RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Oh Shit! Flynn Pleads Guilty to Lying About Russia Probe
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
scullyfu



Joined: 01 Jan 2006
Posts: 8530
Location: Niagara Falls


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/03/17 7:20 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Mueller has free reign to go wherever his investigation takes him. i'm sure you remember Ken Starr started out investigating Whitewater & ended up with Monica Lewinsky. each area does not have to be delineated in order for him to look into it.



_________________
i'll always bleed Storm green.
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6853



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/03/17 11:42 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:


Trump fired Comey either because of the joint recommendation of Rosenstein/Sessions or because Comey wouldn't admit publicly that Trump wasn't part of the Russia investigation, which is Trump's absolute Constitutional right as the unitary head of the executive branch. Plus, how could the firing have obstructed the Russia investigation when Trump acquiesced in the appointment of the much more aggressive special counsel investigation.


Trump told Lester Holt in a televised interview that he was going to fire Comey regardless of the recommendation of Rosenstein. He didn't mention Sessions in that interview.

Trump gave some Russians a different reason for the firing in the oval office:

Trump Told Russians That Firing ‘Nut Job’ Comey Eased Pressure From Investigation

Quote:
“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19626



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/03/17 2:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Okay so. Another question. Jared. He's under a cloud, to say the least. At what point does Mueller report to someone (who?) that he's the target of a federal investigation, or that he has or is anticipating incriminating testimony against Jared, etc. and he will now (or should be) excused from further government work?


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19626



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/03/17 2:46 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
Glenn, don’t they also retain the right to charge him later for all those crimes left out of the plea deal?


What crimes?

The documents recite that Flynn lied about business relations he had with Turkey, which is completely unrelated to the 2016 election. The DOJ agreed they would not charge him with those lies. If there are other crimes Flynn committed that are not even mentioned in the plea deal, then yes he could be charged with them. But, to me, this deal is a signal that there are no such other crimes. That's all they've got on Flynn.


Well that's not what I heard. But, as you say, anyone who trusts any media source right now for accurate information is a fool. But I heard there were about eight more serious charges that weren't included in the plea deal that THAT indicated that Flynn was going to provide to the investigation a lot of what they really were looking for. Speaking of reliable sources, I seem to recall a scene in Billions where they indict someone for a bunch of shit after having a plea deal (a judge, actually) for stuff that wasn't in the deal.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11239
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/03/17 3:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
Okay so. Another question. Jared. He's under a cloud, to say the least. At what point does Mueller report to someone (who?) that he's the target of a federal investigation, or that he has or is anticipating incriminating testimony against Jared, etc. and he will now (or should be) excused from further government work?


On an ever-so-slight tangent: I just heard recently from a (reasonably informed?) friend that Chris Christie (as a NJ DA) is the guy who put Jared's father in prison, and that played a role in why Chris never got any real face time in this admin. Anybody know anything about that?



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
taropatch



Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 526
Location: Kau Rubbish Dump


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/04/17 2:07 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
Okay so. Another question. Jared. He's under a cloud, to say the least. At what point does Mueller report to someone (who?) that he's the target of a federal investigation, or that he has or is anticipating incriminating testimony against Jared, etc. and he will now (or should be) excused from further government work?


On an ever-so-slight tangent: I just heard recently from a (reasonably informed?) friend that Chris Christie (as a NJ DA) is the guy who put Jared's father in prison, and that played a role in why Chris never got any real face time in this admin. Anybody know anything about that?


Your friend's story is correct. That is an old story and can be googled as there is a plethora of articles out there.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5102
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/04/17 11:29 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Back to the Logan Act, the 1799 act that prohibits private citizens from trying to influence other nations with whom the U.S. has a dispute, but which no one has ever been prosecuted under:

Byron York today wrote a detailed and convincing analysis that Democrat politicians and politicized Obama holdovers in the DOJ (Sally Yates), who were outraged that Trump was going to overturn Obama policies, used the Logan Act fears to besmirch the Trump transition and ultimately to entrap General Flynn in lies. I think it's a good, non-partisan analysis, which clearly recalls that Flynn's phone conversations with Kislyak were in fact tapped by the FBI and were reported via leaks at the time:

In Trump-Russia probe, was it all about the Logan Act?
PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 14444
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/04/17 11:33 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
Back to the Logan Act, the 1799 act that prohibits private citizens from trying to influence other nations with whom the U.S. has a dispute, but which no one has ever been prosecuted under:

Byron York today wrote a detailed and convincing analysis that Democrat politicians and politicized Obama holdovers in the DOJ (Sally Yates), who were outraged that Trump was going to overturn Obama policies, used the Logan Act fears to besmirch the Trump transition an ultimately to entrap General Flynn in lies. I think it's a good, non-partisan analysis, which clearly recalls that Flynn's phone conversations with Kislyak were in fact tapped by the FBI and were reported via leaks at the time:

In Trump-Russia probe, was it all about the Logan Act?


I know when I am looking for "good, non-partisan (sic) analysis" the first place I go is the Washington Freakin' Examiner.

MAGA!!!


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5102
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/04/17 12:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Meanwhile, here's what two of Trump's personal lawyers are saying:

Ty Cobb: Mueller "inquiry into the White House" will be over by January

Quote:
I am saying the interviews will be completed by the end of next week . . . . The Manafort inquiry has nothing to do with the White House . . . . And, we do not anticipate the long awaited Flynn indictment will delay the Special Counsel's conclusion of the inquiry into the White House. Just no there there.


A lot of commentators, including Breitbart, think Cobb is naive. Just because Mueller's interviews of White House personnel might in fact be over by January doesn't necessarily mean that Mueller won't follow up with legal action against some of those personnel. But it does seem accurate that, publicly so far, no criminal evidence has been reported to be there there.

Trump lawyer John Dowd: ‘The president cannot obstruct justice’

Quote:
"The president cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under (the Constitution's Article II) and has every right to express his view of any case," Dowd told NBC News Monday.


I'd add that a president could obstruct justice if he does it by some act that on its own is clearly criminal, such as bribery as stated in the Constitution or by perjury as by Bill Clinton.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5102
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/04/17 1:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
Back to the Logan Act, the 1799 act that prohibits private citizens from trying to influence other nations with whom the U.S. has a dispute, but which no one has ever been prosecuted under:

Byron York today wrote a detailed and convincing analysis that Democrat politicians and politicized Obama holdovers in the DOJ (Sally Yates), who were outraged that Trump was going to overturn Obama policies, used the Logan Act fears to besmirch the Trump transition an ultimately to entrap General Flynn in lies. I think it's a good, non-partisan analysis, which clearly recalls that Flynn's phone conversations with Kislyak were in fact tapped by the FBI and were reported via leaks at the time:

In Trump-Russia probe, was it all about the Logan Act?


I know when I am looking for "good, non-partisan (sic) analysis" the first place I go is the Washington Freakin' Examiner.

MAGA!!!


I cannot think of any newspaper, magazine or website reporting on politics today that is not considered to be biased by someone. That may even be generally true. But that does not mean that there are not individual articles or columns in those publications that are unbiased or non-partisan. York's article is primarily a recitation of historical facts, supported by link chains that sometimes go back to the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and CNN.
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6853



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/04/17 3:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:


Trump lawyer John Dowd: ‘The president cannot obstruct justice’

Quote:
"The president cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under (the Constitution's Article II) and has every right to express his view of any case," Dowd told NBC News Monday.


I'd add that a president could obstruct justice if he does it by some act that on its own is clearly criminal, such as bribery as stated in the Constitution or by perjury as by Bill Clinton.


Alan Dershowitz has been saying just that for months now:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MJ15ymETv-s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ig21NJ7XCjQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

But a Senate Judiciary Committee does not appear to agree:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NyDwQufCxNI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19626



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/04/17 5:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Well. Hmm. I thought with the Lester Holt interview Trump admitted to obstructing justice. But I believe Dershowitz knows what he's talking about. As striking as his assertions are, what really was amazing was how Jeffrey Toobin's counterargument was complete emotional bullshit. Emotional as in, we would wish for what I'm saying to be the case with hope, outrage, and denial.

He can still be impeached, I think. As that is a political act, as Dershowitz says. But I don't think that would happen short of some criminal charge by the special counsel. But... I think that's coming. If Flynn reveals that actions were taken by the Trump transition that countered the policies of the US for the sake of his personal financial business empire there would have to be come corruption charges to cover that. But I may be saying that with hope, outrage, and denial. Confused


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7082
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/04/17 5:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
Well. Hmm. I thought with the Lester Holt interview Trump admitted to obstructing justice. But I believe Dershowitz knows what he's talking about. As striking as his assertions are, what really was amazing was how Jeffrey Toobin's counterargument was complete emotional bullshit. Emotional as in, we would wish for what I'm saying to be the case with hope, outrage, and denial.

He can still be impeached, I think. As that is a political act, as Dershowitz says. But I don't think that would happen short of some criminal charge by the special counsel. But... I think that's coming. If Flynn reveals that actions were taken by the Trump transition that countered the policies of the US for the sake of his personal financial business empire there would have to be come corruption charges to cover that. But I may be saying that with hope, outrage, and denial. Confused

Whether or not a POTUS can be convicted for the crime of "Obstruction of Justice" is an unsettled question. There are legitimately good legal minds on both sides of that debate. It would almost certainly end up before SCOTUS if it ever came to it.

But that is not really what we are looking at here. The question is not about the criminal code but rather "High Crimes and Misdemeanors." And the Supreme Court and most legal scholars believe that to mean political crimes, or abuses of power. In other words, one does not actually have to be guilty of breaking the criminal code to run afoul of that and be subject to impeachment. So while being charged with obstruction is questionable at best, if it is proven by Mueller that Trump used the authority of his office in order to attempt to circumvent justice or to cover something up, inpeachment becomes highly likely. Especially if the Dems flip the House. Notably, that is what led to Nixon's resignation, as impeachment was all but ensured.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19626



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/04/17 6:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

sambista wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
Just watching CNN. I have to say this. The difference between the analysis by Carl Bernstein and that of David Gregory is PAINFUL. FUCKING painful. And Gregory was chirping to interrupt Carl Bernstein to say the nothingburger SHIT he said? I'm tempted to transcribe the entire thing.

There's no hope. When the the almost extinct now generations of great reporters are gone, we're fucking finished here, folks. Game over.


i would trade in a whole bunch of 'em to have tim russert back. i've endured too many white house briefings to see they can't get real answers because they don't know how to ask the questions. russert was genius at nailing folks to the wall without burning bridges.


We can agree to disagree on Russert. But I would hope that all thinking people can agree that it's fake news. Meaning every fucking thing. lol. Look. The first time I heard the phrase 'main stream media' I think, certainly the first time I heard it used as a disparagement, was in the late 80s. And it was by the FAR Left. And I mean the all the way to the left, Left. Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti, Ralph Nadar, and many others whose names I never new but voices were familiar because of KPFK, Pacifica Radio for Los Angeles.

Those people derided the establishment press for all of its failings. I remember multiple books. I bought two of them. Manufacturing Consent, by Chomsky, and the much MUCH more readable and lucid, Inventing Reality by the always much clearer voice on these matters, Michael Parenti. There was also these two guys who published a newsletter. I want to say it was Media Matters, but I think that's now something else totally not associated with the newsletter guys I'm thinking of.

The sins and failures and bias of the mainstream media were these writers' point of departure to take on the many nefarious actions of the US government and multinationals going back half a century. From the CIA to Nestle. How all of it was covered in the press (usually not at all) is the basis of the idea of 'manufacturing' the 'consent' of the American people.

As deplorable and dangerous as Trump is and as quickly as I would like to see him gone, there is ONE area where the Left would be so wise, IMO, to jump in there IN AGREEMENT with Trump. And that is on the issue of Fake News. Because the same establishment press that was, again, IMO, called out for decades by the Parentis and Chomskys of the world, is still in place. They've learned to cover more of the atrocities around the world in real time instead of years after the fact, but I wouldn't be surprised if Noam Chomsky disagreed with me on that statement.

When Trump attacks they grab at the emotional defenses of the bravery of their reporters around the world risking their lives to bring back the news, and of the long traditions of excellence and journalistic commitment of their respective publications or networks or colleagues, all hoping that the Trump hating viewer will grab at a hanky and shed a tear on their behalf.

I'm sorry. The far Left, if THAT far Left still exists and hasn't been completely erased by angry 20 year-olds typing FUCKTARDS all day long, should say, You know what, on this we agree with President Trump. So much fake news, etc.

Politically, it would be pure genius. IMO. You undercut Trump and steal one of his signature catch phrases. You win tons of agreement by millions of Americans who have become very good as spotting fake news. Because the examples of fake news have been coming hot and heavy the last many years and the media, as led by the 24 hour monument to bad news coverage that is CNN, has gotten ever more sloppy in its standards and decision making.

Lot of those people would have voted for Trump. Bernie Sanders would be great at this. So would some further left journalists. The mainstream media IS the propaganda tool for the elites in this country. Push Trump and the last 27 months away and you have America as it was before he declared his candidacy. That would be a place where economic inequality became so great that we were said to have entered into another gilded age. We posted a thread here, Hell in a Hand Basket. Many horror stories in there.

The media reported on these things, yes, but only after so many lives were destroyed and the actions or lax enforcement or loopholes that allowed any of it were pretty much written in stone by that point. And then off they go to the White House Correspondence Dinner to sit along with the Republican Party and its donors, etc. It's all one club, as Ralph Nader or anybody listening to KPFK in the last 40 years would tell you. Fake News is how they do it.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5102
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/04/17 8:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

There are three things that get confused.

First, there is legal/Constitutional ambiguity and disagreement at to whether a sitting president can be indicted and prosecuted for any crime, not just obstruction of justice. However, it's clear that the president can be prosecuted after he leaves office. That's why Clinton made a settlement deal with Ken Starr before he left office.

Second, Alan Dershowitz and others (including me) argue that a president cannot commit the crime of obstruction of justice simply by firing a subordinate person such as Comey, or by directing a subordinate agency such as the FBI or DOJ as what cases to investigate or drop, or by pardoning anyone -- so long as he does not commit some other crime in connection with the act, such as taking a bribe in return for a pardon.

Third, anything can be the grounds for impeachment if the majority of the House of Representatives says so. Therefore, some sort of non-criminal or political "obstruction of justice" could be grounds for impeachment if it shocks enough politicians.

I think Alan Dershowitz is the most competent and best TV commentator on the legalities of the investigation. He's a brilliant retired Harvard Law professor -- the youngest ever to receive tenure -- and he's also been a practicing and winning criminal lawyer in very high profile cases such as O.J. Simpson and Claus von Bulow. He's been a liberal Democrat all his life, dislikes Trump, and appears as a completely independent voice on all the networks, left and right.

Jonathan Turley, the liberal George Washington Law School professor and constitutional litigator, is also usually balanced and non-partisan.

Jeffrey Toobin, on the other hand, should be ignored. Once respectable, he's degenerated into nothing more than a left wing talking points hired gun, serving mainly to generate TV clicks for CNN with breathless and over-the-top hyperbole about anything anti-Trump. He's a bit more balanced when writing serious articles.
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19626



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/05/17 5:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Well. Just want to say. The name "Alan Dershowitz" has come up multiple times now on MSBNC today. First on Morning Joe and now on Deadline: White House, Niccole Wallace's show. Not as a target of specific derision, oddly enough, but certainly one of a sort of passing understood dismissiveness. The target is the White House lawyers and especially Dowd who uttered the notion, I don't know if he was taking up what Dershowitz had said or not, that the POTUS can't be guilty of obstruction under these circumstances. On Morning Joe they were absolutely certain that a POTUS can be guilty of obstruction under, ahem, these exact circumstances and they were quite clear about that. These are lawyer/politicians and seasoned DC journalists. So I really don't know who to believe here. Dershowitz is very convincing and appears to be a neutral voice. Which I honestly can't say the same thing of the national political establishment news media. But they appear to be pretty clear about all this and, as I said, really aren't giving Dershowitz, who only gets a mention now and then, the time of day, or it seems any credo to his assertions, which are just passed off as some kind of nonsense.

Hope that scrabble I just wrote is legible. Embarassed


sambista



Joined: 25 Sep 2004
Posts: 16471
Location: cidade maravilhosa


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/05/17 5:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

of course, we're in an alternate universe now, so whoever opines an unpopular thought is worthy of being dismissed. dershowitz, in this case, has been on a rather quiet rampage for some time now, especially about grand juries, special inquiries and other interrogations of that ilk, on the idea that the targets of inquiry are unfairly defenseless without legal representation allowed to participate. i suppose he has a good argument there, but i'm not sure i'd agree these kinds of procedures aren't necessary. anyway, in our alternate universe, the odd ones out are suspicious. or they appear to be the most sane of the bunch. dershowitz' credentials don't necessarily impress me and, honestly, we must know by now that the talking heads are guessing at best.

there's only one thing i've heard on tv lately that i believe, and that's that flynn was in truly deep doo, but he had so much to offer mueller that four instances of lying got compressed into one measly count worth a few measly years in exchange for his cooperation. everything else is a big guess, and just about anything can happen, including trump pardoning himself, if it comes to that. the shortcomings of our constitution are being tested, and trump's already got his supreme seated.



_________________
no justice, no peace.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5102
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/05/17 6:25 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

sambista wrote:
there's only one thing i've heard on tv lately that i believe, and that's that flynn was in truly deep doo, but he had so much to offer mueller that four instances of lying got compressed into one measly count worth a few measly years in exchange for his cooperation.


What you heard is likely wrong. Take a few minutes to read Andrew McCarthy, the former DOJ attorney who successfully prosecuted the blind sheik and who now is a prolific writer on legal matters. I'll quote some of the column:

Quote:
There is a great deal of misinformation in the commentariat about how prosecutors build cases.

Many analysts are under the misimpression that it is typical for federal prosecutors to accept guilty pleas on minor charges in exchange for cooperation that helps build a case on major charges. From this flawed premise, they reason that Mueller is methodically constructing a major case on Trump by accepting minor guilty pleas from Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos for making false statements, and by indicting Paul Manafort and an associate on charges that have nothing to do with Trump or the 2016 election.

That is simply not how it works, strategically or legally.

. . . if a prosecutor has an accomplice cooperator who gives the government incriminating information about the major scheme under investigation, he pressures the accomplice to plead guilty to the major scheme, not to an ancillary process crime — and particularly not to false-statements charges.

. . . a guilty plea to the major scheme under investigation proves that the major scheme really happened — here, some kind of criminal collusion (i.e., conspiracy) in Russia’s espionage operation against the 2016 election.

Justice Department policy calls for prosecutors to indict a defendant on the most serious readily provable charge, not to plead out a case on minor charges to obtain cooperation. The federal sentencing guidelines also encourage this.

The practice of pressuring a guilty plea to the major charges makes the accomplice a formidable witness at trial.

Trading a plea on minor charges for cooperation is a foolish gambit that badly damages the prosecutor’s case. It suggests that the cooperator must not have disclosed details about the major scheme.

It is even worse to plead accomplices out on false-statements counts. This establishes that the main thing the jury should know about the accomplice is that he is not to be trusted. That is not how you make someone a strong witness.

Bottom line: If the FBI had a collusion case of some kind, after well over a year of intensive investigation, Flynn and Papadopoulos would have been pressured to plead guilty to very serious charges — and those serious offenses would be reflected in the charges lodged against Manafort. Obviously, the pleas and the indictment have nothing to do with collusion because Mueller has no collusion case.
sambista



Joined: 25 Sep 2004
Posts: 16471
Location: cidade maravilhosa


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/05/17 7:25 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
sambista wrote:
there's only one thing i've heard on tv lately that i believe, and that's that flynn was in truly deep doo, but he had so much to offer mueller that four instances of lying got compressed into one measly count worth a few measly years in exchange for his cooperation.


What you heard is likely wrong. Take a few minutes to read Andrew McCarthy, the former DOJ attorney who successfully prosecuted the blind sheik and who now is a prolific writer on legal matters. I'll quote some of the column:

Quote:
There is a great deal of misinformation in the commentariat about how prosecutors build cases.

Many analysts are under the misimpression that it is typical for federal prosecutors to accept guilty pleas on minor charges in exchange for cooperation that helps build a case on major charges. From this flawed premise, they reason that Mueller is methodically constructing a major case on Trump by accepting minor guilty pleas from Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos for making false statements, and by indicting Paul Manafort and an associate on charges that have nothing to do with Trump or the 2016 election.

That is simply not how it works, strategically or legally.

. . . if a prosecutor has an accomplice cooperator who gives the government incriminating information about the major scheme under investigation, he pressures the accomplice to plead guilty to the major scheme, not to an ancillary process crime — and particularly not to false-statements charges.

. . . a guilty plea to the major scheme under investigation proves that the major scheme really happened — here, some kind of criminal collusion (i.e., conspiracy) in Russia’s espionage operation against the 2016 election.

Justice Department policy calls for prosecutors to indict a defendant on the most serious readily provable charge, not to plead out a case on minor charges to obtain cooperation. The federal sentencing guidelines also encourage this.

The practice of pressuring a guilty plea to the major charges makes the accomplice a formidable witness at trial.

Trading a plea on minor charges for cooperation is a foolish gambit that badly damages the prosecutor’s case. It suggests that the cooperator must not have disclosed details about the major scheme.

It is even worse to plead accomplices out on false-statements counts. This establishes that the main thing the jury should know about the accomplice is that he is not to be trusted. That is not how you make someone a strong witness.

Bottom line: If the FBI had a collusion case of some kind, after well over a year of intensive investigation, Flynn and Papadopoulos would have been pressured to plead guilty to very serious charges — and those serious offenses would be reflected in the charges lodged against Manafort. Obviously, the pleas and the indictment have nothing to do with collusion because Mueller has no collusion case.


nope. my belief stands.



_________________
no justice, no peace.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7082
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/05/17 7:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

This reasoning would only apply if Flynn were directly involved in what they were going after Trump for. Instead, he may be a material witness of some other crime which he had knowledge about, yet not directly invloved, and came forward with a proffer of information in order to get his other charges dropped.

Say a low level drug dealer witnessed a murder by a cartel lieutenant. The prosecutors might well agree to a lesser charge on the drug offense in return for a signed affidavit (and agreement to later testify) about what he witnessed. This affidavit could then be used as probable cause for subpoenas and search warrants to further the investigation.

In this case, perhaps it allowed a subpoena of certain bank records?



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10955
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/05/17 11:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Jammerbirdi- indeed, "MSM" was a left term used to i.d. corp. media which lied or covered up or willfully ignored stories of U.S. polical mayhem abroad or corporate malfeasance here, mostly.

Trump uses "fake news" as a propaganda weapon, mostly.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57584
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/06/17 10:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/us/politics/michael-flynn-russia-sanctions-ripped-up-whistleblower.html

Quote:
Mr. Flynn had worked on a business venture to partner with Russia to build nuclear power plants in the Middle East until June 2016, but remained close with the people involved afterward. On Inauguration Day, as he sat behind the president listening to the inaugural address, Mr. Flynn, according to the whistle-blower, texted the former business associate to say that the project was “good to go.”



_________________
Make lots of noise
Kiss lots of boys
Or kiss lots of girls
If that's something you're into
When the straight and narrow
Gets a little too straight
Roll up a joint, or don't
Just follow your arrow
Wherever it points, yeah
Follow your arrow
Wherever it points
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19626



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/10/17 10:35 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I’ll bet Trump is now just days away from issuing pardons for his sons and Jared Kushner and that’s just for starters.


scullyfu



Joined: 01 Jan 2006
Posts: 8530
Location: Niagara Falls


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/11/17 8:26 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
I’ll bet Trump is now just days away from issuing pardons for his sons and Jared Kushner and that’s just for starters.


as i understand it, he can't pardon co-conspirators.



_________________
i'll always bleed Storm green.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12914



Back to top
PostPosted: 12/11/17 11:13 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

scullyfu wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
I’ll bet Trump is now just days away from issuing pardons for his sons and Jared Kushner and that’s just for starters.


as i understand it, he can't pardon co-conspirators.


Where does that limitation come from? I'm doubtful that is true.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin