New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Flynn call transcript released...no bombshell for Dems...

Nutty Cortez

Dummy (D) NY
The Logan Act is a joke. It is widely viewed as almost certainly unconstitutional. And regardless, it wouldn't even apply to people in an incoming Presidential Administration, since it is aimed at "private citizens," which of course, an incoming National Security Adviser is (obviously) not.

Like Middle knows what the Logan Act is. My low I.Q. base has been yapping about that for years

Just babbling what entertainer Maddow says doesn't mean a thing LOL
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Like Middle knows what the Logan Act is. My low I.Q. base has been yapping about that for years

Just babbling what entertainer Maddow says doesn't mean a thing LOL
The left are a bunch of hypocrites. If Hillary had won and her NSA had talked to Kislyak before the inauguration and someone suggested that he/she had violated the Logan Act, lefties like him would be outraged by the idea that a 200 year old law that no one has been charged under since before the Civil War would be used to suggest that Hillary's NSA had committed a "crime" by doing the exact same thing Flynn did. We know it, he knows it, everybody knows it. If it weren't for double standards, they'd have no standards at all.
 

Boca

Governor
Flynn admitting he lied to the FBI holds a lot more weight than some FBI agent offering their opinion.

admitting he lied to the FBI .... because if he didn't they'd go after his son. It's in the records. They wanted him too so they could either prosecute him or get him fired.

Either way he wouldn't be the NSA Security Advisor. That is what Obama didn't want to happen. He had fired the General, and if the new National Security Advisor had a grudge and went digging, he might have very well find something.
 
admitting he lied to the FBI .... because if he didn't they'd go after his son. It's in the records. They wanted him too so they could either prosecute him or get him fired.

Either way he wouldn't be the NSA Security Advisor. That is what Obama didn't want to happen. He had fired the General, and if the new National Security Advisor had a grudge and went digging, he might have very well find something.
That doesn't excuse lying.
 
Okay Bot, it's now obvious you never had children, or were bankrupted by a corrupted government from top to bottom.

While I would recommend you see a shrink probably best you reach out to your progammer for an update.
I don't live in a world where lying to anyone protects my kid.
 

Marcus Aurelius

Governor
Supporting Member
Like Middle knows what the Logan Act is. My low I.Q. base has been yapping about that for years

Just babbling what entertainer Maddow says doesn't mean a thing LOL
from that bastion of conserative support...the Wall Street journal...
Repeal the Logan Act: It’s never yielded a conviction but invites abuse by prosecutors, cops and presidents.

Congress passed the Logan Act in 1799, and it’s long past time to repeal it. Only two people have been prosecuted under it, in 1802 and 1852, and both were acquitted. But the law invites political abuse, as we’ve seen recently in the case of Mike Flynn.

The act makes it a crime for citizens to engage in unauthorized “correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government . . . in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States.” Since the U.S. has disputes with every other country, its reach stops just short of lunar orbit.

Since the law is hardly ever enforced, why not leave it alone? Because while the law is still on the books, it can always be trotted out and used selectively, even maliciously. That’s exactly what happened to Mr. Flynn when James Comey’s Federal Bureau of Investigation wanted to destroy him and undermine the president.

The law used to investigate Mr. Flynn was available to every administration since John Adams’s—including President Trump’s. What about John Kerry, who met last year with Iranian officials, urging them to stick with the nuclear deal and wait out the Trump administration? What about U.S. business leaders meeting with their Chinese counterparts about current sanctions? What about the American Jews and evangelical Christians who advised Israeli politicians about West Bank settlements during the Obama years, directly opposing the president’s policies? What about candidate Trump’s urging Britain to exit the European Union while President Obama was urging it to remain? Each could be investigated under the Logan Act.

The list goes on, and that’s the problem. The president’s appointees at Justice or the FBI could investigate any of them. That open-ended opportunity means the law is poised for selective use, political investigations and prosecutorial abuse. The president sworn in next Jan. 20, Republican or Democrat, will have it available. He shouldn’t.

After the abuse against Mr. Flynn, it’s time to wipe the Logan Act from the books.
 
You must not have children either. At least any that you care about.
You don't get it, Flynn is terrible father who had his son commit crimes in his name. Flynn should prosecuted for being a terrible father.
If Flynn was a good father he wouldn't exposed his son to criminal liability in the first place. Flynn is a shitty father, traitor, and a liar. All around garbage person and exemplary Republican.
 

Boca

Governor
You don't get it, Flynn is terrible father who had his son commit crimes in his name. Flynn should prosecuted for being a terrible father.
If Flynn was a good father he wouldn't exposed his son to criminal liability in the first place. Flynn is a shitty father, traitor, and a liar. All around garbage person and exemplary Republican.
And you're just another demented hater who refuses to accept the facts.

"Flynn is a shitty father" speaks for itself.
 
Last edited:
That is the best you can do to refute the facts. they are not false...no matter how many times you claim they are....your opinions are just not enough.
The evidence on file with the court is not my opinion. What you claim to be fact, is a false narrative that has now been disproven.
 
Top