75

These are the three things which I understand about the situation:

  • He potentially discussed sanctions with a Russian ambassador
  • He misrepresented or lied about his conversations with the Russian ambassador
  • He was vulnerable to blackmail

This information has been published by many news organizations, but here's a specific source for the information above.

I have two questions about the current situation:

  1. Was the content of Flynn's discussions with the Russian amabassador illegal? If so, why?

  2. Why did he resign? Was it because of one specific bullet point listed above, or was it the combination of all three and the ensuing bad press?

  • 3
    I don't know that we can answer the second question. At best we could say why they say Flynn's leaving. The ultimate answer is going to be "because the president wanted him to leave." Why? That's mostly between them – Brythan Feb 14 '17 at 13:46
  • 14
    Re: #2, as they noted back during Watergate, "It's Not The Crime, It's The Cover-Up" – user4012 Feb 14 '17 at 15:01
  • 7
    Regarding #2, some are theorizing that Flynn wouldn't have made assurances about sanctions on his own accord (that Trump is ultimately responsible here), and that his resignation is therefore an attempt to take the fall and divert attention from Trump's direct role. I find these theories plausible. – BradC Feb 14 '17 at 17:27
  • 2
    Since we can assume that phone calls to the Russian Ambassador in the USA are recorded by the NSA, would a FOI request for the recording of that call be possible? – Martin Schröder Feb 15 '17 at 01:28
  • 5
    He got caught, that's always the worst crime in politics. – Separatrix Feb 16 '17 at 09:12
  • Also look up Keith Olbermann's video on YouTube: Michael Flynn must now be arrested. In it, he explains very well what happened. – NVZ Feb 16 '17 at 14:50
  • 1
    In this case it was apparently the FBI who recorded the call, @MartinSchröder, but you're not likely to get much from an FOI request; they say it's classified, of course. – jscs Feb 16 '17 at 15:45
  • My real guess is that Trump didn't like him and this was a convenient way to push him out. Lots of people have violated the Logan Act over the years, including Nancy Pelosi, Jimmy Carter (after his presidency, when he had no more authority) and Jesse Jackson. None of these people got much worse than a finger shaken at them. So in reality, what Flynn did was nothing new and no big deal and Trump could have simply ignored this incident. But if you don't like a guy and want to replace him, it's as good of a reason as any. – JamieB Feb 16 '17 at 16:09
  • In addition to the discussion of the sanctions he also accepted money for a TV appearance over there and didn't report it. – Loren Pechtel Feb 19 '17 at 01:03
  • This site is hopeless. Once again, a bunch of wildly upvoted answers, all factually incorrect, spouting the liberal narrative. The site is a left wing clique, reinforcing each others' thought bubble. A total waste of time for non-liberal participation. –  Feb 19 '17 at 08:43
  • @JamieB This at least is wrong. Trump liked Flynn. He was probably jettisoned for political reasons. – Rich Seviora Feb 19 '17 at 19:24
  • 3
    @fixer1234, The echo chamber is a known issue in internet usage. While you may not feel that your participation is appropriately appreciated, it is essential to help reduce the echo chamber effect. The presence of a dissenting opinion is a critical part of any political discussion. – Separatrix Feb 20 '17 at 08:35
  • 1
    Flynn was also involved in a kidnapping plot for millions of dollars: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/10/michael-flynn-trump-turkish-dissident-cleric-plot – Tanath Jan 15 '18 at 01:00

10 Answers10

51

Update - WH Statement

According to the White House spokesperson Sean Spicer, Trump seemed to have requested the resignation of Flynn due to a "trust issue".

President Donald Trump asked for Michael Flynn's resignation after he lost trust in his national security adviser for misleading Vice President Mike Pence over his calls with Russia's ambassador, the White House said Tuesday.

"The level of trust between the President and Gen. Flynn had eroded to the point where he felt he had to make a change," Spicer told reporters. "The President was very concerned that Gen. Flynn had misled the vice president and others."

Trump therefore felt he could not trust his top foreign policy right-hand and on key national security issues like China and the Middle East, Spicer said.

(emphasis mine)

Basically, he resigned due to violating the Logan Act and causing embarrassment to the Trump administration.

The Logan Act specifically states:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(emphasis mine)

According to this BBC article which includes a timeline of the events, Flynn first spoke to the Russian ambassador in the US on Dec 28:

28 December: Mr Flynn and Russian ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislyak, exchange Christmas text messages by mobile phone

Flynn then spoke to him after Obama introduced sanctions on Russia:

29 December: US President Barack Obama announces sanctions expelling 35 Russian diplomats for the country's alleged interference in the US presidential elections

29 December: Mr Flynn holds a phone call with the Russian ambassador

Flynn took office together with President Trump and his executive team:

20 January 2017: President Trump and his executive team, including Mr Flynn, take office

So, Flynn is still considered a private citizen before he took office on Jan 20. Thus, it's a violation of the Logan Act.

As for prosecution, no one has been prosecuted under this act.

This article by Vox states:

No one has ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act, but Flynn is facing a second and potentially far more dangerous investigation. The FBI is actively probing Flynn’s interactions with Kislyak, and resigning from his White House post won’t shield Flynn from potential future criminal prosecution.

Flynn resigned to avoid embarrassment to the Trump administration since he misled both the public and the Trump administration yet the Trump administration publicly defended him.

As he stated in his resignation letter:

"I inadvertently briefed the Vice President-elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian ambassador. I have sincerely apologized to the President and the Vice President, and they have accepted my apology."

He denied the contact with the Russian ambassador in an interview on Feb 8.

In a Feb. 8 interview with The Washington Post, Flynn categorically denied discussing sanctions with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, repeating public assertions made in January by top Trump officials. One day after the interview, Flynn revised his account, telling The Post through a spokesman that he “couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up.”

(emphasis mine)

Even the Vice-President Mike Pence defended him:

Pence said in a Jan. 15 appearance on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that Flynn’s conversations with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were “strictly coincidental” and had nothing to do with the Obama administration’s decision to punish Russia for meddling in the November election, which U.S. intelligence agencies agree was intended to help boost Trump's prospects. “They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia,” Pence told CBS.

(emphasis mine)

And the White House's Press Secretary:

Pence wasn’t the only administration official to explain away Flynn’s contact with the Russian envoy. Press Secretary Sean Spicer, then a transition official, said Jan. 13 that Flynn’s calls were about scheduling a call for Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin after the swearing in. “That was it,” Spicer said at the time. “Plain and simple.”

(emphasis mine)

So, this caused embarrassment for the Trump administration since they misled the public.

Community
  • 1
Panda
  • 46,580
  • 9
  • 179
  • 239
  • 6
    Thanks for the thorough answer! Does the alleged "vulnerability to blackmail" have anything to do with this issue, or it that less important than the two factors you cite as primary reasons for Flynn's resignation? –  Feb 14 '17 at 14:06
  • 3
    @arbitrarystringofletters It might, though it's not the officially stated reason as described in this article by the WP. Personally, I would think that the likely reason is to prevent any further embarrassment to the Trump administration. – Panda Feb 14 '17 at 14:09
  • 3
    @arbitrarystringofletters - I'm assuming it's not something more tawdry, and, yes, this issue would give someone material for blackmail. The Russians had first-hand and probably verifiable proof that Flynn broke the law, and then lied about it (since he was breaking the law by talking to them about the matters he did, and they were there), which would give them personal leverage, potentially, over him and possibly the administration. I hope that's all it was about. – PoloHoleSet Feb 14 '17 at 15:20
  • 5
    “he misled [...] the Trump administration,” okay, yeah, I’m sure. ⌐.⌐ Still, good answer, +1. – KRyan Feb 14 '17 at 16:57
  • 8
    @arbitrarystringofletters Yes, the journalist who wrote the Washington Post article has clarified that the nature of the "vulnerability to blackmail" was, in fact, that the Russians knew Flynn discussed sanctions (because they were on the other end of the phone), and then lied about it. So they could potentially threaten to publicly expose his lie in exchange for some concession. – BradC Feb 14 '17 at 17:18
  • 2
    Sorry, I don't buy "causing embarrassment to the Trump Administration" a plausible reason. :D –  Feb 14 '17 at 20:17
  • @blip Lol, anyway, it seems Trump might have requested him to resign instead, according to a WH spokesperson – Panda Feb 14 '17 at 22:45
  • 1
    Since Flynn must know that phone calls with the Russian Ambassador are recorded by the NSA/FBI/..., he lied either in the interview on the 8th or on the next day. We can assume that Trump et.al. have seen the transcripts. – Martin Schröder Feb 15 '17 at 01:23
  • 2
    I don't think a christmas SMS constitutes influencing the measures or conduct [...] in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States Normal casual contacts are not forbidden. OTOH a kid shouting at a visiting foreign dignitary "Please don't bomb us!" violates the Logan Act. – SF. Feb 15 '17 at 07:27
  • 4
    @SF.A Christmas SMS is unlikely to be part of the controversy, that's true. But it's not the SMS message that anyone cares about; it's the later (apparently recorded) phone conversation plus the (apparent) statements made by Flynn to Pence (and possibly others) about that conversation. The recording (supposedly) was reviewed after it became clear that there would be no public retaliation by Russia for the latest sanctions, which raised big suspicions about what was really going on. – user2338816 Feb 15 '17 at 13:10
  • I think important to add is that there is an ongoing corporate media witch hunt and intentional demonisation of Russia, which causes a climate of fear and distrust, a need to be more careful than necessary. IMO driving a wedge between USA and Russia is indicative of who the media's paymasters are – Sentinel Feb 17 '17 at 07:36
  • I think the more important bit of the Logan Act is "or to defeat the measures of the United States". – Kaithar Feb 17 '17 at 12:37
  • If what George Logan is supposed to have done in 1798, would violate The Logan Act today, then half of what's on Facebook and Twitter would too. – Bob Stein Feb 17 '17 at 19:07
  • @Panda As a retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General he may also be subject to US Army Regulation 27-10, Military Justice, (which states “Retired members of a regular component of the Armed Forces who are entitled to pay are subject to the provisions of the UCMJ..."). Given his time at the Defense Intelligence Agency, distinguished career, and extensive experience, he knew better. At the moment it seems probable that this play went sideways and he took the hit for the team. If the US Army chooses to open UCMJ charges under 27-10 based on his conduct, this issue may come back into the spotlight. – Rick Lentz Feb 19 '17 at 04:12
  • Flynn did nothing to violate the Logan act. It was his job to talk to the Russian ambassador (as well as counterparts in other countries) in preparation for the new administration. The Russian ambassador mentioned the sanctions, and Flynn said it wasn't appropriate for them to discuss it before the new administration took office. The FBI reviewed the matter and determined that nothing improper took place. –  Feb 19 '17 at 08:17
  • I don't think it's possible for anyone to embarrass Trump more than Trump himself. – dan-klasson Apr 30 '17 at 19:43
  • Are you going to update this answer? – jpmc26 May 19 '20 at 01:17
25

Flynn's discussions with the Russian Ambassador prior to January 20 could be viewed as a violation of the Logan Act, which prohibits private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments who are having a dispute with the USA. At the time those conversations took place, Flynn was a private citizen and Obama was president. Allegedly, Flynn told the Russian ambassador that the new sanctions imposed would be dropped by the Trump administration.

Flynn then lied to Pence about those conversations, and Pence publicly defended him based on the information Flynn gave him. Now that Flynn is admitting that that subject "possibly" did take place, it is an embarrassment to Pence and the Trump administration. IMHO, the way he phrased his retraction of previous statements was incredibly weak and pathetic: How could one forget that they were assuring the Russians that sanctions would be dropped, and still be unsure whether that was said or not? Is that how our National Security Advisor should act with an adversarial government?

I think the bottom line is that this became too much of an embarrassment and headache to the Trump administration. Lying to Pence was a betrayal to Trump, and Trump has bigger problems to tackle, and so Flynn had to go.

jalynn2
  • 827
  • 7
  • 9
  • 22
    It's not the crime that gets you. It's the cover-up. – user4012 Feb 14 '17 at 14:57
  • 5
    Good answer, except "probably." It's pretty much the definition of violating the Logan Act. The "probably" is more whether anything would come of it, seeing as how nothing ever does, and it's happened many times. – PoloHoleSet Feb 14 '17 at 15:21
  • 2
    @PoloHoleSet - Agreed that this is definitely a violation of the Logan Act if proven and true. Since Flynn is not actually admitting it ("Gosh, I just can't recall if that subject came up") and it has not been proven in a court of law, I was avoiding saying he is guilty. I will be very surprised if he is actually charged and tried. – jalynn2 Feb 14 '17 at 15:39
  • Yes, charging and trying would fall under the "needs to give a f--k" category. Can't fault you for being temperate in your choice of words. The way it was phrased it wasn't clear to me that you meant it wasn't conclusive proven yet, vs. whether it would be or not if allegations were true. Thanks for clarifying. – PoloHoleSet Feb 14 '17 at 15:47
  • 3
    @PoloHoleSet I don't agree that we have any idea whether or not this violates the Logan Act because we have no idea how a court would construe it in harmony with modern First Amendment jurisprudence. They could, for example, find that the Logan Act no longer applies to any conduct at all (and this is the position of some legal scholars though not the majority). Without any history of prosecution, pretty much all we can do is guess. – David Schwartz Feb 14 '17 at 19:13
  • 2
    @DavidSchwartz - Then it's not a matter of whether this violates the Logan Act, but whether the Logan Act is valid, period. It clearly does violate the Logan Act, which currently is in force as law. Whether the Logan Act would hold up on appeal is a different question. Only the current presidential administration's appointed representatives can legally make representations on the behalf of the US government. Flynn was not. There is no grey area there. What you are talking about is something quite different - whether the Logan Act violates the Constitution. – PoloHoleSet Feb 14 '17 at 19:53
  • @PoloHoleSet If the Logan Act is not valid, then nothing violates it. They are precisely the same question. Any Federal law has to be understood in a way consistent with the limitations on the powers Federal law has. The Logan Act could be held to be valid but Unconstitutional as applied to this particular behavior and thus not prohibiting it. – David Schwartz Feb 14 '17 at 20:27
  • @PoloHoleSet I have to disagree that Mr. Flynn's actions are "definitely" a violation of the Logan Act. There is no evidence that he discussed the sanctions with the "intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof". Discussing them I would think be part of his duty as a member of the incoming Administration. – Michael J. Feb 14 '17 at 21:35
  • @MichaelJ. - right, because this administration backs down for the sake of appearances and propriety even when they don't do anything that's wrong. I guess the "plausible" part of plausible deniability has long since left the building. No, discussing how they are planning on reversing foreign policy decisions when they are not yet in office is absolutely not part of his duty, because an INCOMING administration has zero foreign policy authority. Once they become the CURRENT administration, another story. Until then, they can't. If there's no intent, there's no reason to have that discussion. – PoloHoleSet Feb 14 '17 at 22:32
  • Though primarily considered to apply to private citizens, the Logan Act applies to unauthorized citizens. Had Flynn been the actual National Security Advisor appointed by then-President Obama and had spoken the same on his own without Presidential direction, the Logan Act would still have been violated. (Probably to a more serious degree.) – user2338816 Feb 15 '17 at 12:42
  • @MichaelJ. - "no evidence" - are you sure you want to stick by that? There are recorded phone intercepts, which the FBI briefed Trump on in late January, with an official report. That's what's being reported on. That's what the administration is not denying (I believed they specifically referenced the recorded conversations at one point). In fact, the administration in "firing" Flynn has said that he lied, so they are confirming this. – PoloHoleSet Feb 15 '17 at 14:28
  • 1
    @DavidSchwartz - But the Logan Act IS valid. It is the law of the land, and there have been no rulings otherwise. Your speculation from, you admit, a few outlier sources, that maybe it MIGHT get overturned IF challenged does not make the law invalid. The law is in place, and in force, which makes it valid. That's some tortured logic. As such, Flynn's actions can certainly violated a standing, active and current law. – PoloHoleSet Feb 15 '17 at 14:30
  • @PoloHoleSet It's the outlier sources that say the Logan Act is entirely invalid. It is not outlier sources (in fact, it is the majority view) that the Logan Act actually covers only a small subset of what it appears to cover. It may or may not be the law of the land, we don't know. To the extent it conflicts with the First Amendment, it is not the law of the land. There are lots of unconstitutional laws still on the books all over the country and when they are clearly unconstitutional, it is the outlier position that they are nevertheless the law of the land. – David Schwartz Feb 15 '17 at 17:11
  • @DavidSchwartz - You are saying that someone can't be or possibly isn't in violation of a law that has been on the books for decades, is current, and has never been overturned because you think it MIGHT be invalid. That's absurd. Of course they can be in violation of a law that is current and has never failed constitutional review. If you want to argue that the technical language of the law does not match with his actions, that's one thing. He certainly violated the Logan Act by his actions, to circle back to the original point. – PoloHoleSet Feb 15 '17 at 17:30
  • @PoloHoleSet That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the majority view of legal experts is that the Logan Act covers, at most, only a small subset of what it appears to cover. The most recent court to consider the question said it was "doubtful" that the Logan Act was constitutional at all (Waldron v. British Petroleum Co.). Arguing that the Logan Act is the law of the land and means what it says is an extremely minority view. That's just not how Federal law works in the United States. – David Schwartz Feb 15 '17 at 17:38
  • @DavidSchwartz - The Congressional Research Service did an extensive analysis, and they disagree. "With respect to the act's constitutionality, there is the above-discussed case, United States vs Peace Information Center in which the court seemed to suggest that.... both acts are constitutional..." (also Foreign Agents Registration Act). These particular acts are pretty much the exact template that the Logan Act seeks to prevent. – PoloHoleSet Feb 15 '17 at 21:10
  • @PoloHoleSet You either did not read or grossly misread that extensive analysis! They're cautioning that you can't rely on it being found unconstitutional and therefore Congress should either follow it or repeal it. "Although it appears that there has never been a prosecution under the Logan Act, there have been several judicial references to it, indicating that the act has not been forgotten and that it is at least a potential point of challenge that has been used against anyone who without authority allegedly interferes in the foreign relations of the United States." – David Schwartz Feb 15 '17 at 21:39
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – David Schwartz Feb 15 '17 at 21:40
  • Flynn did nothing to violate the Logan act. It was his job to talk to the Russian ambassador (as well as counterparts in other countries) in preparation for the new administration. The Russian ambassador mentioned the sanctions, and Flynn said it wasn't appropriate for them to discuss it before the new administration took office. The FBI reviewed the matter and determined that nothing improper took place. Lying to Pence is also a mischaracterization. The mention of sanctions was a nothingburger which Flynn initially considered irrelevant and later clarified. –  Feb 19 '17 at 08:23
11

In the US, a private citizen cannot "do diplomacy" with a foreign country.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that details the fine and/or imprisonment of unauthorized citizens who negotiate with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States.

At the time of the phone call, Michael Flynn was still not part of the government, and was still an "unauthorized citizen"

He resigned, mostly because he lied to the the Vice President about the content of the phone calls.

Max
  • 1,854
  • 10
  • 19
  • 2
    Is it likely that he'll be prosecuted for violating the Logan Act? –  Feb 14 '17 at 13:57
  • 3
    @arbitrarystringofletters No because (1) Trump would be unlikely to direct prosecution, (2) its very hard to actually prove, currently its all just accusations, (3) people want to get this out of the news asap. – David says Reinstate Monica Feb 14 '17 at 14:24
  • 2
    @DavidGrinberg According to the story, they have a recording of Flynn's conversation. Proof isn't necessarily the problem. Either he said something prosecutable or not. Trump not wanting to prosecute in order to get it out of the news cycle as quickly as possible is a much larger obstacle. – Brythan Feb 14 '17 at 14:32
  • 4
    @arbitrarystringofletters - This is not the first time the Act would have been violated. It would be the first time it would be used to prosecute. If historical precedent is any indication, regardless of the mood of any administration or opposition, I'd have to say it's highly doubtful that the Logan Act, specifically, would be used as a vehicle for prosecution. – PoloHoleSet Feb 14 '17 at 15:58
  • 3
    No one has ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/logan-act-tom-cotton-iran-116036 – bcattle Feb 15 '17 at 02:39
  • 1
    It's not clear whether or not it's possible to prosecute anyone under the Logan Act given modern First Amendment jurisprudence. – David Schwartz Feb 15 '17 at 17:12
  • Importantly, there seems to be a lot more to this story than whether or not the Logan Act was breached by Flynn. It has stirred questions about what the President knew and when; and suspicion over the records of Trump camp conversations with Russian intelligence during the election campaign. – Black Feb 16 '17 at 01:44
  • Flynn did nothing to violate the Logan act. It was his job to talk to the Russian ambassador (as well as counterparts in other countries) in preparation for the new administration. The Russian ambassador mentioned the sanctions, and Flynn said it wasn't appropriate for them to discuss it before the new administration took office. The FBI reviewed the matter and determined that nothing improper took place. Lying to Pence is also a mischaracterization. The mention of sanctions was a nothingburger which Flynn initially considered irrelevant and later clarified. –  Feb 19 '17 at 08:24
9

He potentially discussed sanctions with a Russian ambassador

This was technically illegal at the time Michael Flynn did it. In and of itself, that was probably survivable, as calling him a private citizen at that point was a bit of a stretch. Note that Donald Trump also engaged in diplomacy prior to becoming president, convincing Egypt to drop their request for a UN resolution against Israel for settlements in Palestine. Also, it's the Trump administration that makes the decision whether or not to prosecute.

The larger problem is that he lied about it to Vice-President-elect Mike Pence. This put Pence in the position of saying things publicly in media interviews that turned out not to be true. While this isn't the same level of legal issue (more of a firing offense than a prosecutable offense), it is probably the larger sin—at least in Trump's eyes. And Pence's.

We don't know what Flynn said (we may eventually find out, as the government has that information). Apparently sanctions were mentioned. He may have promised that Trump would drop sanctions. He may or may not have had authorization to do that. We don't know what would happen in a prosecution, as we don't know what was said. We also don't know that the Trump administration would want a prosecution; they may prefer to get the story finished as soon as possible.

What we know is that Trump has not dropped sanctions. Neither the new ones about the hacking nor the longer run ones about Ukraine.

Being vulnerable to blackmail is not illegal, but it may be a firing offense. Of course, we don't know how he is vulnerable to blackmail. The easy way to avoid blackmail is to share the hidden information. Flynn may have preferred resigning to that. Or he may have had to resign regardless. Absent official statements, we may never know.

There's also an element of palace intrigue to the story. Some in the administration may have wanted Flynn out because he disagreed with them. However, without someone explicitly saying that, that's just speculation.

Community
  • 1
Brythan
  • 89,627
  • 8
  • 218
  • 324
  • 7
    He was not a member of the administration in power, and he was acting contrary to them, and they have sole authority to conduct foreign policy. That goes beyond "technically illegal." Also, "private citizen" is as defined by the law. He wasn't part of any group that was authorized to conduct foreign policy on behalf of the USA. A bit of hand-waving here. Not enough for a down-vote by me, though. Lying to Pence may be more serious to an authoritarian administration, but under the law, the act, itself, is the more serious offense. Just my opinion. – PoloHoleSet Feb 14 '17 at 15:25
  • I love that, "potentially discussed" Let's all come up with other things he could have "potentially" discussed. Until someone has been proved to have done something, let's just focus on what is "known." First, we know that all the call crap is classified and we will likely never get the full answer on what was discussed. Second, someone in the administration leaked classified documents and needs to be keelhauled. Third, Flynn lied to the VP about what was going on, and got his butt canned (I am suspecting more than just lying to the VP, but that in and of itself is a valid reason). – NZKshatriya Feb 17 '17 at 03:20
  • @nzksharyia not necessarily, a recording could have been supplied by a Russian actor. Do not forget Flynn's stance on Iran – Sentinel Feb 17 '17 at 07:41
  • @PoloHoleSet: A key aspect of the Logan Act is the intention with which any action is undertaken. If the Russian ambassador had expressed some personal anxiety with regard to U.S. relations, it would be plausible that Flynn might have said something to ease his mind and thought nothing more of it. That wouldn't really rise to the level of "discussion", nor would entail the level of intent necessary to violate the Logan Act, but might still be enough to suggest that Flynn may not be 100% suitable for the job – supercat Feb 18 '17 at 20:30
  • @supercat - possible, but I'm not sure about plausible. He lied through his teeth about it, changed his stories, and they had exactly what was said recorded, and it was alarming enough that they did a report saying he was compromised and blackmail-able over it. That doesn't strike me as kind of an aside that technically tripped over the Logan Act. We'll know in about 20 years if those recordings get released via FOIA. – PoloHoleSet Feb 20 '17 at 14:12
  • @NZKshatriya - you really think Flynn was randomly making these kind of assurances completely on his own, without knowledge or approval from Trump? Please. When the "leak" exposes the breaking of laws by those in authority that would otherwise be covered-up, without compromising our national security or endangering lives, that's called "whistle-blowing" and deserves a medal. Just my opinion. The story isn't the "leak," it's the breaking of laws, and trying to suck up to and curry favor from our greatest international enemy, at the expense of our democratic institutions. – PoloHoleSet Feb 20 '17 at 14:16
  • @PoloHoleSet In the end it doesn't matter what I "think." In the end it matters what the facts are. And the facts likely will not be released to the public for a while likely decades if ever. – NZKshatriya Feb 20 '17 at 14:35
  • @NZKshatriya - they won't be officially released by the government, but, given the fact that Trump is claiming this is a "leak," and that Flynn resigned over it, we can be objectively confident that the press has access to the actual facts. These stories were based on a specific official report, and actual recordings, otherwise the Trump administration would have continued to wave it off. – PoloHoleSet Feb 20 '17 at 14:37
  • @PoloHoleSet press may have access to the facts, doesn't mean they will report them. due to best interests or other reasons, as news media truly isn't about news anymore and hasn't been for quite a while. And given enough time, documents may be made available, with redaction via FOIA requests time being decades lol. – NZKshatriya Feb 20 '17 at 15:53
  • It's unclassified enough that it could appear in a conversation with the *Russians* but too classified to tell the American people. That seems rather problematic. – Brythan Feb 20 '17 at 16:40
  • @PoloHoleSet: My point was that there's a continuum of possible actions, by both Flynn and Trump, which could be viewed as having legal or illegal motivations, and it's hard to tell based upon behaviors after the fact whether the original action would have been regarded as particularly problematic at the time. – supercat Feb 20 '17 at 17:04
  • @supercat - if you haven't guessed, I really, really disagree with that. What could be more "problematic at the time" than, when sanctions are being imposed for specific alleged misdeeds, telling/assuring the miscreants in question that the punishment is going away in very short order? That's a pretty huge undermining of foreign policy. If a parent grounded a teenager for two weeks, and the other parent called and said he/she would be good to go in two days when they got back from their business trip, would you say it was questionable that the second was undermining the first? – PoloHoleSet Feb 20 '17 at 19:47
  • @Brythan - when talking about leaks and what is or is not classified, problematic and random is the rule of the day. When the government or political partisans wanted to make hay, for instance, they'd count references to our drone program as "leaks" because, even though everyone knew it existed for years, and they even talked about targets killed by drone strikes, it was still technically classified. That was one of the so-called "sensitive" topics that Clinton was slapped around for discussing on her emails. Go figure. – PoloHoleSet Feb 20 '17 at 19:53
0

According to today's White House Press briefing (I listened on the radio so I have no link) Mr. Flynn was asked to resign precisely for your second bullet above.

His lie to Vice President Pence represented a breach of trust. There is no concern that his actions in discussing the sanctions with the Russian Ambassador we of any legal concern.

Update with additional information

According to NPR The "intelligence official" who actually read the transcript of the call between Mr. Flynn and Sergey Kislyak says, like the White House, that there is no legal issue here.

The intelligence official who has personally seen the transcripts told Mary Louise they contained "no evidence" of criminal wrongdoing, although the official said it can't be definitively ruled out.

I'm sure much will be made of the official's statement of "it can't be definitively ruled out". In any case, it seems that the White House's statement to the effect that there is no legal concern can no longer be attributed to political posturing as some comments here seem to suggest.

Michael J.
  • 679
  • 4
  • 12
  • 6
    this is patently false. There is concern that his actions violated (at least) the Logan Act – Black Feb 15 '17 at 00:40
  • @Francis - there is no concern "of this administration" that his actions violated ... ? – Roger Willcocks Feb 15 '17 at 01:33
  • @RogerWillcocks whether or not that's what the OP meant; I'm sure it's not even true to say this administration has no concern the actions were legal – Black Feb 16 '17 at 01:39
  • 1
    @Francis What is "patently false"? I reported as closely as possible what was stated at the White House press briefing. I am sure that you are privy to inside information and know with absolute certainty what others really think, but the rest of us have to rely on known statements. You may not like it, but the White House emphatically stated yesterday that there was "no legal concern" – Michael J. Feb 16 '17 at 13:29
  • I seriously doubt the Trump administration cares about the Logan Act. If we were prosecuting that, we would start with Nancy Pelosi, Jimmy Carter and Jesse Jackson, who have all violated the Logan Act at least once. So from the perspective of the administration, what Flynn did wrong was lie to Pence about the conversation. They don't feel they can trust him, so he's out. I agree with Michael J. – JamieB Feb 16 '17 at 16:14
  • @Francis I mean that if what Michael J reported was correct, the likely interpretation is that the White House administration is not concerned. – Roger Willcocks Feb 16 '17 at 20:37
0

As far as we know, with emphasis on what we know right now, Flynn has not been proven to have talked about dropping the sanctions. If he had discussed doing anything at all with the sanctions, then yes, he would have violated the Logan Act, and should be prosecuted. That has yet to be proven, but from what I have heard, he did talk about sanctions, allegedly, but he didn't talk about dropping them. Again, this isn't varified, but it is likely. His lying to Pence is the only known fault as of now. We need the transcripts: without them, we have no definitive truth to this story, it's still all speculation.

Mannheim1
  • 9
  • 1
0

The key is his failure to properly state his actions to Vice President Pence. As for his vulnerability to blackmail, no chance since the issue has been made public, and he didn't do anything specifically dangerous or illegal. As for his culpability under the Logan Act, while there is a thin thread of technical standing, there is no practical standing. As the person fingered by a President-elect for the job of incoming NSA, the concept that he would be pro-active in establishing relations and understanding with key foreign counterparts is perfectly reasonable, and his actions were neither treacherous nor insidious.

However, the fact that he felt the need to misrepresent himself to the Vice President implies (but offers no real evidence) that there might be more. In any case, while unfortunate to have to jettison a top advisor so early in the administration, it may well turn out to be wise to not permit an aroma of scandal to linger.

Brythan
  • 89,627
  • 8
  • 218
  • 324
Freelancer60
  • 9
  • 1
  • I don't think this is the real reason as President Trump knew about this about 4 weeks before he resigned. The real reason seems to be that the public found out and reporters were asking questions. – Hannover Fist Feb 17 '17 at 20:07
  • I don't disagree. I expect that the president was going to be willing to let the faux pas slide, until it left the vice president in a bad light. – Freelancer60 Feb 17 '17 at 20:29
0

The nature of the call to the Russian Ambassador is what could be a problem. Just talking to a Russian, despite what has been alluded to in many places, is not illegal. He was a private citizen at the time and, by law (a very old, never enforced law), could not carry out foreign policy. Without a transcript of what was said, it is not possible to determine if he broke the law. Apparently the WH Attorney determined that he did nothing wrong according to the WH.

For sake of argument, what possible damage to this country could there be if he did discuss the sanctions and did irresponsibly make some sort of assurance to the Russian Ambassador about the sanctions. What difference does it make? Is it really that big of a deal one way or another? To date no action has been taken on the sanctions by the administration. Given the current state of relations with the Russians I do not see any evidence of improving Russian-US affairs.

Edward Warren
  • 77
  • 2
0

The "facts" referenced in the question are innuendo and mischaracterizations that were part of an orchestrated effort by a team of Obama loyalists to undermine Flynn. The Washington Post and other left-leaning media were only too happy to promote the narrative.

To your bullets and the theme of most of the answers:

  • He did not "discuss" sanctions with the Russian ambassador.
  • He didn't lie about it or misrepresent it.
  • He was not vulnerable to blackmail.
  • He did not violate the Logan act.

As an essential part of the transition to the new administration, Flynn was tasked to talk with the Russian ambassador, as well as counterparts in other countries, to make preparations for future discussions and working relationships. He didn't discuss or negotiate any policy matters or anything else dealing with matters of state.

In his conversation with the Russian ambassador, the ambassador mentioned the sanctions and Flynn told him that it would be inappropriate to discuss it prior to the new administration taking office.

When Flynn discussed his conversation with Pence, that item was immaterial and Flynn didn't think to mention it. The leaked transcripts later surfaced, which included mention of the sanctions, at which point Flynn was reminded of that detail and clarified it. The FBI reviewed the matter and determined that nothing inappropriate happened. The entire thing was a nothingburger, a manufactured issue.

So how did it become an issue that led to his resignation? That's the better story.

A collection of Obama loyalists organized a concerted, behind the scenes effort to undermine the Trump administration in general, and Flynn in particular. "Top members of the Obama administration's national security team have launched a communications infrastructure after they left the White House, and have told reporters they are using that infrastructure to undermine Trump's foreign policy."

Scuttling Flynn in particular was to protect the Iran deal. "The Obama administration knew that Flynn was going to release the secret documents around the Iran deal, which would blow up their myth that it was a good deal that rolled back Iran."

They engaged in a months-long campaign to leak documents and plant a series of damaging stories about Flynn in the national media, deluging media outlets with stories aimed at eroding Flynn's credibility. The stories never actually accused him of doing anything. It was innuendo, half truths, mischaracterizations, and what-ifs. Others, including much of the media, ran wild with it, elaborating and spinning off theories such as described in the answers here.

Flynn had to resign in order for the Trump administration to get past the noise and distraction, and the baggage that had been created around him. He became politically untenable. Justifying his resignation on what he had told Pence was an easy public excuse.

The bulk of the story is covered here: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/former-obama-officials-loyalists-waged-campaign-oust-flynn/

Much of the detail about the Flynn conversation has been released. People are free to look it up.

  • No amount of documentation I would provide will be satisfactory to the party loyalists on this site, so I don't intend to provide more. It's available if people want to educate themselves. I expect that this answer will be viewed as right-wing propaganda and dismissed, so it is a waste of time to try to perfect an answer here. My only purpose in posting it at all was to not let the misinformation on this page go unchallenged. –  Feb 19 '17 at 10:23
  • 1
    This answer seems to be untrue in light of recent news regarding Flynn's guilty plea and Trump's own tweet: "I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!" –  Dec 08 '17 at 13:27
-1

The problem with Michael Flynn is that he shouldn't have spoken about Russian sanctions before the issue is resolved between Europe, Russia and Ukraine. The information he shared with the Russian ambassador was vulnerable from America's point of view.

Alexei
  • 52,716
  • 43
  • 186
  • 345
Nikhil
  • 3
  • 3
  • 1
    I proposed an edit to your answer to fix some spelling mistakes, but I have no idea what you mean by "vulnerable information" so left that part alone. Is that in reference to a potential blackmail situation? – user Feb 15 '17 at 14:30
  • 1
    @Kumar PG Which "issue" are you talking about? What does intra-European relations have to do with the question at hand? –  Feb 15 '17 at 15:10
  • @MichaelKjörling the vulnerable information regarding the syrian regime. – Nikhil Feb 17 '17 at 06:16
  • @arbitrarystringofletters there is lot to do with intra european because the way russians show aggresive way to european countries is a real threat. – Nikhil Feb 17 '17 at 06:18
  • @Kumar PG Again, what does that have to do with this issue? How is that relevant to the situation with Michael Flynn? –  Feb 17 '17 at 10:49
  • @arbitrarystringofletters
    First among them is the timing. Flynn wasn’t fired when Trump was told that Flynn had lied to Pence. Nor was Flynn fired when Pence found out that Flynn had lied to Pence. Rather, Flynn was fired a few hours after the Washington Post told the public that Trump had been told weeks earlier that Flynn had lied to Pence.

    The second is the question of why Flynn would have misled Pence about this if there was nothing wrong with what he did. Normally people don’t lie to their colleagues for no reason.

     – Nikhil Feb 17 '17 at 11:28
  • @KumarPG Perhaps I should've been more specific... what does Michael Flynn's resignation have to do with Syria or tensions among European countries? –  Feb 17 '17 at 12:31
  • [Citation Needed] – NiCk Newman Feb 18 '17 at 00:41
  • @arbitrarystringofletters Actually flynn is just a mess creator. – Nikhil Feb 20 '17 at 09:36