We were arguing over what would be close to a violation of the Logan act. Looking at past indictments seems pretty relevant, as a frame of reference.HokieFanDC wrote:Yes, indictment. Are you going to argue that an indictment is a "test of the court"?USN_Hokie wrote:1. That's been apparent throughout.HokieFanDC wrote:Do I need to write, "IMO", before every post? IMO, he took actions which are in laid out in the Logan Act. You disagree. Whoopee, move on.USN_Hokie wrote:LOL. A minute ago you were accusing me of agreeing with you. Now your say I have no idea what a Logan act violation would be because it hasn't been tested in the courts (actually, that's wrong), then proceed to tell me how *you* know he did commit a violation by way of a benign comments which don't come close to meeting the spirit of the law or previous indictments.HokieFanDC wrote: You have no idea what is "close" to a Logan Act violation, it has never been tested in courts.
This is the Logan Act,"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."
That is what Flynn did.
You repeated that there has never been anyone convicted of the Logan Act, which was what I posted. And I posted that there were good reasons no one has ever been prosecuted, meaning that I don't think Flynn should have been charged with a violation. Not sure what about that is TDS. Nothing I've written is false, you just don't like it.
This is hilarious.
And no, it hasn't been tested in the courts. There were 2 indictments, zero prosecutions.
2. Grand jury indictment.
You look utterly silly arguing he violated it based on all the info we know right now, though I'm sure you're just repeating what the talking heads on CNN are saying.