Michael Flynn Resigns

[Deleted User 8570]

Yeah. We all know how easy it is to fire a government employee. Snort...

What is REALLY laughable here is the head leftist, Up-Chuck Shummer. Lets see, Fast and Furious gun running, IRS scandal, Benghazi, and the unauthorized e-mail server. NOW he thinks there should be a independent prosecutor appointed to investigate Flynn and the T Rump administration. Even though there is absolutely NO proof that anything untoward was discussed.

From the N.Y. Times 02/14/17:

The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.

The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation.

Well, old Up-Chuck is right in a certain regard. There should be an independent prosecutor appointed to investigate who leaked classified phone conversations to the press and who coordinated the effort to take down a member of the T Rump administration. Things like this happen in a Banana Republic. No one seems concerned.

And the Republicans don't think there should be anything now that the shoe is on the other foot... had this been Obama impeachment proceedings would have begun post haste... it's laughable to try to read anything into what you're trying to spout off on... namely "what did they do that we as the party out of the White House should investigate roulette"...

[Bryce]

Yeah. We all know how easy it is to fire a government employee. Snort...

So what you're implying is that government employees are Democrats or instigators against the President? Just some? Which ones? Perhaps extreme vetting and a loyalty test is in order?

Well, yeah. Pretty much anyone hired for any type.of management position during the past eight years would be. Lois Lehrner ring a bell?

[Bryce]

And the Republicans don't think there should be anything now that the shoe is on the other foot... had this been Obama impeachment proceedings would have begun post haste... it's laughable to try to read anything into what you're trying to spout off on... namely "what did they do that we as the party out of the White House should investigate roulette"...

Last I checked, Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Lyndsey Graham and Roy Blunt are all Republicans. Each has called for a Senate investigation.

Stifle Edith.

[Lester The Nightfly]

Yeah. We all know how easy it is to fire a government employee. Snort...

So what you're implying is that government employees are Democrats or instigators against the President? Just some? Which ones? Perhaps extreme vetting and a loyalty test is in order?

Well, yeah. Pretty much anyone hired for any type.of management position during the past eight years would be. Lois Lehrner ring a bell?

So you're citing an appointed position(s). Then let's get back to why hasn't a skilled businessman like Trump cleared out the old team and brought in his own folks?

[Deleted User 8570]

Yeah. We all know how easy it is to fire a government employee. Snort...

So what you're implying is that government employees are Democrats or instigators against the President? Just some? Which ones? Perhaps extreme vetting and a loyalty test is in order?

Well, yeah. Pretty much anyone hired for any type.of management position during the past eight years would be. Lois Lehrner ring a bell?

So you're citing an appointed position(s). Then let's get back to why hasn't a skilled businessman like Trump cleared out the old team and brought in his own folks?

Because he's not at all skilled... he's a con man...

[Lester The Nightfly]

Yeah. We all know how easy it is to fire a government employee. Snort...

So what you're implying is that government employees are Democrats or instigators against the President? Just some? Which ones? Perhaps extreme vetting and a loyalty test is in order?

Well, yeah. Pretty much anyone hired for any type.of management position during the past eight years would be. Lois Lehrner ring a bell?

So you're citing an appointed position(s). Then let's get back to why hasn't a skilled businessman like Trump cleared out the old team and brought in his own folks?

Because he's not at all skilled... he's a con man...

Occam's razor. Simpler theories are usually the right ones.

[Bryce]

Two points:

1. This whole thing started and was began well before T Rump was even inaugurated.

2. While it is possible to replace appointees, it's not possible to replace all their minions that were hired over the past eight years. Its not like a new administration can pink slip everyone and begin the hiring process all over again like is common with an acquisition.

Just admit it. There is a concerted effort underway by the left to destroy this administration. BAMN.

[Lester The Nightfly]

2. While it is possible to replace appointees, it's not possible to replace all their minions that were hired over the past eight years. Its not like a new administration can pink slip everyone and begin the hiring process all over again like is common with an acquisition.

So running the government is not like running a business. Got it.

[Deleted User 8570]

Two points:

1. This whole thing started and was began well before T Rump was even inaugurated.

2. While it is possible to replace appointees, it's not possible to replace all their minions that were hired over the past eight years. Its not like a new administration can pink slip everyone and begin the hiring process all over again like is common with an acquisition.

Just admit it. There is a concerted effort underway by the left to destroy this administration. BAMN.

I remember a concerted effort on the right to destroy Obama's presidency... what's good for the goose...

[Motown322]

So running the government is not like running a business. Got it.

Heads are currently exploding among the "I can balance my checkbook... why can't they balance the federal budget?!?!?!?!?!" crowd.

[craig11152]

If he's negotiating with the Russians to reduce sanctions on them once Trump takes office but he is doing so in an unofficial capacity (not yet NSA) then he is still a private citizen and is interfering in the relations between the USA and another government, something that the law expressly forbids... this isn't rocket science... it's quite simple actually...

I don't know what your credentials are but here is what a University of Texas law professor and CNN contributor says...

"The Logan Act "is a relic of a bygone era," said Steve Vladeck, a CNN contributor and law professor at University of Texas School of Law.
"It gets trotted out every time there's a political disagreement when someone who is not the president touches on foreign policy," Vladeck said. "It's the old chestnut that everyone quotes and no one understands."
The Logan Act likely won't be used here, and it may not even be enforceable at all anymore, Vladeck said.
The law essentially criminalizes speech, he said, and the Supreme Court looks very skeptically at laws that may infringe upon that right.
In addition, the law's mention of a person acting "without authority of the United States" could be an escape hatch, Vladeck has written.
Flynn wasn't simply a private citizen; he was an adviser to the President-elect and soon would be given diplomatic powers. Legally speaking, his role may have granted him the "authority" to talk sanctions with Kislyak, Vladeck's interpretation suggests.

The fact that we can each "Google that shit up" doesn't actually make us experts.

He's got just as much an opinion as I do... I don't get your point and I disagree with his...

You can disagree with his BUT HE HAS F-ING CREDENTIALS behind his opinion. What are your legal credentials? Are you a lawyer? Or do you Google shit like I do?

[Bryce]

So running the government is not like running a business. Got it.

Doesn't mean that in some aspects it shouldn't be.

[Deleted User 8570]

If he's negotiating with the Russians to reduce sanctions on them once Trump takes office but he is doing so in an unofficial capacity (not yet NSA) then he is still a private citizen and is interfering in the relations between the USA and another government, something that the law expressly forbids... this isn't rocket science... it's quite simple actually...

I don't know what your credentials are but here is what a University of Texas law professor and CNN contributor says...

"The Logan Act "is a relic of a bygone era," said Steve Vladeck, a CNN contributor and law professor at University of Texas School of Law.
"It gets trotted out every time there's a political disagreement when someone who is not the president touches on foreign policy," Vladeck said. "It's the old chestnut that everyone quotes and no one understands."
The Logan Act likely won't be used here, and it may not even be enforceable at all anymore, Vladeck said.
The law essentially criminalizes speech, he said, and the Supreme Court looks very skeptically at laws that may infringe upon that right.
In addition, the law's mention of a person acting "without authority of the United States" could be an escape hatch, Vladeck has written.
Flynn wasn't simply a private citizen; he was an adviser to the President-elect and soon would be given diplomatic powers. Legally speaking, his role may have granted him the "authority" to talk sanctions with Kislyak, Vladeck's interpretation suggests.

The fact that we can each "Google that shit up" doesn't actually make us experts.

He's got just as much an opinion as I do... I don't get your point and I disagree with his...

You can disagree with his BUT HE HAS F-ING CREDENTIALS behind his opinion. What are your legal credentials? Are you a lawyer? Or do you Google shit like I do?

I read the law... it's not a complicated wording like you'd find today... it's very straight forward... I've also heard other opinions that correspond to mine.... he's the only person interpreting things that way that I've seen... do I have to be a lawyer to disagree or have a differing opinion? I'm not sure why you're coming at me with a stick up your ass on this?

Just because he's a lawyer doesn't make him 1) a good lawyer who knows his stuff or 2) correct...

If he claims it's not enforceable then let's test that in court and get rid of it... but to say "well... uh, um, uh, I think it is too old to use and it's really not used so it's not valid.. um, uh, um"... seems like bullshit to me... it's still on the books, trying to enforce it is not abstract based on its age... if you want to ignore it you might as well repeal it...

[Bryce]

Pardon me if I take the opinion of Stephen over yours...

Stephen Vlaceck is an award winning legal scholar, known for his work on the prosecution of war crimes.[1][2] He is currently at University of Texas School of Law.[3][4][5][6]

Vladeck's Bachelor Degree is from Amherst College, and his law degree is from Yale Law School. While at Yale, he was the executive director of the Yale Law Journal, and was the student director of the Balancing Civil Liberties & National Security Post-9/11 Litigation Project. He was awarded two prizes there -- Potter Stewart Prize and Harlan Fiske Stone Prize.

Vladeck clerked for Marsha Berzon and Rosemary Barkett—judges on the 9th and 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. He worked on the legal team managed by Neal K. Katyal that successfully challenged the Constitutionality of George W. Bush's President Guantanamo Military Commissions.

[Deleted User 8570]

Pardon me if I take the opinion of Stephen over yours...

Stephen Vlaceck is an award winning legal scholar, known for his work on the prosecution of war crimes.[1][2] He is currently at University of Texas School of Law.[3][4][5][6]

Vladeck's Bachelor Degree is from Amherst College, and his law degree is from Yale Law School. While at Yale, he was the executive director of the Yale Law Journal, and was the student director of the Balancing Civil Liberties & National Security Post-9/11 Litigation Project. He was awarded two prizes there -- Potter Stewart Prize and Harlan Fiske Stone Prize.

Vladeck clerked for Marsha Berzon and Rosemary Barkett—judges on the 9th and 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. He worked on the legal team managed by Neal K. Katyal that successfully challenged the Constitutionality of George W. Bush's President Guantanamo Military Commissions.

Good for him.... I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion... when did it become a crime to have an opinion differing from an "expert?"

My objection to his opinion is philosophical... if you're going to pass a law and then ignore it then why pass it at all? Why not repeal it then and erase all question and stop people from "trotting it out" everytime something that seemingly applies occurs?