Remember this ?????? - Page 3
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: Remember this ??????

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by OnTheFence View Post
    And there you go again putting words in my mouth/ post.

    I am saying your opinion is on the fringe.

    I also posted a New York post article that stated that Obama did the same thing. I am not calling for him to be prosecuted, so the whole idea that I am blind because it's Trump is just false
    .
    You appear to have a major axe to grind over Trump. Which doesn't make the rest of us Trump pole smokers.
    I am not putting any words in your mouth. Read my post #11 about that. The whole argument for the Logan Act violation was that it is alleged that Flynn convinced the Russians not to retaliate against President Obama's executive order about sanctioning Russia over "interference" with the US elections. You agreed with me on that. Now you think that Flynn shouldn't be prosecuted under the Logan Act. What should I think of that?

    As for the argument that President Obama apparently also violated the Logan Act, I guess it is time to repeal it then, right? It appears that we have a law on the books that does not get enforced.

    President Trump is the current President of the United States. If he does something stupid or unlawful, I am going to complain. Just as I complained about previous Presidents. I will not give President Trump a pass, like others on this forum do. The fact that he was informed about Flynn's lie but did not fire him until it became public and did not tell the Vice President before or after the firing speaks volume.

  2.   
  3. If you are unwilling to even consider the nuance that an incoming administration may be viewed differently than a private citizen, then there is no discussion. Merely you portraying me as simple and mischaracterizing what I have written.

    I even found a snippet stating that other admins have done the same. Which you challenged me to do. So it does happen. And just a few days ago you couldn't even imagine or were unwillingly to admit others have done the same. Nor were you willing to look it up for yourself.

    Logan was not part of a Government in transition. I believe that makes a difference.

    Since we are going to keep the Logan act, wouldn't we want to look at say Dennis Rodman and or Jane Fonda for examples of those who would fit the intent of this law?









    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by OnTheFence View Post
    If you are unwilling to even consider the nuance that an incoming administration may be viewed differently than a private citizen, then there is no discussion. Merely you portraying me as simple and mischaracterizing what I have written.

    I even found a snippet stating that other admins have done the same. Which you challenged me to do. So it does happen. And just a few days ago you couldn't even imagine or were unwillingly to admit others have done the same. Nor were you willing to look it up for yourself.

    Logan was not part of a Government in transition. I believe that makes a difference.

    Since we are going to keep the Logan act, wouldn't we want to look at say Dennis Rodman and or Jane Fonda for examples of those who would fit the intent of this law?
    You are making an argument for a shadow government, which is exactly what the Logan Act was intended to prevent. We have only one President at a time. Future and past Presidents are private citizens. Unless they are authorized by the US government, they can not negotiate with foreign nations about a dispute in the name of the US government.

    Dennis Rodman and Jane Fonda did not violate the Logan Act, as far as I understand. Neither of them claimed to negotiate with the authority of the US government. However, it is alleged that Flynn did.

    I guess we are at an impasse here. We will have to wait for 4 years for you to change your opinion. That's when a Democrat will win the Presidential election and immediately start negotiating with foreign nations as a President Elect, telling them that they should just ignore President Trump as he will be only in office for a few more months. On the other hand, we can just wait and see what President Obama is up to. May be he will be negotiating with foreign nations and tell them to ignore President Trump.

  5. A democrat already did this. And my opinion won't change. I fully expect them to discuss current topics and to relay their position.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by OnTheFence View Post
    A democrat already did this. And my opinion won't change. I fully expect them to discuss current topics and to relay their position.
    Their personal position or the position of the US government? That's the difference you don't seem to get.

  7. According to multiple news sites. Obama told Syria not to worry about Bushes sanctions. Paraphrasing. Your unwillingness to look this up for your self is not a misunderstanding on my part.

    Multiple mainsteam media outlets are stating that the logan act is pure politics and considered by many scholars to be unconstitutional. If your law professors taught differently, you might be due a refund. :)

    You could look these up for yourself. Or you can stay dug in and live with your fringe interpretation(s).






    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by OnTheFence View Post
    According to multiple news sites. Obama told Syria not to worry about Bushes sanctions. Paraphrasing. Your unwillingness to look this up for your self is not a misunderstanding on my part.

    Multiple mainsteam media outlets are stating that the logan act is pure politics and considered by many scholars to be unconstitutional. If your law professors taught differently, you might be due a refund. :)

    You could look these up for yourself. Or you can stay dug in and live with your fringe interpretation(s).
    I don't have to look up the details that you fail to present with your arguments. After all, they are your arguments, not mine. If you fail to present them, so does your argument. You have not provided these details in this post either. Citing a past report by a news organization would be sufficient.

    Also, since when do past criminal acts that weren't prosecuted validate them as being legal? It just means that they got away with it.

    It is interesting that I am now supposed to believe in mainstream media. I have been told for years that they only lie. I have been told by President Trump today not to trust them.

    Yes, one could see the Logan Act as purely political and unconstitutional, which is why we are where we are. This entire discussion is close to nonsensical as no one apparently wants to follow the law as written in the Logan Act anyway. Let's repeal it then.

  9. Remember this ??????

    It researchable. It obvious you aren't willing to verify whether your position had any legs. From that ignorance you declared it factual that No other incoming administrations had done this.

    I have no gain in convincing you. I am just laughing at you at this point.

    Just blow hard know it all posts challenging people to back up their posts, yet you have done no such work on your own position.

    Another way of putting it. You called me out and proposed facts that had no backing whatsoever. Then you got founded out, after I did the leg work.

    Good luck with your internet lawyering.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by OnTheFence View Post
    It researchable. It obvious you aren't willing to verify whether your position had any legs. From that ignorance you declared it factual that No other incoming administrations had done this.

    I have no gain in convincing you. I am just laughing at you at this point.

    Just blow hard know it all posts challenging people to back up their posts, yet you have done no such work on your own position.

    Another way of putting it. You called me out and proposed facts that had no backing whatsoever. Then you got founded out, after I did the leg work.

    Good luck with your internet lawyering.
    I never declared that no other incoming administrations had done this. Liar! Now, you are asking me to prove what I never stated. You have no argument here.

    It is you that declared in post #6 that ex presidents had done this, yet you posted zero evidence to back up your statement.

    I simply stated that it really doesn't matter if past administrations had done this, as them getting away with it is not proof that it wasn't a crime. It just means that the Logan Act is not enforced and should be abolished.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast