And going back to the topic of the Flynn leaks
I have no way to judge Flynn because I have no idea what he talked about with the Russian ambassador. We only have the word of leakers, who committed felonies by talking about the details of secret intelligence gathering operations with the Washington Post, that Flynn “talked about sanctions” with the Russian ambassador. That’s an interpretation of leakers who are clearly out to get either Trump or Flynn and should not be believed as the gospel truth. There’s no recording of the conversation to listen to, so there is no way to independently gauge the true intent of the phone call.
The sudden invocation of the Logan Act is complete bogosity. No one has ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act which is probably unconstitutional for several reasons, and has been ignored by the media when Democrats frequently go off on their own authority to talk to foreign governments. And furthermore, as someone working under the direct authority of the President-Elect, I don’t see how Flynn falls into the category of someone who isn’t authorized to be talking to the Russian ambassador.
* * *
I suspect the true intent of the phone call was for Flynn to convey to the Russian ambassador, “when Trump takes over in a month we want better relations, so don’t do anything rash in retaliation for what Obama has done that would poison the possibility of future reconciliation.”
That sounds reasonable to me. Does it technically violate the Logan Act, an act under which no one has ever been prosecuted and has never been considered by U.S. Courts, so we don’t really know for certain what the Act allows and doesn’t allow?
* * *
And I still believe (see my previous post) that Trump fired Flynn primarily because he wasn’t the right person for the job and this was an opportunity to to fire him. Even though the means by which leakers and the mainstream media attacked him is outrageous.