757
Member
I realize this is the thread for Iran but, since it was brought up again, Flynn's only sin was lying to the FBI. I keep bringing it up because it is a crucial component, and in the legal profession these details make or break cases.
Now, do Flynn's dealings overseas look potentially dubious? You bet! But a crime? Mueller's team didn't charge him with one, so I am inclined to believe it either: 1) doesn't exist or 2) cant be proved in a court of law.
"But if he isn't guilty, why did Flynn plead guilty?" I'm glad somebody asked. Alan Dershowitz argues, in another excellent article, "Flynn pleaded guilty to a highly questionable charge precisely because his son was threatened with prosecution." Is it possible that Flynn was fairly legally secure and merely decided not to fight this "dubious" charge based on his love for his son? I think that is a distinct possibility.
Furthermore, last time I checked, "collusion" wasn't a legal crime; therefore, I would also love to know what crime Mueller believes POTUS committed, and what evidence he currently has regarding said crime.
As much as I dislike to use sources that lean heavily right or left, I actually like this quote from The Weekly Standard with regard to the Logan Act.
"Let's talk about the Logan Act for a bit. Or rather, let's talk about why serious people don't talk about the Logan Act. The Logan Act is to national security laws about what phrenology is to medical science. Since its passage in 1799, no one's ever been convicted under the Logan Act, and just about every legal expert agrees it is wildly unconstitutional and runs counter to the First Amendment. George Logan, the senator whose actions motivated the passage of the law, was never even charged under it. Seriously, the only man charged under the law was a Kentucky farmer who wrote a newspaper article in 1803 about American territories allying with France—and even he was never prosecuted."
Kerry talking to foreign agents does not break any domestic or international law that I am aware of. Now that we have addressed that little tangent, back to Persia.
Now, do Flynn's dealings overseas look potentially dubious? You bet! But a crime? Mueller's team didn't charge him with one, so I am inclined to believe it either: 1) doesn't exist or 2) cant be proved in a court of law.
"But if he isn't guilty, why did Flynn plead guilty?" I'm glad somebody asked. Alan Dershowitz argues, in another excellent article, "Flynn pleaded guilty to a highly questionable charge precisely because his son was threatened with prosecution." Is it possible that Flynn was fairly legally secure and merely decided not to fight this "dubious" charge based on his love for his son? I think that is a distinct possibility.
Furthermore, last time I checked, "collusion" wasn't a legal crime; therefore, I would also love to know what crime Mueller believes POTUS committed, and what evidence he currently has regarding said crime.
As much as I dislike to use sources that lean heavily right or left, I actually like this quote from The Weekly Standard with regard to the Logan Act.
"Let's talk about the Logan Act for a bit. Or rather, let's talk about why serious people don't talk about the Logan Act. The Logan Act is to national security laws about what phrenology is to medical science. Since its passage in 1799, no one's ever been convicted under the Logan Act, and just about every legal expert agrees it is wildly unconstitutional and runs counter to the First Amendment. George Logan, the senator whose actions motivated the passage of the law, was never even charged under it. Seriously, the only man charged under the law was a Kentucky farmer who wrote a newspaper article in 1803 about American territories allying with France—and even he was never prosecuted."
Kerry talking to foreign agents does not break any domestic or international law that I am aware of. Now that we have addressed that little tangent, back to Persia.
