Active Now

Flint Ironstag
Malizz
Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » Paul Ryan said there was nothing wrong with Flynn communicating with foreign diplomats. If true why did Flynn LIE ABOUT IT?

Paul Ryan said there was nothing wrong with Flynn communicating with foreign diplomats. If true why did Flynn LIE ABOUT IT?

Seems to me Paul Ryan has some s'plaining to do!  Every statement someone makes is questionable. This one surely is. Isn't it?

 

Posted - February 15, 2017

Responses


  • 19942
    Communicating with foreign diplomats is not illegal, but negotiating foreign policy with them is an entirely different animal and THAT is illegal.  You're right, if he didn't do anything wrong, there would have been nothing about which to lie. This post was edited by SpunkySenior at February 15, 2017 10:39 AM MST
      February 15, 2017 8:07 AM MST
    3

  • 113301
    Exactly. Ryan was interviewed this morning and he made it sound as if it was very natural for an administsration to be to contact other countries PRIOR TO AN INAUGURATION and chat. Well that was on Obama's watch and I think it is criminal and should be illegal. Once the new guy is prez then go ahead. But while someone else is head of state. Just my opinion Spunky. It's like reading the will out loud while the person is still alive and listening. Thank you for your reply! :)
      February 15, 2017 8:13 AM MST
    3

  • 19942
    There again, there's a bg difference between chatting and negotiating policy.  I agree that negotiations should be illegal (and I think they are) unless you've been inaugurated and/or confirmed for a post. 
      February 15, 2017 10:15 AM MST
    1

  • 6023

    "... negotiating foreign policy with them is an entirely different animal and THAT is illegal"

    Although I don't think there has ever been anyone charged or convicted of that law.  And it's doubtful it would stand up to a Constitutional challenge under the First Amendment.

    It's actually a ridiculous law, when you think about it.  It makes it illegal for a private citizen to negotiate on behalf of the US.  No negotiator worth their pay is going to negotiate with anyone not authorized to fulfill the deal.  LOL

      February 15, 2017 10:30 AM MST
    1

  • 19942
    Well, clearly there has been a lot of underhanded, behind-the-scenes crap going on, so we really don't know just how "authorized" Flynn was.  There's a very good reason why this law should stand - Flynn had not been confirmed and Trump had not been inaugurated.  Therefore, neither of them had any standing to commit the U.S. to anything.  Like it or not, Obama was still the president at the time and I daresay, Flynn was not authorized to negotiate on Obama's behalf.
      February 15, 2017 1:50 PM MST
    2

  • 6023

    He really didn't do anything most other candidates do ... tell foreign delegations what they plan to do IF elected.

    And there is no evidence he negotiated on Obama's behalf, or claimed to.

    The main difference is he lied about it.
    If he had owned up and said ... "Yeah, I did.  Every candidate does.  So what?" ... nothing would happen.  Because we WANT other nations to know what to expect, if a candidate gets elected.

    Note - I'm not saying whether or not it should be illegal for candidates to meet with foreign leaders before they are actually elected.  As I said, every candidate I know of ... for the last 30 years ... has either talked directly to foreign leaders, or broadcast their intentions so blatantly on the media everybody knew. 

    This post was edited by Walt O'Reagun at February 15, 2017 3:28 PM MST
      February 15, 2017 3:08 PM MST
    0

  • 19942
    Walt, Mike Flynn was not a candidate at the time of his meeting with the Russian ambassador.  He was not a member of Obama's administration either, so under whose authority did he speak with or negotiate with the Russian?  The FBI was tapping the ambassador's phone.  I'm pretty sure they could tell you exactly what Flynn and the ambassador discussed.  At that point, Flynn was a citizen like you and me - he had no authority.
      February 15, 2017 6:38 PM MST
    0

  • 6023

    Even if he didn't have Trump's authority to do so (yeah, right.  I know) ... as a private citizen, he has a First Amendment Right to speak to anyone who agrees to speak with him.  Multiple courts have upheld that as the implied Right of "Freedom of Association".

    Obviously, the Russians believed he had authority from Candidate Trump or they wouldn't have wasted time on him - just like they won't take a call from you or I about international issues.

      February 16, 2017 7:49 AM MST
    0

  • 19942
    As a private citizen, Flynn could not commit this country to anything with a foreign government.  What the Russians THOUGHT and what was FACT doesn't matter.  Candidate Trump didn't have the authority to negotiate with foreign governments and he didn't have the authority to have Flynn negotiate anything either.  Why is that such a difficult concept for you to understand? 
      February 16, 2017 9:05 AM MST
    0

  • 6023
    As I said ... every single candidate (from the major two parties) since the 1980's has met with foreign leaders, or told the media what their foreign policy would be IF they get elected.  Or someone from their campaign staff has.

    So to say Flynn did something wrong by doing so, is merely looking for an issue where there has been none in the past.
    AKA - "Changing the rules of the game".

    All *I* am saying is that people need to acknowledge THAT.
      February 16, 2017 11:42 AM MST
    0

  • 19942
    Walt, I think the problem here is that you don't you understand the differece between a CANDIDATE chatting with a foreign agent about what policies they propose IF they win the election and an UNCONFIRMED cabinet nominee negotiating policy with one with a foreign ambassador.  That being the case, I don't believe there's nothing further to discuss. 
      February 16, 2017 2:03 PM MST
    0

  • 3463
    If all else fails, deny, deny, deny.
    They all forgot or didn't know anything.
    I smell a big cover up because you are right, if Flynn did nothing wrong there would be no reason to lie, and no reason for the rest to lie about his trip.
      February 15, 2017 9:27 AM MST
    1

  • 19942
    Exactly and, if he really didn't recall, then there's something wrong with his memory and perhaps he's not qualified for the position.
      February 15, 2017 10:17 AM MST
    1

  • 3463
    Maybe not.
    He is going to have a press conference in a few moments about it on MSNBC.
    I can't wait to hear what he says or lies about it.
      February 15, 2017 10:22 AM MST
    1

  • 19942
    Since I'm at work and can't watch the press conference, would you be kind enough to let me know what he says.  Thanks.
      February 15, 2017 10:24 AM MST
    1

  • 3463
    I will be happy to.
      February 15, 2017 10:29 AM MST
    0

  • 3463
    The only thing he said about Flynn was that he was treated unfairly by the media. And blamed Hillary for the leaks.
    The bottom line is that he is pissed that the truth is coming out.
    He ducked out before anymore questions could be asked about it.
      February 15, 2017 11:17 AM MST
    1

  • 19942
    According to Trump, any time something doesn't go his way, it's the fault of the media.  After all, they ARE the enemy.  My guess is that he ducked out without answering any questions because he knew way back that Flynn had that conversation and thought he wouldn't get caught in that lie.  It would behoove them all to make sure their Russian contacts aren't being wiretapped before those kinds of  discussions.
      February 15, 2017 1:45 PM MST
    1

  • 3463
    I believe that we are going to see some major heads roll in the not so distant future.
      February 15, 2017 1:58 PM MST
    1

  • 19942

    With a bit of luck, one of them will be the Donald's.

      February 15, 2017 2:14 PM MST
    1

  • 3463
    Yes, along with his sidekicks.
    From what I see, this so going to be far reaching.
      February 15, 2017 2:48 PM MST
    1

  • 19942
    It seems to be shaping up that way.  Now Pudzer has removed himself.  Anyone willing to bet who will be next?
      February 15, 2017 6:39 PM MST
    1

  • 3463
    Kelly Conway?
      February 15, 2017 7:10 PM MST
    0

  • 19942
    It's a toss-up between her and Sean Spicer.
      February 15, 2017 8:37 PM MST
    1