Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What part of he promised things AFTER his reelection that he didn't know at the time he'd win or not? I know he was all wonderful in every way but now you're telling me he has 100% future telling ability, arrogantly assuming he'd win election at the time, making promises all the way up to the top in russia, makes it so? Understanding the context here is important but I understand the reasons one would want to deflect on this point.
Since you don't want to listen to/can't comprehend the video, here's the text for you:
So the matter I bring up is a valid one.....he didn't know he'd be president after the 2012 election so why is it ok to promise things to russia before he knew he'd be president? It's a valid question on many levels of ethics and beyond to promise things when someone doesn't know if they can deliver in that capacity/will be in that position to deliver and the ethics and beyond of such talk.
The president is allowed to talk about policy. Obama was the president in 2012.
Flynn was a citizen when he discussed policy with a foreign country. Citizens are not allowed to do that.
What part of he promised things AFTER his reelection that he didn't know at the time he'd win or not?
So the matter I bring up is a valid one.....he didn't know he'd be president after the 2012 election so why is it ok to promise things to russia before he knew he'd be president? It's a valid question on many levels of ethics and beyond to promise things when someone doesn't know if they can deliver in that capacity/will be in that position to deliver and the ethics and beyond of such talk.
(ouch! my head hurts!)
You're kidding, right? Because he WAS the sitting president before his re-election!! I don't know what in the world you are trying to prove, but if President Obama called Putin while he was still the U.S. President and he had not be re-elected yet, he was still the POTUS at that time. There is no "gap" before the inauguration. There is one POTUS at a time. What don't you understand about this?
I think this "ya!, oh!, ooo!, ahhh!," is a nice break for the left/the snowflakes for a while.
yeah, and "funny" how the MSM liberal media largely ignored things like the tarmac meeting with lynch and billy. And how it was all played down by many.
As for fox news "gave the Flynn story relatively short shrift", I turned it on and that's all they are talking about. I know you don't like trump buy honesty is a good thing. Kind of makes your point more believable.
All about the drama/false/one sided reporting, hey BY?
and yet here you are typing away desperately showing us just how much you "don't care" and how "unconcerned " you are... yep we believe you..
The Logan Act specifically say's no person, not in an official capacity, shall negotiate with a foreign power. It is a crime to do so.
It say's nothing about a sitting president negotiating with a foreign power, in fact that is their job to do so.
Actually, it does not say that, that is just your interpretation of it.
The president is allowed to talk about policy. Obama was the president in 2012.
Flynn was a citizen when he discussed policy with a foreign country. Citizens are not allowed to do that.
Exactly! Plus if he brought up sanctions, that's even worse, since it would be in violation of the Logan Act which states a private citizen cannot negotiate with any foreign adversary in dispute with the United States.
You're kidding, right? Because he WAS the sitting president before his re-election!! I don't know what in the world you are trying to prove, but if President Obama called Putin while he was still the U.S. President and he had not be re-elected yet, he was still the POTUS at that time. There is no "gap" before the inauguration. There is one POTUS at a time. What don't you understand about this?
Mine too. But stop with the emoticons, that's not helping your head.
Again, yes, he WAS president discussing matters and yes, he can promise anything when he IS/WAS president that he could deliever at the time when he was president. Agree 1001%. But promising things in the future, of which he can't know, ie winning reelection, is unethical at the least.
If in your life you 101% trust people who promise you things who could very likely not be in the position to deliver and feel that at the least is an ethical thing to do, well.....I don't know what to say.
And remember....lay off the emoticons....I think your head will feel better.
What part of he promised things AFTER his reelection that he didn't know at the time he'd win or not are you missing? I know he was all wonderful in every way but now you're telling me he has 100% future telling ability, arrogantly assuming he'd win election at the time, making promises all the way up to the top in russia, makes it so? Understanding the context here is important but I understand the reasons one would want to deflect on this point.
Since you don't want to listen to/can't comprehend the video, here's the text for you:
So the matter I bring up is a valid one.....he didn't know he'd be president after the 2012 election so why is it ok to promise things to russia before he knew he'd be president/get reelected? It's a valid question on many levels of ethics and beyond to promise things when someone doesn't know if they can deliver in that capacity/will be in that position to deliver and the ethics and beyond of such talk.
Deflect!?! Deflect!?! you accuse ME of deflection when the whole story hitting the entire news world is the Flynn Fiasco and you want to talk about Obama's conversation with Vlad the Bad while Obama was a sitting president in 2012?
And you accuse me of deflecting by staying on topic, which is Flynn? How can you be so obtuse?
But then, Obtuse comes second nature among Trump sycophants.
Exactly! Plus if he brought up sanctions, that's even worse, since it would be in violation of the Logan Act which states a private citizen cannot negotiate with any foreign adversary in dispute with the United States.
Hence why the no one has ever been prosecuted under the Act, and it most likely would be ruled unconstitutional if ever challenged.
Words like "dispute" and "adversary" are ambiguous, and can mean about anything. Technically, every country in the world the US has a dispute of some sort with, and in that regard, are considered an adversary. There are also ambiguous terms in the Act like "with intent to influence" which is a high bar to prove, even the FBI did not prosecute Hillary based on failure to prove "intent" regarding the emails.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Understanding the context here is important but I understand the reasons one would want to deflect on this point.
