National Security Adviser Michael Flynn Resigns amid Russian Controversy

[Russ_Watters]

You're kidding yes... on the web there are no reputable sources.. surely you know this?

Um, what? Was that a typo? Or if you know there are no reputable sources, why did you make a claim of fact you can't support?

Guys - primarily what I've done here is request quality sources and been attacked for it. On a supposedly science oriented site, this should not be an onerous request!

Most of the political world is either talking about it or thinking about it... I am not sure how to link to Chancellor Merkel's head yet.... but I am working on it...

Telepathy does not constitute a reputable source - but good to know where your head is at!

 

[Russ_Watters]

Any that agree with him.

I've given criteria, billvon. The FACT of the matter is that there is but ONE [known] source of any kind claiming treason. Im quite confident you guys agree he is not reputable otherwise you would be arguing he is. And I'm quite confident that if you guys had any better ones you would provide them.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Um, what? Was that a typo? Or if you know there are no reputable sources, why did you make a claim of fact you can't support?

Can't properly support using the web ...silly... that is the point I was making...

What web source do you feel is actually credible enough for you to be convinced?

 

[Russ_Watters]

Can't properly support using the web ...silly... that is the point I was making...

Then how can you be so confident your claim is factual? How do you know?

What web source do you feel is actually credible enough for you to be convinced?

An analysis by a mainstream news source would be ideal, but I also said I'd be ok with a member of government making such a claim (because it was claimed that that exists).

 

[Quantum Quack]

Then how can you be so confident your claim is factual? How do you know?

Which claim in particular are you refering to?
if this one

Fact is allegations of treason are flying in all circles of influence.

common knowledge, human nature, fact is, he did what he did. Most reasonable people would be thinking that he could be guilty of treason... including people of influence...
don't need a link...

 

[Russ_Watters]

Jeez, you guys suck. You can't even be bothered to support and analyze your own claims! Ugh, I guess I need to do it for you. Don't worry, I'm good at this: I was once forced by a professor to argue both sides of a formal debate because my partner sucked (true story!). So here's a hypothetical argument one of you might have tried to make if you bothered trying:

----------------------------------------------------------------

Source?

Here's where someone of repute (a Congressman) claimed Flynn committed treason:

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/th...-serious-charge-against-trump-administration/

"Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA)...[said] members of the administration are essentially conspiring with Russia, either through the campaign earlier, now than the — look, Wolf, that’s the definition of treason."

See - a direct accusation of treason by someone of repute!

hypotheticaljoeifhebotheredtotrytosupporthisargument, you clipped out of the quote the word "if", which changes it from a direct accusation to a hypothetical. Consider:

1. hypotheticaljoeifhebotheredtotrytosupporthisargument, you shot your wife, you should be tried for murder.
2. hypotheticaljoeifhebotheredtotrytosupporthisargument, *if* you shot your wife, you should be tried for murder.

The first is a direct accusation and the second a totally meaningless hypothetical. And how very dishonest of you to selectively edit the quote to change the meaning! You should be ashamed of yourself, hypotheticaljoeifhebotheredtotrytosupporthisargument!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

So here's the thing. You guys keep dodging your own sources, so there's a handful of possibilities to explain your actions:

1. Trolling.
2. Lying.
3. Too lazy or blinded by your partisan rage to comprehend what you are reading.

I'm guessing it's a mixture of all three.

 

[Randwolf]

Quote the actual statement. It doesn't say what the headline of that non-reputable news source implies.

Not that it will matter but you asked:

“Let’s not lose perspective on exactly who we’re talking about here,” he continued. “If members of the administration are essentially conspiring with Russia, either through the campaign earlier, now than the — look, Wolf, that’s the definition of treason. This is a very, very serious affair. We all have to understand what’s going on with Michael Flynn, but we can’t let this little scandal or perhaps a big scandal at the moment let us lose sight of the much bigger scandal, which is what is the overall connection between Russia and the Trump administration.”
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2017...h-Moulton-former-Marine-calls-Trump-a-traitor​

 

[Russ_Watters]

Which claim in particular are you refering to?
if this one

common knowledge, human nature, fact is, he did what he did. Most reasonable people would be thinking that he could be guilty of treason... including people of influence...
don't need a link...

Yes, you do need a source to support your claim. You claim links exist. I claim they don't. Since I can't provide a link to something that doesn't exist and you (and those arguing your side) originated the discussion of the claim, you are required by etiquette and the rules of the forum to back-up your claim with a source. Otherwise, all this forum is is a pointless "Is not!" "Is too!" "Is not!" "Is too!" forum.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Not that it will matter but you asked:

“Let’s not lose perspective on exactly who we’re talking about here,” he continued. “If members of the administration are essentially conspiring with Russia, either through the campaign earlier, now than the — look, Wolf, that’s the definition of treason. This is a very, very serious affair. We all have to understand what’s going on with Michael Flynn, but we can’t let this little scandal or perhaps a big scandal at the moment let us lose sight of the much bigger scandal, which is what is the overall connection between Russia and the Trump administration.”
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2017...h-Moulton-former-Marine-calls-Trump-a-traitor​

"If".

That's a totally meaningless hypothetical, not an accusation.

 

[spidergoat]

Is it treason? Probably not, but it is illegal, and corrupt as shit. Trump also knew he was blackmailable for weeks and kept him on, that's scandalous. We need a full investigation of Trump's connection with Russia, whether he knew about a conspiracy to forgive sanctions in return for helping his campaign.

 

[douwd20]

The story just keeps dropping bombshells. Trump knew about the allegations for two weeks yet said he did not.

Pence did not learn that Flynn misled him on Russia until last week

 

[Quantum Quack]

Another very intriguing observation is that Facebook (mine) fails to show any trending articles of a political nature. Which is pretty amazing when you consider on average 3 to 4 trending Trump news articles appear daily for many months.

Something serious is up IMO for Facebook to shut down like that.
Any one else got the same issue?

 

[Russ_Watters]

Another very intriguing observation is that Facebook (mine) fails to show any trending articles of a political nature. Which is pretty amazing when you consider on average 3 to 4 trending Trump news articles appear daily for many months.

Something serious is up IMO for Facebook to shut down like that.
Any one else got the same issue?

No; the Flynn story is trending 6th on mine:



Note that facebook *may* have started cracking down on the fake news that used to cover it, so that might have caused some previously trending stories to get buried.

[edit] erp; my feed also has a link dedicated to trending political stories. So there's that too...

 

[Quantum Quack]

No; the Flynn story is trending 6th on mine:

View attachment 1372

Note that facebook *may* have started cracking down on the fake news that used to cover it, so that might have caused some previously trending stories to get buried.

[edit] erp; my feed also has a link dedicated to trending political stories. So there's that too...

Looks like they may have switched to regional ( locality ) I only get AU political stories now... hmmm

 

[Russ_Watters]

So now that we're all in agreement that there are no legitimate allegations of treason here, let's talk about the actual crime:

Back in my counterintelligence days, sedition was defined as an American citizen working with a foreign power to the detriment of American policy. Flynn’s actions seem to fit the sedition act perfectly. I would like to see the law that Flynn swore to uphold actually applied. He should be arrested and placed on trial for sedition.

No, sillyjoe, the Sedition Act was repealed almost a hundred years ago and based on current caselaw would probably have been found unConstitutional anyway! And unless you are 120 years old, you couldn't possibly have been a counterintelligence officer when it was in force (though that would explain a lot!)! Sillyjoe be so silly!

He has also been accused of violating the Logan Act which forbids private citizens negotiating with foreign powers with which the US has a dispute.

Yes, seriousjoe, that's the one!

The Logan Act is an interesting 218 year old anachronism. At face value it seems Flynn violated it. But no one has ever been prosecuted for it, not even the guy it was named-after, who continued violating the act after it was passed in response to previous actions by him. The wiki article lists about a dozen likely violations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

So why weren't they prosecuted? Probably because the Logan Act is logically null. See, a private citizen or non-empowered Congressman doesn't have any actual power so they don't have any actual ability to negotiate deals behind the government's back. Since they aren't actually in a position to offer a foreign government anything, they can't actually do any "negotiating". So a charge that they were interfering with government negotiations is logically null. So no harm, no foul, no prosecution, ever. Logical nothingburger.

 

[Kittamaru]

My apologies, Russ, for not being able to revisit this - having been at work the last 14+ hours has made it difficult (my last posts were over a break). I'm terribly sorry that my schedule inconvenienced you (though I'm fairly certain that any source I would ultimately cite would be deemed ill reputable by you if it conflicted your desired viewpoint... Seems to be a dangerously popular trend of apparent Trump supporters as of late)

 

[Russ_Watters]

My apologies, Russ, for not being able to revisit this - having been at work the last 14+ hours has made it difficult (my last posts were over a break). I'm terribly sorry that my schedule inconvenienced you (though I'm fairly certain that any source I would ultimately cite would be deemed ill reputable by you if it conflicted your desired viewpoint... Seems to be a dangerously popular trend of apparent Trump supporters as of late)

Schedule inconvenience does not explain the posts you made that had no valid point and adding an excuse for not providing any valid sources/arguments moving forward just further reinforces your lack of valid point. Why are you hitting yourself?

Try this hypothetical instead:

My apologies, Russ, for I was busy and I just skimmed my link and jumped to invalid conclusions. You were right, I was wrong, I retract my argument.

That's ok, Kitt, everyone gets busy every now and then and misreads due to skimming. Apology accepted. I'm glad we're both such reasonable people who can admit their mistakes and graciously accept each others' apologies. We're both awesome people.

 

[Quantum Quack]

So now that we're all in agreement that there are no legitimate allegations of treason here, let's talk about the actual crime:.

What crime?
Oh you mean alleged crime?
Oh you mean gossip until proven in a court of law and conviction placed crime.
Oh ..do you have any reputable sources for your gossip?

 

[Russ_Watters]

What crime?

I'm of course referring to The Logan Act.

Oh ..do you have any reputable sources...

Well, I'm not the source of this claim, Joe is -- but it is a perfectly reasonable request, so I will of course provide a reputable source for it since I'm reiterating the claim and Joe did not provide a source. It is a reasonable request and I'm a reasonable person and reasonable people respond reasonably to reasonable requests (too bad there aren't more in this thread...):
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/logan-act-flynn.html

With Michael Flynn’s Resignation, a New Focus on the Logan Act

The resignation under pressure on Monday night of President Trump’s national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, centers on the F.B.I.’s scrutiny of his phone calls in late 2016 with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak. The two apparently discussed sanctions the Obama administration was developing to punish Russia over allegations of interference in the 2016 presidential election ...on its face the Logan Act appears to apply to a president-elect and his top aides, said Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School constitutional law professor. [emphasis added]

The article is aimed at Trump, but Flynn's violation appears assumed in it. For my second point:

The Logan Act appears to be a so-called dead letter, meaning a law that remains technically on the books but is essentially defunct or toothless.

"Defunct", "toothless", null, void.

My third point:

Legal scholars have also raised questions about whether the act violates First Amendment free speech protections, although Mr. Tribe said he believed it would be constitutional if applied narrowly to core diplomatic negotiations with another government.

Arguable.

And the broad question:

Given its history, it seems highly unlikely that the Justice Department under Mr. Trump will try to prosecute Mr. Flynn for violating the Logan Act.

Agreed.

And:

Stop talking about the Logan Act.

It was not the violation of this antique and ignored piece of anti-Jacobin legislation that has touched off the biggest foreign-policy scandal since Watergate.

Nobody would care if an incoming national security adviser had confidential conversations with an ambassador of a hostile foreign government before Inauguration Day, if it were believed that the conversations served a legitimate and disinterested public purpose.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...oncern-behind-mike-flynns-resignation/516630/

Yeah.

[yes, I'm aware your request was rhetorical-trolling, but still; flies/honey]

 

[Quantum Quack]

Well if we are going to speculate, the question of why Flynn allegedly felt the need to keep Putin cool on the issue of sanctions comes up.

A Bromance perhaps?

Or was he scared sh*tless that Putin may do something really nasty and previously planned and wanted to mitigate it.?

Like release damning blackmail material to the media for example.
If we assume Flynn knew of the risk, why would he risk everything and take it?