(05-09-2018 10:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 10:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think Kerry made a mistake trying to stick his nose in this after he was no longer part of the admin.
I do think there is a difference between someone lobbying, but not representing the US (Kerry), and someone trying to represent the US (Flynn), in foreign relations. However, I don't think that is enough of a distinction with respect to the Logan Act, but as many pointed out regarding Flynn, it doesn't really matter because the Logan Act is never actually used.

Don't you think another difference is that one of them was going to be representing the US in the near future, and the other is a has-been?
The Logan Act was a pretext to get Flynn so they could use him to get Trump.

That is the difference, as I basically spelled it out, and I think it's a worse situation for the incoming person to be working behind that scenes.
That's because the person who is incoming can more actively undermine the current admin, because those they are negotiating with know that the incoming person will have power and the ability to affect change.
The person who is no longer in power doesn't really have any sway - the person they're negotiating with knows that and understands that the person won't be able to affect change. So at that point, it's less negotiating and more lobbying.
Neither are really good, though.

So the incoming administration should just come in, cold turkey, and have no contact with foreign governments until after the inauguration?

Because that appears to be what you are advocating. If that is not, please spell out how what you advocate is different. If that is in fact what you are advocating, please explain how you would expect to overcome the obvious transitional difficulties around the break point in relations.