Fynn, possibly violated emoluments clause

[ivwshane]

After watching his speech during the press briefing, it's pretty clear, to me, what this guys intentions are and anything that gets this guy away from the president is a good thing imo.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/michael-flynn-russia-speaking-gig-democrats-investigate-234502

After retiring from the military, Flynn made a number of appearances on RT, which the U.S. intelligence community considers a Russian propaganda outlet. And in 2015, he attended a gala honoring RT and was photographed sitting at a table with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Flynn acknowledged in an August interview with The Washington Post being paid to speak at the RT event.

 

[PokerGuy]

Interesting. I had no idea the emoluments clause would remain in effect even after someone retires from the service. Apparently because there's the possibility that they can be called back to service. That seems like BS, but if that's the law that's the law.

The other question is, what is the punishment for violating the emoluments clause?

 

[Homerboy]

Interesting. I had no idea the emoluments clause would remain in effect even after someone retires from the service. Apparently because there's the possibility that they can be called back to service. That seems like BS, but if that's the law that's the law.

The other question is, what is the punishment for violating the emoluments clause?

yeah - I'm guessing he didn't do the speeches for free. It will be interesting to see how this one pans out. I mean the emoluments clause is fairly straight forward is it not?

 

[UNCjigga]

You idiots, paid speeches are only a crime if they're given at GOLDMAN SACHS.

 

[PokerGuy]

yeah - I'm guessing he didn't do the speeches for free. It will be interesting to see how this one pans out. I mean the emoluments clause is fairly straight forward is it not?

According to the article he admitted to being paid for the speeches. However, he was paid by RT, not by a "foreign state" --- even if many consider RT a propaganda arm of the Russian govt. Not nearly as cut and dried as it might seem.

To my earlier question though, lets say he actually did break the emoluments clause (and at this point we don't know yet), what would be the result? It's an area I'm definitely unfamiliar with.

 

[Homerboy]

You idiots, paid speeches are only a crime if they're given at GOLDMAN SACHS.

Let's not go into hyperbole and off topic here.
Nobody said the Sachs speeches were illegal -- just that they demonstrated HRC's relationships with those people.

 

[PokerGuy]

Let's not go into hyperbole and off topic here.
Nobody said the Sachs speeches were illegal -- just that they demonstrated HRC's relationships with those people.

Nice post.

 

[Homerboy]

According to the article he admitted to being paid for the speeches. However, he was paid by RT, not by a "foreign state" --- even if many consider RT a propaganda arm of the Russian govt. Not nearly as cut and dried as it might seem.

To my earlier question though, lets say he actually did break the emoluments clause (and at this point we don't know yet), what would be the result? It's an area I'm definitely unfamiliar with.

I guess it would come down to how our gov't views/defines RT. If they truly see them and "classify" them as the propaganda arm of the Russian gov't, then it's a payment from the govt I'd say.

 

[Homerboy]

Nice post.

See, being civil and non-argumentative isn't hard. I'm entirely anti-Trump, but I'm not going to let (or at least TRY to let) emotions create hyperbole and have the hyperbole spill into discussions. We can all keep these discussions civil if we just try.

(both sides are painfully guilty of that)

 

[Fern]

Good lord, more unhinged BS from an idiot.

Flynn gets paid for work after retiring from the military and it's a violation of the emoluments clause?

I suppose Bill Clinton will soon be in prison for collecting speaking fees from foreign engagements, right OP?

(It might also interest you to know that payments/emoluments are prohibited to be from foreign governments. RT is not a "foreign government". The RT he appeared on is likely a US corporation too, since I doubt he speaks Russian.)

Fern

 

[Homerboy]

Good lord, more unhinged BS from an idiot.

Flynn gets paid for work after retiring from the military and it's a violation of the emoluments clause?

I suppose Bill Clinton will soon be in prison for collecting speaking fees from foreign engagements, right OP?

(It might also interest you to know that payments/emoluments are prohibited to be from foreign governments. RT is not a "foreign government". The RT he appeared on is likely a US corporation too, since I doubt he speaks Russian.)

Fern

Chill out. You're an "Elite Member <br> Super Moderator and Super Moderator". Act like one for once in your posts. You shouldn't be attacking people.

Clearly there is some potential conflict here in what Flynn did and certainly is worth looking into don;'t you think?
Your comparison to Clinton doesn't even count since he is not currently looking for a gov't job.

And as I stated earlier, if our gov't truly classifies RT as an arm of the Russian gov't, then yes, Flynn was clearly in violation in the eyes of our gov't

When a mod is posting as a member, you simply may not reference his mod status in any response to his post, for what I hope are obvious reasons.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Interesting. I had no idea the emoluments clause would remain in effect even after someone retires from the service. Apparently because there's the possibility that they can be called back to service. That seems like BS, but if that's the law that's the law.

The other question is, what is the punishment for violating the emoluments clause?

Took a bit of looking, but I think this is right

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title18/html/USCODE-2009-title18-partI-chap11-sec219.htm

Up to 10k fine and two years. What I not find is a prohibition to being appointed, but that may be elsewhere. In any case it disqualifies him as a proper candidate as far as I'm concerned.

 

[fskimospy]

Good lord, more unhinged BS from an idiot.

Flynn gets paid for work after retiring from the military and it's a violation of the emoluments clause?

I suppose Bill Clinton will soon be in prison for collecting speaking fees from foreign engagements, right OP?

(It might also interest you to know that payments/emoluments are prohibited to be from foreign governments. RT is not a "foreign government". The RT he appeared on is likely a US corporation too, since I doubt he speaks Russian.)

Fern

RT is a nonprofit that gets its funding from the Russian government to the tune of about $300 million a year. He likely appeared on RT America, owned by RT proper, which is absolutely a Russian corporation.

Are you really trying to argue that an organization that was founded by the Russian government and gets basically all of its money from the Russian government is not part of the Russian government? Good luck with that one, hahaha.

Seems weird to call something 'unhinged BS from an idiot' and apparently have so many basic facts wrong.

 

[Fern]

-snip-

Clearly there is some potential conflict here in what Flynn did and certainly is worth looking into don;'t you think?
Your comparison to Clinton doesn't even count since he is not currently looking for a gov't job.

-snip-

Whether or not Clinton is currently looking for a govt job is utterly irrelevant to the Emoluments Clause. (And if it were, then Flynn would be equally exempt because he was not looking for a govt job at the time he was on RT.)

No, I don't think appearing on a news program, even if it's a channel I think is propaganda garbage, is a conflict of interest.

Fern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Good lord, more unhinged BS from an idiot.

Flynn gets paid for work after retiring from the military and it's a violation of the emoluments clause?

I suppose Bill Clinton will soon be in prison for collecting speaking fees from foreign engagements, right OP?

(It might also interest you to know that payments/emoluments are prohibited to be from foreign governments. RT is not a "foreign government". The RT he appeared on is likely a US corporation too, since I doubt he speaks Russian.)

Fern

The problem is that RT is funded by the Russian government, not a private organization. As such it may be considered an arm. That remains to be seen.

 

[Fern]

RT is a nonprofit that gets its funding from the Russian government to the tune of about $300 million a year. He likely appeared on RT America, owned by RT proper, which is absolutely a Russian corporation.
-snip-

RT America is a US corporation. The nationality of the owner(s) does not change that fact.

Every publicly traded US corporation has some level of foreign ownership. It's quite likely some are majority foreign owned.

Fern

 

[Homerboy]

Whether or not Clinton is currently looking for a govt job is utterly irrelevant to the Emoluments Clause. (And if it were, then Flynn would be equally exempt because he was not looking for a govt job at the time he was on RT.)

No, I don't think appearing on a news program, even if it's a channel I think is propaganda garbage, is a conflict of interest.

Fern

It doesn't matter if YOU think RT is garbage or not. It's what our gov't classifies it as. If the US gov't categorizes RT as part of the Russian gov't then it is.

The article specifically states that:

The House Democrats, though, are pointing to Defense Department guidance that warns retired military officers that they are still subject to the emoluments clause even after they leave the military because “they are subject to recall.”

this is the questionable aspect - Military officers may likley still be subject to the clause. DD even WARNS them of that very possibility.

 

[fskimospy]

RT America is a US corporation. The nationality of the owner(s) does not change that fact.

Every publicly traded US corporation has some level of foreign ownership. It's quite likely some are majority foreign owned.

Fern

From my understanding RT America is entirely owned by RT and that most certainly does matter. It's not like Russia isn't paying Flynn if they make a new American corporation that they entirely own and then pay him through that. Judges aren't stupid, they would see through that in about 3 seconds.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I'm not sure if Flynn can be subject to recall as he served more than 30 years (1981-2014) and would not be part of the ready reserves like those who retire with more than 20 years and less than 30 years of active service.

 

[ivwshane]

Good lord, more unhinged BS from an idiot.

Flynn gets paid for work after retiring from the military and it's a violation of the emoluments clause?

I suppose Bill Clinton will soon be in prison for collecting speaking fees from foreign engagements, right OP?

(It might also interest you to know that payments/emoluments are prohibited to be from foreign governments. RT is not a "foreign government". The RT he appeared on is likely a US corporation too, since I doubt he speaks Russian.)

Fern

How about you research and tell us if former presidents and former federal officials, not in the military, still have to abide by the emoluments clause. Then when you know the answer, ask yourself why it would apply to Flynn and not any other distraction you wish to use.

Or just continue showing everyone in this thread who the real idiot is.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm not sure if Flynn can be subject to recall as he served more than 30 years (1981-2014) and would not be part of the ready reserves like those who retire with more than 20 years and less than 30 years of active service.

That's a good question to ask.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's a good question to ask.

That might change things. The law justifies itself on the basis of recall but I haven't found exceptions even when calling back isn't going to happen.

BTW, I'm not sure about all Federal officials (I don't remember actually) but retired Presidents are not mention anywhere I can find.