Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Saagar and Ryan BREAK DOWN: Glenn Greenwald vs Ilhan Omar" video.

Remember the 52 hostages taken from the US Embassy in Teheran? Released within hours of the inauguration of Reagan.
19
@robertgutierrez939 I just said that. Saagar mentioned the name in passing, talking about transition periods, and it was unclear what he meant. Then Grim talked about what Nixon and Kissinger did pre-election. So, nothing to do with any transition -- and still no prosecution. (Too bad. Treasonous.)
3
@robertgutierrez939 I see what you mean now. Yes, Saagar mentioned Nixon's name without context, and didn't explain or justify anything, because they had been talking about incoming administrations' setting up diplomatic channels during a transition. It is not clear what Saagar was referring to. Then Grim pointed out that Nixon and Kissinger also contacted the Vietnamese PRE-election, which was "egregious." If there was ever a time to prosecute, that was it. I wish Johnson had. Truly criminal. Countless lives lost, not to mention that that could be considered a stolen election.
2
How could you hear what wasn't said? Grim brought it up, and then said, clearly other laws were violated by Nixon and Kissinger when they advised the Vietnamese to scuttle peace talks. In any event, no one brought up the Logan Act in that case, the one time it should have applied. Proves that the Logan Act is treated as a dead letter, and assumed to be unconstitutional by all sides. That was the logic. Grim was right.
1
di C So let me see if I understand. Three people heard something that wasn't said, and were positively gobsmacked by it. Gosh we're in good shape in the truth department.
1
@havable I didn't say A, because B. The Logan Act was not invoked the one time it clearly and unequivocally should have been. It is therefore de facto a dead letter, about as much as those weird local laws requiring women to wear a hat on Sundays. It is, in addition, assumed to be unconstitutional. So that fact (B) may be why (A). The fact that it's widely assumed to be unconstitutional is probably why it is never invoked.
1
di C How you could be THIS wrong, I do not understand. Good gawd is this a dangerous society. A new surprise daily. 4:59, folks
1
@dashx1103 No, that wasn't the point. Grim said, literally, the most egregious arguable violation of the Logan Act was by Nixon, even before an election, and the Act still wasn't invoked. 4:59 Grim gave a very perceptive a fortiori argument -- from a progressive standpoint. Not to provide false cover to ANYBODY.
1
di C You know this how? If he did refer to Nixon's pre-election actions, and tried to pass them off as a normal transition activity that all incoming administrations do and have always done, then he was just caught in some of the worst journalistic malpractice on record. I don't see it, but maybe you're more perceptive than I am? Hey, maybe he did. Then that's really bad. Major misrepresentation.
1
di C Okay. But if Saagar's mere mention of a previous transition in administrations was in fact referring to the very same thing as what RYAN GRIM described (i.e., pre-election contacts with a country where the US was at war), not only was I totally wrong, and am shamefaced, absolutely, but what Saagar just did was not a small thing. It was a very big thing. I'm sincere here. That's no joke. I saw the whole exchange differently, and I saw the initial post in this thread as factually incorrect, and maybe I am so wrong.
1
di C Well, you're being kind. I readily admit I did not grasp that Saagar's mention of the Nixon transition (or so I thought, yikes) and Ryan Grim's explication of what Nixon actually did before the election referred to the same event. All I can say now is wow. Timelines matter -- for me, in missing it, but even moreso for the analysis. "Transition" and "prior to an election" are two very different animals. I'm not saying it's a big deal because by all appearances I was duped, but because it really is. No wonder our politics are what they are. I was looking forward to the Flynn hearings, I thought the district judge was brilliant. Enough of lying! Under oath no less, during a plea hearing. And if this was an FBI setup, all the more reason to expose it. Let all chips fall where they may. Because the FBI does this to people without Flynn's resources, and routinely gets away with it. No wonder Flynn got pardoned. The whole scenario was about to be played out in open court, can't have that!
1
@dashx1103 It seems I misunderstood the deal here. Not totally sure, but it looks like it. So maybe we agree? Anyway, sorry for any confusion.
1
@dashx1103 It's interesting, actually. I'm serious. Microcosm of the media.
1