Can someone clarify why this is bad (working with Russia to fight ISIS), to someone who is very out of the loop on the whole issue?

Seriously, why is this bad for Trump? I understand Flynn is guilty of lying, and will likely see jail time for it, but that’s a separate issue. The above quote seems to describe what presidents are ordinarily supposed to do — work with other global powers to cooperate towards shared interests (like destroying ISIS).

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/politics/nixon-tried-t...

I’m glad ABC formally retracted this “fake news”, but the fact that it existed at all is deeply disturbing and profoundly irresponsible and incompetent reporting from ABC and others.

But this was never really about violating that particular law, which is called the Logan Act. No one has ever been prosecuted for violating it. This is about the fact that Flynn lied about the meeting. This is not in dispute, not even by the Trump administration. So... why did Flynn lie? We don't yet know. But Robert Mueller does.

Not only is it fully legal for a transition team to work with other state leaders, but in fact the Obama administration explicitly stated in no uncertain terms that they don’t have any problem with it:

This video has been going around showing this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2vO3GNexHYI&t=28m25s

Obviously Flynn pleading guilty to lying IS genuine news, but we’ll have to wait and see exactly what it entails. But make no mistake: This news article made TWO huge claims of news events, and you can see them even in the title of the article. One wasn’t just wrong, it bore the exact opposite message of reality (Trump campaign subverting Obama’s authority, vs the incoming Trump administration working with foreign leaders under the direct blessing of the Obama administration).

I’m not here to defend Trump or Flynn or anyone else, except advocate for the apparently crumbling notion of journliastic integrity. It’s sad how little of it remains. If you want to see Trump impeached, by all means we should continue investigating and bring to light facts. But please, it is important to get the facts right.

Who knows though - maybe Flynn has some real dirt viz a vie the Russians but color me skeptical.

People should remember, Nixon wasn't brought down by Watergate. He was brought down by an attempt to cover it up. The way Trump can get impeached, is if he lies. Ordering Flynn to talk to the Russians (eg to see what they had on Clinton or similar), won't get Trump in anything even remotely close to enough trouble to get him impeached.

It totally depends on the nature of those conversations.

The point is, people seem to be commonly regarding the mere act of talking to the Russians as both proof of guilt and as being something inherently illegal. It's extremely far off base from a legal standpoint (that's the witch hunt aspect that has been present since Hillary lost, revenge lust, etc). There is a lot to prove yet, even if Trump did something illegal.

Is it illegal to talk to the British or Israelis or Japanese before election day? I mean, comeon. It is not illegal to "talk to the Russians." Russians are not some special illegal class of humans.

What matters is what actions were directed or not, etc. For example, did Trump knowingly instruct Flynn to break the law, can that be proven, did Trump have knowledge of something illegal going on (even if he didn't direct it), what was it, and so on and so forth.

Are you saying this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act doesn't apply?