(05-05-2020 06:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-05-2020 06:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-04-2020 01:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Plenty of reason to talk to world leaders during this time, but it needs to remain high level and out of the weeds of policy. If we want to change that, then lets change when inauguration occurs.

Why? And for that matter, how? Name the subjects that are okay to talk about in your mind?

Ive already provided some examples of topics incoming admins can, and frankly should, discuss. You’re intentionally ignoring that.

And I’ve already explained why, but let’s take it to an extreme. Say during the lame duck period we’re attacked by a foreign power and the POTUS needs to respond. We would not want to have two executives managing the response concurrently. We would want a unified message and response being executed through a single version of the executive branch. What you would want would be the outgoing admin to bring in the incoming admin, not the incoming admin going rogue and potentially detailing the response.

And pass a new amendment. We’ve done it once to shorten the lame duck period, so if y’all are so worked up over the current lame duck period and its impacts, advocate for changing it so it is shortened again.

But as the abortion lobby (among others) has been insisting for decades, an amendment is just too much trouble, since not everyone will agree to it like they should.

Fortunately, we don't need an amendment -- the Constitution can just "adapt" with the "times". As a potential VP nominee explained not long ago, not everything needs to be in "that book you carry".

(05-04-2020 03:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-04-2020 03:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-04-2020 01:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If we compare this to what Flynn did, Flynn not only raised Russian sanctions, he committed to what the Trump administration would do.

Because it's what the Trump administration wanted to do... not because there was 'negotiation'.

Earlier you said they couldn't negotiate with others, now you seem to be saying they can't state their own opinions/priorities.

and of course there is the difference between Obama and Flynn in terms of what they have the power to commit to.

And potentially further, was the Bush admin pushing for the missile defense program? If so, don't we then have a continuation, and not an about face, of the international policy? That obviously affects the current admin much less than if one does the exact opposite.

And now again, it seems okay as long as you're continuing it, as opposed to 'not'.

Quote:I think a delicate dance needs to occur given the situation we put ourselves in with the 2+ month lame duck window. Shorten the window and reduce the issues you bring up.

Or how about the bureaucracy work to advise and protect the incoming administration from engaging in technical breaches rather than engaging in using such technical mistakes to 'set them up'? Or more specifically, that we simply understand the idea that like any other similar situation, they can TALK about whatever they want, but they can't do anything until they're sworn in.... which of course everyone knows.

Pretend the Logan act didn't exist. Would we put it in place today? Is there really a concern that people will claim to have the authority of the US government who don't? If there is, would an elected, incoming administration accurately fit that description? Or would there simply be some... 'make it clear that nothing you say is binding or can be acted upon until after the inauguration' general disclaimer

To think that Trump couldn't repeat all the things he said during the election, or react to changes since the election, when he would be asked about those things daily by the press is really unreasonable.

(05-05-2020 06:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  so if y’all are so worked up over the current lame duck period and its impacts, advocate for changing it so it is shortened again.

YOU are the one so worked up over the lame duck period. It seems as though you are advocating for the incoming Administration to spend its time buying new prom dresses.

Whether the lame duck period is two months or ten days, the new Administration needs to spend the time getting ready to act once they are in office. This includes telling foreign powers how they feel and will act on certain items ONCE they are IN office. "We will repeal..." sounds the same whether it is a campaign promise or a promise to Iran. "We will enact..." the same.

Remember the Obama pledge to close Gitmo "on the first day"? Was that contravening the Bush policy?

neither the president-elect nor any of his Administration can do anything binding until they are in office. What did Flynn sign into law? It was prestty clear, as it always is. THIS is what the outgoing gang says and does...for now. The incoming gang may say and do differently when they are IN.

What a lot of tap dancing you guys do to shore up the legitimacy of the witch hunt. It was not legitimate. No top hat and cane will make it so.

The Logan Act made a little sense in 1799. Travel was long and hard, all communication was by mouth or letter. What was to prevent Joe Schmo from showing up in berlin or rome with a forged letter of introduction and then to enjoy the many perks of being a foreign envoy, including the collection of many bribes? At least until the real envoy showed up.

But now, it is different. We have face to face communication across the oceans nearly instantly. Nobody is going going to think they have negotiated a new trade deal effective immediately.

(05-05-2020 09:08 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-04-2020 03:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-04-2020 03:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-04-2020 01:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If we compare this to what Flynn did, Flynn not only raised Russian sanctions, he committed to what the Trump administration would do.

Because it's what the Trump administration wanted to do... not because there was 'negotiation'.

Earlier you said they couldn't negotiate with others, now you seem to be saying they can't state their own opinions/priorities.

and of course there is the difference between Obama and Flynn in terms of what they have the power to commit to.

And potentially further, was the Bush admin pushing for the missile defense program? If so, don't we then have a continuation, and not an about face, of the international policy? That obviously affects the current admin much less than if one does the exact opposite.

And now again, it seems okay as long as you're continuing it, as opposed to 'not'.

Quote:I think a delicate dance needs to occur given the situation we put ourselves in with the 2+ month lame duck window. Shorten the window and reduce the issues you bring up.

Or how about the bureaucracy work to advise and protect the incoming administration from engaging in technical breaches rather than engaging in using such technical mistakes to 'set them up'?

Do we have evidence of that? I've seen plenty of stories that discuss the Obama admins attempts to help the Trump admin (for example, holding a pandemic preparation session). That's a pretty big accusation that should be backed up by some serious sources.

Quote:Or more specifically, that we simply understand the idea that like any other similar situation, they can TALK about whatever they want, but they can't do anything until they're sworn in.... which of course everyone knows.

Pretend the Logan act didn't exist. Would we put it in place today? Is there really a concern that people will claim to have the authority of the US government who don't? If there is, would an elected, incoming administration accurately fit that description? Or would there simply be some... 'make it clear that nothing you say is binding or can be acted upon until after the inauguration' general disclaimer

To think that Trump couldn't repeat all the things he said during the election, or react to changes since the election, when he would be asked about those things daily by the press is really unreasonable.

Would we install the Logan Act today? Absolutely. We want to have protections in place to prosecute people who attempt to pretend they are representatives of the executive branch and aren't.

Perhaps there would be a cut out for an incoming administration in a new-age Logan Act that more clearly defined do's and don'ts, but it seems like a good idea to clearly lay out that people should, in essence, not be negotiating on behalf of the executive branch if they do not represent the current executive branch.

Look at another good example of what was likely a breaking of the Logan Act - Nixon sabotaging the Vietnamese peace negotiations in the late 1960s. At the time, there wasn't enough evidence to tie him to it directly, but had there been, it would be a perfect example of why the Logan Act (in some form) should exist. We shouldn't have candidates messing with the foreign policy of the current admin to try and set the stage for a winning campaign.

(05-05-2020 08:49 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-05-2020 06:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-05-2020 06:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-04-2020 01:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Plenty of reason to talk to world leaders during this time, but it needs to remain high level and out of the weeds of policy. If we want to change that, then lets change when inauguration occurs.

Why? And for that matter, how? Name the subjects that are okay to talk about in your mind?

Ive already provided some examples of topics incoming admins can, and frankly should, discuss. You’re intentionally ignoring that.

And I’ve already explained why, but let’s take it to an extreme. Say during the lame duck period we’re attacked by a foreign power and the POTUS needs to respond. We would not want to have two executives managing the response concurrently. We would want a unified message and response being executed through a single version of the executive branch. What you would want would be the outgoing admin to bring in the incoming admin, not the incoming admin going rogue and potentially detailing the response.

And pass a new amendment. We’ve done it once to shorten the lame duck period, so if y’all are so worked up over the current lame duck period and its impacts, advocate for changing it so it is shortened again.

But as the abortion lobby (among others) has been insisting for decades, an amendment is just too much trouble, since not everyone will agree to it like they should.

Fortunately, we don't need an amendment -- the Constitution can just "adapt" with the "times". As a potential VP nominee explained not long ago, not everything needs to be in "that book you carry".

Passing a new amendment is troublesome and difficult. But yes, if the current Supreme Court finds that the Logan Act is unconstitutional, that could also alter its interpretation.

But amending the Constitution is how it would be changed permanently - I figured that was the best answer when asked how it would be changed.

(05-05-2020 09:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We shouldn't have candidates messing with the foreign policy of the current admin to try and set the stage for a winning campaign.

I thought we were talking about the period between the election and the inauguration, what you have termed the lame duck period. Did you just move the goalposts?

The closest we have come to a private citizen undermining official policy is John Kerry.

(05-05-2020 09:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The Logan Act made a little sense in 1799. Travel was long and hard, all communication was by mouth or letter. What was to prevent Joe Schmo from showing up in berlin or rome with a forged letter of introduction and then to enjoy the many perks of being a foreign envoy, including the collection of many bribes? At least until the real envoy showed up.

But now, it is different. We have face to face communication across the oceans nearly instantly. Nobody is going going to think they have negotiated a new trade deal effective immediately.

I can very much see an argument for updating the Logan Act to account for change in communication and the shrinking of the world - the language is fairly wide and imprecise.

But I don't quite get the goal of removing a tool that can be used should politicians or private citizens, overstep their bounds with regards to foreign policy. All the opinion pieces I've read arguing for its removal primarily hinge on how little it has been used and its broad language. The former isn't overly convincing, and the latter speaks to narrowing its scope, but not its intent.

Its purpose makes sense to me, as a way to try and curtail rogue actors from setting foreign policy that is counter to the current administration. If there are other laws on the books that handle that, then that helps to support its repeal.

(05-05-2020 09:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-05-2020 09:08 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-04-2020 03:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-04-2020 03:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-04-2020 01:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If we compare this to what Flynn did, Flynn not only raised Russian sanctions, he committed to what the Trump administration would do.

Because it's what the Trump administration wanted to do... not because there was 'negotiation'.

Earlier you said they couldn't negotiate with others, now you seem to be saying they can't state their own opinions/priorities.

and of course there is the difference between Obama and Flynn in terms of what they have the power to commit to.

And potentially further, was the Bush admin pushing for the missile defense program? If so, don't we then have a continuation, and not an about face, of the international policy? That obviously affects the current admin much less than if one does the exact opposite.

And now again, it seems okay as long as you're continuing it, as opposed to 'not'.

Quote:I think a delicate dance needs to occur given the situation we put ourselves in with the 2+ month lame duck window. Shorten the window and reduce the issues you bring up.

Or how about the bureaucracy work to advise and protect the incoming administration from engaging in technical breaches rather than engaging in using such technical mistakes to 'set them up'?

Do we have evidence of that? I've seen plenty of stories that discuss the Obama admins attempts to help the Trump admin (for example, holding a pandemic preparation session). That's a pretty big accusation that should be backed up by some serious sources.

Quote:Or more specifically, that we simply understand the idea that like any other similar situation, they can TALK about whatever they want, but they can't do anything until they're sworn in.... which of course everyone knows.

Pretend the Logan act didn't exist. Would we put it in place today? Is there really a concern that people will claim to have the authority of the US government who don't? If there is, would an elected, incoming administration accurately fit that description? Or would there simply be some... 'make it clear that nothing you say is binding or can be acted upon until after the inauguration' general disclaimer

To think that Trump couldn't repeat all the things he said during the election, or react to changes since the election, when he would be asked about those things daily by the press is really unreasonable.

Would we install the Logan Act today? Absolutely. We want to have protections in place to prosecute people who attempt to pretend they are representatives of the executive branch and aren't.

Perhaps there would be a cut out for an incoming administration in a new-age Logan Act that more clearly defined do's and don'ts, but it seems like a good idea to clearly lay out that people should, in essence, not be negotiating on behalf of the executive branch if they do not represent the current executive branch.

Look at another good example of what was likely a breaking of the Logan Act - Nixon sabotaging the Vietnamese peace negotiations in the late 1960s. At the time, there wasn't enough evidence to tie him to it directly, but had there been, it would be a perfect example of why the Logan Act (in some form) should exist. We shouldn't have candidates messing with the foreign policy of the current admin to try and set the stage for a winning campaign.

Funny, your best example is of a private citizen and a candidate 'maybe' doing those acts.

Yet you steadfastly refuse to consider an incoming administration as in a very different light --- which it undoubtedly is.

Had you replaced 'Nixon the candidate' with 'Nixon the incoming President', the light drastically changes. And yes, in that situation the South Vietnamese *absolutely* would have a right to know, and a right to act on, the incoming administration's policies and intended actions.

But as the true warrior, you steadfastly refuse to note that difference.

(05-05-2020 09:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Its purpose makes sense to me, as a way to try and curtail rogue actors from setting CURRENT foreign policy that is counter to the current administration.

Nothing a member of an incoming Administration is official until they are in office. Therefore we will not have two foreign policies at any given time.

How does any of this differ from Obama pledging to close Gitmo on his first day? he announced that long before he was in office, and keeping Gitmo open was policy of the Bush Administration.

It was simple - Gitmo open until 1-20-09, closed after(presumably).

There is no reason for you to twist about this except to try and hold to some shred of legitimacy for the witch hunt.

Now go defend Kerry and attack Flynn, in your usual nonpartisan way.

(05-05-2020 09:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-05-2020 08:49 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-05-2020 06:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-05-2020 06:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-04-2020 01:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Plenty of reason to talk to world leaders during this time, but it needs to remain high level and out of the weeds of policy. If we want to change that, then lets change when inauguration occurs.

Why? And for that matter, how? Name the subjects that are okay to talk about in your mind?

Ive already provided some examples of topics incoming admins can, and frankly should, discuss. You’re intentionally ignoring that.

And I’ve already explained why, but let’s take it to an extreme. Say during the lame duck period we’re attacked by a foreign power and the POTUS needs to respond. We would not want to have two executives managing the response concurrently. We would want a unified message and response being executed through a single version of the executive branch. What you would want would be the outgoing admin to bring in the incoming admin, not the incoming admin going rogue and potentially detailing the response.

And pass a new amendment. We’ve done it once to shorten the lame duck period, so if y’all are so worked up over the current lame duck period and its impacts, advocate for changing it so it is shortened again.

But as the abortion lobby (among others) has been insisting for decades, an amendment is just too much trouble, since not everyone will agree to it like they should.

Fortunately, we don't need an amendment -- the Constitution can just "adapt" with the "times". As a potential VP nominee explained not long ago, not everything needs to be in "that book you carry".

Passing a new amendment is troublesome and difficult. But yes, if the current Supreme Court finds that the Logan Act is unconstitutional, that could also alter its interpretation.

When it comes to changing the Constitution, you and I were not talking about the Logan Act; we were talking about the lame duck period. Why shouldn't the Court just "adapt" the period with the times?

(05-05-2020 09:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But amending the Constitution is how it would be changed permanently - I figured that was the best answer when asked how it would be changed.

Good to know. The framers thought so too.

(05-05-2020 09:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-05-2020 09:08 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Or how about the bureaucracy work to advise and protect the incoming administration from engaging in technical breaches rather than engaging in using such technical mistakes to 'set them up'?

Do we have evidence of that?

Yes we do. See the recently released conversations.

Quote:I've seen plenty of stories that discuss the Obama admins attempts to help the Trump admin (for example, holding a pandemic preparation session). That's a pretty big accusation that should be backed up by some serious sources.

This is not remotely the same thing. Bush did the same for Obama etc etc etc. I spoke of the bureaucracy... the systems that remain when administrations change, in this case I believe it was the FBI who let an administrative error 'happen' (still debatable, but moot) in order to gain tactical leverage. Maybe it's not the FBI, that isn't my point... we're clearly talking about a technical/timing issue here, and not someone who isn't remotely representing our government purporting to do so. It seems obvious that all the bureaucracy would have to do upon discovery of this issue was to formally inform the other side that nothing they said could be acted upon until after they were sworn in.

Quote:Would we install the Logan Act today? Absolutely. We want to have protections in place to prosecute people who attempt to pretend they are representatives of the executive branch and aren't.

So without the Logan act, we couldn't prosecute someone for doing the above? Are you seriously saying that? Is there any evidence that Flynn pretended that he was a representative of the sitting executive branch? Of course not.

Your own defense makes my point. Thank you

Quote:Perhaps there would be a cut out for an incoming administration in a new-age Logan Act that more clearly defined do's and don'ts, but it seems like a good idea to clearly lay out that people should, in essence, not be negotiating on behalf of the executive branch if they do not represent the current executive branch.

There is zero evidence or even inference that anyone negotiated on behalf of the sitting executive branch. You still haven't told me what he 'negotiated'. All I'm aware of (and am very prepared to be better informed) is that he told the Russians that Trump intended to lift the sanctions when he took office. As I said, had he said... 'he'll do this, IF you help him get elected'... or 'if you hide the evidence that he was complicit in your helping him'.... which was precisely what the FBI was looking for and didn't find... that would be negotiating. The term has a specific definition, and it differs from 'inform of intentions'.

Quote:Look at another good example of what was likely a breaking of the Logan Act - Nixon sabotaging the Vietnamese peace negotiations in the late 1960s. At the time, there wasn't enough evidence to tie him to it directly, but had there been, it would be a perfect example of why the Logan Act (in some form) should exist. We shouldn't have candidates messing with the foreign policy of the current admin to try and set the stage for a winning campaign.

At the time, Nixon had not been elected. This is closer to the Obama comment as he had not yet been elected to preside over the period being discussed... and clearly he was being asked to do something (negotiating) which you denied applied. Surely you recognize the difference between presidential candidates and the president-elect, quite literally days prior to his swearing in?

(05-05-2020 11:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Would we install the Logan Act today? Absolutely. We want to have protections in place to prosecute people who attempt to pretend they are representatives of the executive branch and aren't.

But Flynn wasn't pretending to be a representative of the then executive branch. He was correctly asserting to be a representative of the incoming executive branch. Do you really, seriously believe that anyone with whom Flynn spoke did not understand that?

He was not a private citizen. He was a representative of the incoming administration. As such, he should be entitled to have discussions with foreign leaders with whom he would shortly be interacting as a representative of the executive branch.

A Logan Act violation is Jane Fonda going to Hanoi. It is not a representative of an incoming administration having preliminary discussions with a foreign counterpart.

(05-05-2020 11:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-05-2020 11:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Would we install the Logan Act today? Absolutely. We want to have protections in place to prosecute people who attempt to pretend they are representatives of the executive branch and aren't.

But Flynn wasn't pretending to be a representative of the then executive branch. He was correctly asserting to be a representative of the incoming executive branch. Do you really, seriously believe that anyone with whom Flynn spoke did not understand that?

He was not a private citizen. He was a representative of the incoming administration. As such, he should be entitled to have discussions with foreign leaders with whom he would shortly be interacting as a representative of the executive branch.

A Logan Act violation is Jane Fonda going to Hanoi. It is not a representative of an incoming administration having preliminary discussions with a foreign counterpart.

Numbers, would you please edit your post above to not reflect 'me' having said this?

Thanks

I wish our current 'Logan Act'-hawks had the same amount of zealousness or concern over Secretary of States using a non-secure server in a cabinet in the guest bathroom to receive and confidential information. I mean, a violation of a law that has more than the rate of one indictment per century than this one.

(D)ouble standard.

(05-05-2020 11:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I wish our current 'Logan Act'-hawks had the same amount of zealousness or concern over Secretary of States using a non-secure server in a cabinet in the guest bathroom to receive and confidential information. I mean, a violation of a law that has more than the rate of one indictment per century than this one.

(D)ouble standard.

Have you seen any Democrat say that Clinton should have had a private and non-secure server?

That's the proper analogy here.

I thought we were talking about whether or not the Logan Act made sense and should exist, and the issues it can create for incoming administration. Not if Flynn should be locked up in Leavenworth.

(05-05-2020 12:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-05-2020 11:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I wish our current 'Logan Act'-hawks had the same amount of zealousness or concern over Secretary of States using a non-secure server in a cabinet in the guest bathroom to receive and confidential information. I mean, a violation of a law that has more than the rate of one indictment per century than this one.

(D)ouble standard.

Have you seen any Democrat say that Clinton should have had a private and non-secure server?

That's the proper analogy here.

I thought we were talking about whether or not the Logan Act made sense and should exist, and the issues it can create for incoming administration. Not if Flynn should be locked up in Leavenworth.

I thought we were talking about the use of the trumped-up charges to lend legitimacy to the witch Russia probe. (smoke).

(05-05-2020 12:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-05-2020 11:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I wish our current 'Logan Act'-hawks had the same amount of zealousness or concern over Secretary of States using a non-secure server in a cabinet in the guest bathroom to receive and confidential information. I mean, a violation of a law that has more than the rate of one indictment per century than this one.

(D)ouble standard.

Have you seen any Democrat say that Clinton should have had a private and non-secure server?

That's the proper analogy here.

I thought we were talking about whether or not the Logan Act made sense and should exist, and the issues it can create for incoming administration. Not if Flynn should be locked up in Leavenworth.

um... no. Nothing happened at all to her as a result of her very clear violation, mostly for technical reasons. Flynn committed a mostly technical violation.

and while you may not have been referencing me at all, I asked about whether or not you would put it in place today if it didn't exist.... which is materially different from your suggestion above.

The reason that matters is because it has been applied so infrequently... and with such discretion clearly previously given.

Your description of the Nixon situation only magnifies how rarely it was successfully applied. Between that and Reagan, there should have been at least two convictions for meaningful, much less technical violations.... One involved hostage negotiations and the other involved a peace deal. This one involved facebook trolling.

(05-05-2020 12:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-05-2020 11:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I wish our current 'Logan Act'-hawks had the same amount of zealousness or concern over Secretary of States using a non-secure server in a cabinet in the guest bathroom to receive and confidential information. I mean, a violation of a law that has more than the rate of one indictment per century than this one.
(D)ouble standard.

Have you seen any Democrat say that Clinton should have had a private and non-secure server?

I don't know about any leaders, but I've had tons of rank-and-file tell me it was okay, and that Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice did the same thing (they didn't).

(05-05-2020 12:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-05-2020 11:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I wish our current 'Logan Act'-hawks had the same amount of zealousness or concern over Secretary of States using a non-secure server in a cabinet in the guest bathroom to receive and confidential information. I mean, a violation of a law that has more than the rate of one indictment per century than this one.
(D)ouble standard.

Have you seen any Democrat say that Clinton should have had a private and non-secure server?

I don't know about any democrat party leaders, but I've had tons of rank-and-file tell me it was okay, and that Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice did the same thing (they didn't).