Actually, I'm not at all questioning why Trump would want to

by scriptcomesfirst @, Thursday, March 08, 2018, 09:16 (2213 days ago) @ hobbs

I'm saying that this particular instance seems like another one of the media's tempest-in-a-teapots regarding Trump, which by the way have inoculated him against the things for which he actually could be held to account. There are plenty of things for people to choose from without having to gin up things that are meaningless.

The Logan Act angle is absurd. What did anyone know about the Logan Act before this last election cycle? Do you know how often it has been applied and what its intent was?

The only times anyone was ever convicted of the Logan Act were 1802 and 1852.

As the Logan Act has never met a Supreme Court challenge so the definition of intent comes from the State Department: "The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments."

Reaching out ahead of the inauguration sure doesn't seem to meet that standard.

Again, there are plenty of areas to attack Trump but this isn't it.


Complete thread:

 

powered by my little forum