread but this story is gaining steam and may be the Trump administration's first major scandal so it seems it warranted its own thread.

The quick summary. Trump's National Security Adviser Michael Flynn met with Russian government officials prior to President Trump's inauguration. The Logan Act forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments having a dispute with the U.S. It was intended to prevent the undermining of the government's position. This meeting was known and reported about, but Flynn and the Trump administration described this meeting as social.

Now, reports are coming out that Flynn discussed existing (under Obama) and future sanctions under the incoming Trump presidency.

CNN is now reporting that Vice President Mike Pence did not know that National Security Adviser Michael Flynn may have spoken about sanctions with the Russian Ambassador in January pre-inauguration, and believes "it's a problem," a senior White House adviser told CNN Friday.

Republican Senator Mike Rounds said "If we've been misled we would expect the President to take appropriate actions".

Flynn was a controversial critic of the Obama administration after being forced out of his position as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Former Chief of Staff and Secretary of State Colin Powell on Flynn:
“I spoke at DIA last month,” Powell wrote in a July 19 email exchange with his son. “Flynn got fired as head of DIA. His replacement is a black Marine 3-star. I asked why Flynn got fired. Abusive with staff, didn’t listen, worked against policy, bad management, etc. He has been and was right-wing nutty every [sic] since. I watched about five minutes on line of his talked [sic] and switched off.”
The Washington Post reported when Flynn was forced out of the DIA that “critics said that his management style could be chaotic,” and he clashed with other senior intelligence officials. Flynn, when was being vetted as a possible vice presidential candidate for Trump, wrote in the New York Post that the “military fired me for calling our enemies radical jihadis.” In a profile of Flynn last month, the Washington Post spoke to a former senior U.S. intelligence official who disputed Flynn’s characterization of his firing, saying it was “about turbulence and a destructive climate” during his tenure.

robbie380 · Feb 10, 2017

Did we ever figure out if Tulsi Gabbard violated the Logan Act by simply meeting with Assad?

And I don't like Flynn, but how did Flynn undermine the govt's position?

sirbaihu · Feb 10, 2017

robbie380 said: ↑

Did we ever figure out if Tulsi Gabbard violated the Logan Act by simply meeting with Assad?

And I don't like Flynn, but how did Flynn undermine the govt's position?
Click to expand...

He met with the Russians while Obama was President. There was the opportunity for him to tell them: "Don't worry about what the U.S. President says. We'll reverse it all in a few weeks."

adoo · Feb 10, 2017

NewRoxFan said: ↑

Now, reports are coming out that Flynn discussed existing (under Obama) and future sanctions under the incoming Trump presidency.

CNN is now reporting that Vice President Mike Pence did not know that National Security Adviser Michael Flynn may have spoken about sanctions with the Russian Ambassador in January pre-inauguration, and believes "it's a problem," a senior White House adviser told CNN Friday.
Click to expand...

actually, Flynn told Pence that he did not talk about sanctions. Pence's current stand is "I believe what i was told

Flynn, on Wed, denied that he had discussed sanctions with the Russians while Obama was still the POTUS..
On Thur, Flynn, through his spokesman, backed away from the denial.

The spokesman said Flynn “indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up.”

why..the.back-pedal?

pirc1 · Feb 10, 2017

adoo said: ↑

actually, Flynn told Pence that he did not talk about sanctions. Pence's current stand is "I believe what i was told

Flynn, on Wed, denied that he had discussed sanctions with the Russians while Obama was still the POTUS..
On Thur, Flynn, through his spokesman, backed away from the denial.

The spokesman said Flynn “indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up.”

why..the.back-pedal?
Click to expand...

Maybe NSA had taped the conversation.

NewRoxFan · Feb 10, 2017

robbie380 said: ↑

Did we ever figure out if Tulsi Gabbard violated the Logan Act by simply meeting with Assad?

And I don't like Flynn, but how did Flynn undermine the govt's position?
Click to expand...

While this isn't a thread about Gabbard (believe there was one previously), it seems you answered your own question... simply meeting with Assad would not be a violation, since the Logan Act forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign government. Hence Flynn's original story that his meeting was simply social. Where now it appears he discussed current and future sanctions. And from VP Pence's statements, it appears that Flynn misled him on what was discussed.

Any discussion between Flynn and Russian government officials could signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions” imposed by Obama after alleged Russian meddling in the presidential election.

Deckard · Feb 10, 2017

It is disturbing that Trump is surrounding himself with loose cannons like Flynn and Bannon. Guys who seem almost eager to skate to the edge, and beyond, of what is legal in this country.

sirbaihu · Feb 10, 2017

pirc1 said: ↑

Maybe NSA had taped the conversation.
Click to expand...

You can be damn sure Russia has a tape of the conversation.

pirc1 · Feb 10, 2017

sirbaihu said: ↑

You can be damn sure Russia has a tape of the conversation.
Click to expand...

Yup, and if there was an meeting between Trump's team and Russia before the election, you can bet everything is saved just in case this administration does not follow the order. This is what black mail is all about, not those stripper videos.

robbie380 · Feb 10, 2017

sirbaihu said: ↑

He met with the Russians while Obama was President. There was the opportunity for him to tell them: "Don't worry about what the U.S. President says. We'll reverse it all in a few weeks."
Click to expand...

Eh this seems like a bit of a strech for me. I mean everyone already knew what was going to happen with Trump coming in. Unless they can actually prove Flynn came out of there with some sort of signed agreement or clear verbal deal then this is just wasted energy. The whole act itself seems kind of vague as well. I mean if Flynn goes to Russia on behalf of the incoming president to discuss his new policies is that really a violation? In my mind I don't think so since it he acting on behalf of the newly elected president....but maybe it is a violation.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

The act has been around since 1799 and all of the sudden it's becoming the hot new thing for parties to accuse one another of violating. Only one person has ever been indicted under it and that was in 1803.

The history of the act

In 1798, amid tensions between the U.S. and France, President Adams sent three envoys to France to negotiate. Negotiations were unsuccessful. Dr. George Logan of Pennsylvania, a state legislator and pacifist, in 1798 engaged in negotiations with France as a private citizen during the Quasi-War.[2][3]

Kevin Kearney, writing in the Emory Law Journal, described Dr. Logan's activities in France:

Upon his arrival in Paris, he met with various French officials, including Talleyrand. During these meetings, he identified himself as a private citizen, discussed matters of general interest to the French, and told his audience that anti-French sentiment was prevalent in the United States. Logan's conversation with Merlin de Douai, who occupied the highest political office in the French republic, was typical. Logan stated that he did not intend to explain the American government's position, nor to criticize that of France. Instead, he suggested ways in which France could improve relations with the United States, to the benefit of both countries. He also told Merlin that pro-British propagandists in the United States were portraying the French as corrupt and anxious for war, and were stating that any friend of French principles necessarily was an enemy of the United States. Within days of Logan's last meeting, the French took steps to relieve the tensions between the two nations; they lifted the trade embargo then in place, and released American seamen held captive in French jails. Even so, it seems that Logan's actions were not the primary cause of the Directory's actions; instead, Logan had merely provided convenient timing for the implementation of a decision that had already been made.[4]

Despite the apparent success of Logan's mission, his activities aroused the opposition of the Federalist Party in Congress, who were resentful of the praise showered on Logan by oppositional Democratic-Republican newspapers. Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, also of Pennsylvania, responded by suggesting that Congress "act to curb the temerity and impudence of individuals affecting to interfere in public affairs between France and the United States." The result was that Rep. Roger Griswold introduced the Logan Act.[5] It was pushed through by the Federalist majority in Congress by votes of 58–36 in the House, and 18–2 in the Senate.[4]

Subsequently, Logan himself was appointed and then elected as a Democratic-Republican to the United States Senate from Pennsylvania, and served from July 13, 1801, to March 3, 1807. He was unsuccessful in getting the Logan Act repealed. Despite the Logan Act, he went to England in 1810 on a private diplomatic mission as an emissary of peace in the period before the outbreak of the War of 1812, but was not successful.

sirbaihu · Feb 10, 2017

robbie380 said: ↑

Eh this seems like a bit of a strech for me. I mean everyone already knew what was going to happen with Trump coming in. Unless they can actually prove Flynn came out of there with some sort of signed agreement or clear verbal deal then this is just wasted energy. The whole act itself seems kind of vague as well. I mean if Flynn goes to Russia on behalf of the incoming president to discuss his new policies is that really a violation? In my mind I don't think so since it he acting on behalf of the newly elected president....but maybe it is a violation.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

The act has been around since 1799 and all of the sudden it's becoming the hot new thing for parties to accuse one another of violating. Only one person has ever been indicted under it and that was in 1803.

The history of the act

In 1798, amid tensions between the U.S. and France, President Adams sent three envoys to France to negotiate. Negotiations were unsuccessful. Dr. George Logan of Pennsylvania, a state legislator and pacifist, in 1798 engaged in negotiations with France as a private citizen during the Quasi-War.[2][3]

Kevin Kearney, writing in the Emory Law Journal, described Dr. Logan's activities in France:

Upon his arrival in Paris, he met with various French officials, including Talleyrand. During these meetings, he identified himself as a private citizen, discussed matters of general interest to the French, and told his audience that anti-French sentiment was prevalent in the United States. Logan's conversation with Merlin de Douai, who occupied the highest political office in the French republic, was typical. Logan stated that he did not intend to explain the American government's position, nor to criticize that of France. Instead, he suggested ways in which France could improve relations with the United States, to the benefit of both countries. He also told Merlin that pro-British propagandists in the United States were portraying the French as corrupt and anxious for war, and were stating that any friend of French principles necessarily was an enemy of the United States. Within days of Logan's last meeting, the French took steps to relieve the tensions between the two nations; they lifted the trade embargo then in place, and released American seamen held captive in French jails. Even so, it seems that Logan's actions were not the primary cause of the Directory's actions; instead, Logan had merely provided convenient timing for the implementation of a decision that had already been made.[4]

Despite the apparent success of Logan's mission, his activities aroused the opposition of the Federalist Party in Congress, who were resentful of the praise showered on Logan by oppositional Democratic-Republican newspapers. Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, also of Pennsylvania, responded by suggesting that Congress "act to curb the temerity and impudence of individuals affecting to interfere in public affairs between France and the United States." The result was that Rep. Roger Griswold introduced the Logan Act.[5] It was pushed through by the Federalist majority in Congress by votes of 58–36 in the House, and 18–2 in the Senate.[4]

Subsequently, Logan himself was appointed and then elected as a Democratic-Republican to the United States Senate from Pennsylvania, and served from July 13, 1801, to March 3, 1807. He was unsuccessful in getting the Logan Act repealed. Despite the Logan Act, he went to England in 1810 on a private diplomatic mission as an emissary of peace in the period before the outbreak of the War of 1812, but was not successful.

Click to expand...

Seems like you have a beef with the Logan Act.

NewRoxFan · Feb 10, 2017

robbie380 said: ↑

Eh this seems like a bit of a strech for me. I mean everyone already knew what was going to happen with Trump coming in. Unless they can actually prove Flynn came out of there with some sort of signed agreement or clear verbal deal then this is just wasted energy. The whole act itself seems kind of vague as well. I mean if Flynn goes to Russia on behalf of the incoming president to discuss his new policies is that really a violation? In my mind I don't think so since it he acting on behalf of the newly elected president....but maybe it is a violation.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

The act has been around since 1799 and all of the sudden it's becoming the hot new thing for parties to accuse one another of violating. Only one person has ever been indicted under it and that was in 1803.

The history of the act

In 1798, amid tensions between the U.S. and France, President Adams sent three envoys to France to negotiate. Negotiations were unsuccessful. Dr. George Logan of Pennsylvania, a state legislator and pacifist, in 1798 engaged in negotiations with France as a private citizen during the Quasi-War.[2][3]

Kevin Kearney, writing in the Emory Law Journal, described Dr. Logan's activities in France:

Upon his arrival in Paris, he met with various French officials, including Talleyrand. During these meetings, he identified himself as a private citizen, discussed matters of general interest to the French, and told his audience that anti-French sentiment was prevalent in the United States. Logan's conversation with Merlin de Douai, who occupied the highest political office in the French republic, was typical. Logan stated that he did not intend to explain the American government's position, nor to criticize that of France. Instead, he suggested ways in which France could improve relations with the United States, to the benefit of both countries. He also told Merlin that pro-British propagandists in the United States were portraying the French as corrupt and anxious for war, and were stating that any friend of French principles necessarily was an enemy of the United States. Within days of Logan's last meeting, the French took steps to relieve the tensions between the two nations; they lifted the trade embargo then in place, and released American seamen held captive in French jails. Even so, it seems that Logan's actions were not the primary cause of the Directory's actions; instead, Logan had merely provided convenient timing for the implementation of a decision that had already been made.[4]

Despite the apparent success of Logan's mission, his activities aroused the opposition of the Federalist Party in Congress, who were resentful of the praise showered on Logan by oppositional Democratic-Republican newspapers. Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, also of Pennsylvania, responded by suggesting that Congress "act to curb the temerity and impudence of individuals affecting to interfere in public affairs between France and the United States." The result was that Rep. Roger Griswold introduced the Logan Act.[5] It was pushed through by the Federalist majority in Congress by votes of 58–36 in the House, and 18–2 in the Senate.[4]

Subsequently, Logan himself was appointed and then elected as a Democratic-Republican to the United States Senate from Pennsylvania, and served from July 13, 1801, to March 3, 1807. He was unsuccessful in getting the Logan Act repealed. Despite the Logan Act, he went to England in 1810 on a private diplomatic mission as an emissary of peace in the period before the outbreak of the War of 1812, but was not successful.

Click to expand...

Since Flynn claimed he only wished Merry Christmas to the Russian government officials he met with, its apparent he at least knew he violated the Act upon his return (won't address the possibility Flynn outright lied about the meeting). But even though Trump was the incoming President, you can't allow anyone to speak for an incoming administration which may conflict with the current administration. Its been clearly stated that there is only one United States President, and that was certainly true in December 2016. Flynn's trip could have and should have waited a month or two, correct?

robbie380 · Feb 10, 2017

sirbaihu said: ↑

Seems like you have a beef with the Logan Act.
Click to expand...

I just thought it was kind of vague and there has only been one indictment under it over 200 years ago. I think Flynn is a piece of garbage but I think the new admin messed up by lying about what he was sent there to meet about. I don't think there was any violations but who knows because this situation hasn't been adjudicated before.

I'm sure at some point in American history an emissary has been sent to a foreign country on behalf of a new elected president to another nation to discuss upcoming policy changes. Who knows maybe I'm wrong and this has never happened before.

pirc1 · Feb 10, 2017

robbie380 said: ↑

I just thought it was kind of vague and there has only been one indictment under it over 200 years ago. I think Flynn is a piece of garbage but I think the new admin messed up by lying about what he was sent there to meet about. I don't think there was any violations but who knows because this situation hasn't been adjudicated before.

I'm sure at some point in American history an emissary has been sent to a foreign country on behalf of a new elected president to another nation to discuss upcoming policy changes. Who knows maybe I'm wrong and this has never happened before.
Click to expand...

Lying is always more serious than the actual offense, no one ever learn.

robbie380 · Feb 10, 2017

NewRoxFan said: ↑

Since Flynn claimed he only wished Merry Christmas to the Russian government officials he met with, its apparent he at least knew he violated the Act upon his return (won't address the possibility Flynn outright lied about the meeting). But even though Trump was the incoming President, you can't allow anyone to speak for an incoming administration which may conflict with the current administration. Its been clearly stated that there is only one United States President, and that was certainly true in December 2016. Flynn's trip could have and should have waited a month or two, correct?
Click to expand...

Sure he could have waited and it wouldn't have mattered that much because every knew the direction Trump was going. Maybe I'm being too dismissive of this because everyone pretty much knew what Trump was going to do with Russia. It just kind of seems like a formality that got triggered because Trump is sloppy.

Also with respect to this act how many lobbyists violate this act every year? I'd guess it is a substantial number, but I'm a stock trader and not a lawyer. And how does this act not conflict with the first amendment? Why are private citizens not allowed to discuss what is going on in the US with the leaders of other nations? It says you can't talk about disputes or controversies going on in the US without the authority of the US govt. I mean this act is so vague it probably gets violated when any American has an in depth conversation with a foreign leader or representative of that foreign govt.

Am I crazy with my line of thinking? Just tell me if I am

JuanValdez · Feb 10, 2017

NewRoxFan said: ↑

Any discussion between Flynn and Russian government officials could signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions” imposed by Obama after alleged Russian meddling in the presidential election.
Click to expand...

Anyone who was paying any attention knew even before the election that Trump was looking to get much more friendly with Russia. If Flynn told them that himself, he didn't say anything that Trump wasn't himself strongly implying on television for everyone to see. Besides that, if Flynn did talk with them it's because Trump told him to. So no one is going to be going after Flynn. Same with Gabbard. We're in bed with Russian and Syrian murdering dictators now. What channels Trump uses to get there is just window dressing.

Amiga · Feb 10, 2017

I think the issues here, if true, are

1- the lies (to FBI investigator) --- not something you want to do. Legal problems for Flynn.
2- is there more than a *new* diplomatic relationship between the incoming (Trump) and Russian government? Open back up the can of worm about the two sides talking throughout the campaign. The original FBI investigation was about that. Could become a big scandal for the Trump admin.
3- undermining the Obama / government position - don't think it's a big issue myself, but the lies to the public probably matter more - even if it's not a legal issue
4- the optics and political impact; I doubt GOP is going to defend Flynn / Trump if any one of the above is true

NewRoxFan · Feb 10, 2017

txtony said: ↑

I think the issues here, if true, are

1- the lies (to FBI investigator) --- not something you want to do. Legal problems for Flynn.
2- is there more than a *new* diplomatic relationship between the incoming (Trump) and Russian government? Open back up the can of worm about the two sides talking throughout the campaign. The original FBI investigation was about that. Could become a big scandal for the Trump admin.
3- undermining the Obama / government position - don't think it's a big issue myself, but the lies to the public probably matter more - even if it's not a legal issue
4- the optics and political impact; I doubt GOP is going to defend Flynn / Trump if any one of the above is true
Click to expand...

Especially if part of his message was "Ignore the Obama sanctions, Trump is dropping (or modifying) them." Seems advising a foreign country, especially Russia, to ignore US sanctions (or any policy) would be a big problem. Reckon that's why a key part of Logan is "without authorization". Since I doubt someone in the Obama administration would authorize anything he said.

Hakeemtheking · Feb 10, 2017

txtony said: ↑

I think the issues here, if true, are

1- the lies (to FBI investigator) --- not something you want to do. Legal problems for Flynn.
2- is there more than a *new* diplomatic relationship between the incoming (Trump) and Russian government? Open back up the can of worm about the two sides talking throughout the campaign. The original FBI investigation was about that. Could become a big scandal for the Trump admin.
3- undermining the Obama / government position - don't think it's a big issue myself, but the lies to the public probably matter more - even if it's not a legal issue
4- the optics and political impact; I doubt GOP is going to defend Flynn / Trump if any one of the above is true
Click to expand...

I am curious to know why you think 3 is not a big issue. Undermining the policies of a sitting President is pretty treasonous, don't you think? Flynn's allegiance is to the United States and act on its best interest, not Russia.

Rocket River · Feb 10, 2017

There are no rules or laws. . .only suggestions - Trump Admin

Rocket River

Forums

Natl Security Advisor Flynn may have violated law speaking w/ Russians

NewRoxFan Contributing Member

robbie380 ლ(▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿ ̿ლ)
Supporting Member

sirbaihu Member

adoo Member

pirc1 Contributing Member

NewRoxFan Contributing Member

Deckard Blade Runner
Supporting Member

sirbaihu Member

pirc1 Contributing Member

robbie380 ლ(▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿ ̿ლ)
Supporting Member

sirbaihu Member

NewRoxFan Contributing Member

robbie380 ლ(▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿ ̿ლ)
Supporting Member

pirc1 Contributing Member

robbie380 ლ(▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿ ̿ლ)
Supporting Member

JuanValdez Contributing Member

Amiga 10 years ago...
Supporting Member

NewRoxFan Contributing Member

Hakeemtheking Member

Rocket River Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

Natl Security Advisor Flynn may have violated law speaking w/ Russians

NewRoxFan Contributing Member

robbie380 ლ(▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿ ̿ლ) Supporting Member

sirbaihu Member

adoo Member

pirc1 Contributing Member

NewRoxFan Contributing Member

Deckard Blade Runner Supporting Member

sirbaihu Member

pirc1 Contributing Member

robbie380 ლ(▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿ ̿ლ) Supporting Member

sirbaihu Member

NewRoxFan Contributing Member

robbie380 ლ(▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿ ̿ლ) Supporting Member

pirc1 Contributing Member

robbie380 ლ(▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿ ̿ლ) Supporting Member

JuanValdez Contributing Member

Amiga 10 years ago... Supporting Member

NewRoxFan Contributing Member

Hakeemtheking Member

Rocket River Member

Share This Page

robbie380 ლ(▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿ ̿ლ)
Supporting Member

Deckard Blade Runner
Supporting Member

robbie380 ლ(▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿ ̿ლ)
Supporting Member

robbie380 ლ(▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿ ̿ლ)
Supporting Member

robbie380 ლ(▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿ ̿ლ)
Supporting Member

Amiga 10 years ago...
Supporting Member