Doesn't it secret/covert nature seem like a clear attempt to violate the Logan Act prohibition on private citizens conducting foreign policy?
-
-
-
The Logan Act is from 1799 and no one's ever been prosecuted for it. It'd be a stretch. Also, I think it's safe to assume every incoming administration starts contacting foreign governments before officially taking office.
-
Point 1: admitted; Point 2: Contact yes, but trying to influence a vote in the UN prior to inauguration day is foreign policy. Its not setting up a dialog and framework to graft on to existing policy.
-
I'm not defending it. Just pointing out it would be very difficult to make a case based on a 218 year-old statute that's never been used to prosecute someone before.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Report said “Canindate” Trump
-
Thanks. A few people have noted that. My comment was in response to a report that left that detail out. If before the election, it's a bigger deal than after.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
They said candidate trump
-
That would be different.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Why lie about it?
-
That seems simple (to hide something), but is fascinatingly complex. They lie about so much--including unimportant, easily disprovable things like crowd size--that I honestly don't know the answer to your question.
-
The worst kind of liars. Lying when you don't have to.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Reports say that Flynn will testify that as a candidate Trump directed him to speak with Russian powers
-
That would be different. If he does, it adds evidence that the Russian government and Trump campaign were cooperating.
-
It's what I've been reading So
Need Pence involved too
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.