It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Robert Mueller Has Enough Evidence to Charge Michael Flynn, NBC News Reports

page: 8
69
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 04:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: aethertek

Do you know when the crimes covered in the indictment were committed?
Remember that the crimes on the Manafort indictment date back to 2006.....

It is quite possible that Flynn was working for Obama when he comitted these crimes.


But who hired him for his administration after all the stupid # Flynn had done under Obama came out?


President Trump looked at Generals as awesome country-loving, brave leaders. Some had a few weaknesses, but not disqualifying ones. Especially in the eyes of a businessman who conducted deals around the world.

There really were no "enemies"...just tough negotiators who whipped our weak Presidents ass, like China.


Sorry, but the God you worship, his turdface Trump is simply a lowlife grifter.

I know you love to love Trump, but when the truth hits you, you will hang your head in shame.




posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 06:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

When I get home I'll just post the bloody article and let the wolves try to tear it apart rather than the messenger.



Find that article yet?


Yes. Thanks for asking - troll.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

If you post the article later, I will consider it with an open mind.


From: www.slate.com....

Robert Mueller’s Brilliant Strategy for Outmaneuvering Trump Pardons



~Jed Handelsman Shugerman is a Fordham law professor and the author of The People’s Courts and shugerblog.com. He is a co-author on an amicus brief in CREW v. Trump.

Some have wondered: Why is special counsel Robert Mueller bringing so few charges against George Papadopoulos and, especially, Paul Manafort?

Papadopoulos is easy. Mueller has charged him with one count of false statement, even though there are a dozen other felonies clearly suggested by his plea stipulations. The quick answer is that Papadopoulos has agreed to be a cooperating witness in exchange for a very short sentence. The maximum sentence for false statement is five years. If Papadopoulos cooperates, Mueller can ask for a short sentence, but if he doesn’t, Mueller can add new charges.

Manafort’s case is less obvious. Andrew McCarthy at National Review is puzzled about Mueller’s charges for Manafort, calling it “curious” that he leaves out so many possible charges, including tax fraud and other forms of fraud. “These omissions do not make sense to me,” McCarthy writes. After reading the Papadopoulos plea agreement, and knowing that Manafort is reportedly an unnamed “high-ranking campaign official” in a series of allegedly incriminating emails, one might imagine a dozen other charges Mueller might be mulling.

McCarthy speculates that Mueller did not charge federal tax fraud because those prosecutions require the involvement of the Department of Justice tax division, which would have been an extra bureaucratic hurdle. I’d add that Mueller might have worried that any additional contact with the main DOJ carried a risk of leaks or obstruction. But for the other potential charges, McCarthy writes, “These [other] omissions do not make sense to me.”

Mueller’s moves may make strategic sense because of a shadow hanging over the entire investigation: the potential that President Donald Trump might use his presidential pardon power to protect possible accomplices in potential crimes.

Mueller knows that Trump can pardon Manafort (or any defendant) in order to relieve the pressure to cooperate with Mueller and to keep them quiet. But Mueller also knows that presidential pardons affect only federal crimes and not state-level crimes. On the one hand, double jeopardy rules under the Fifth Amendment prevent a second prosecution for the same crime, but the doctrine of dual sovereignty allows a state to follow a federal prosecution (and vice versa). So in theory, Manafort and Papadopoulos can’t rely on Trump’s pardons to save them even after a conviction or a guilty plea.

But in practice, state rules can expand double jeopardy protections and limit prosecutions. In fact, New York is such a state. New York is the key state for Mueller because New York has jurisdiction over many alleged or potentially uncovered Trump–Russia crimes (conspiracy to hack/soliciting stolen goods/money laundering, etc.), and New York state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and New York district attorneys are not politically constrained from pursuing charges.

New York’s Criminal Procedure Law 40.20 states, “A person may not be twice prosecuted for the same offense.” The issue is that New York defines “prosecution” broadly. Section 40.30 continues:

Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person “is prosecuted” for an offense, within the meaning of section 40.20, when he is charged therewith by an accusatory instrument filed in a court of this state or of any jurisdiction within the United States, and when the action either:

(a) Terminates in a conviction upon a plea of guilty; or

(b) Proceeds to the trial stage and a jury has been impaneled and sworn or, in the case of a trial by the court without a jury, a witness is sworn.


The New York statute does not allow a state prosecution to follow a federal prosecution (“a court of any jurisdiction within the United States”) for the same basic facts. The bottom line: If Mueller starts a trial on all of the potential charges, and then Trump pardons Manafort, Mueller will not be able to hand off the case to state prosecutors. And thus he would have lost leverage at the time of the indictment if he seemed headed toward losing the state prosecution as a backup.

Instead, Mueller wisely brought one set of charges (mostly financial crimes that preceded the campaign), and he is saving other charges that New York could also bring (tax fraud, soliciting stolen goods, soliciting/conspiring to hack computers). Mueller also knew that his indictment document on Monday would include a devastating amount of detail on paper without relying on any witnesses to testify, showing Mueller had the goods on a slam-dunk federal money laundering case. Then he dropped the hammer with the Papadopoulos plea agreement, showing Manafort and Gates that he has the goods on far more charges, both in federal and state court.

Papadopoulos conceded that Russian representatives told him they had “dirt,” in “thousands” of Clinton’s emails in April 2016. It is clear—depending on what Papadopoulos has told them—that prosecutors could start building a case of conspiracy and solicitation of illegal hacking and trafficking in stolen goods against campaign officials Papadopoulos may have informed as well.

I discussed some of the parallel state felony charges in this Slate piece (also published in Just Security). In August, sources revealed that Mueller was already coordinating with Schneiderman, likely to work out this strategy. I also noted that all of this legal background is relevant to solve an additional problem: If Trump fires Mueller, state prosecutors can carry on with his investigation and prosecutions based on parallel state laws.

This same strategy adds an explanation for the single Papadopoulos charge. I explained above that a single charge is a classic part of plea deal for cooperation. But Mueller can be saving a number of other charges, both in his own back pocket to incentivize cooperation and also for the front pockets of state-level prosecutors in case Trump gives Papadopoulos a blanket pardon. Mueller is a stone-cold professional.



edit on 6/11/2017 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties


The 'easy fix' for that, if Schneiderman doesn't recuse himself despite his personal engagement with the President, is for Trump to fire Mueller, appoint a new special investigator who would then charge them all with everything and then Trump pardons them. No double jeopardy and no state charges.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Assessor
So you libs go ahead live in your dream world. Flynn will be fine. He’ll take his lumps and move on.

Unless, perhaps, his son becomes a chip?
edit on 6-11-2017 by JohnnyCanuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Kryties


The 'easy fix' for that, if Schneiderman doesn't recuse himself despite his personal engagement with the President, is for Trump to fire Mueller, appoint a new special investigator who would then charge them all with everything and then Trump pardons them. No double jeopardy and no state charges.


Firing Mueller would open a can of worms that would result in Trumps removal. It already looks suspicious that he fired Comey, so by firing Mueller I guarantee the faecal matter will be hurled upwards toward the spinning cooling blades.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties
Firing Mueller would open a can of worms that would result in Trumps removal.


How so? Republicans control Congress, you are not going to get a super majority to impeach him.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist
If he broke the law, then charge him. That said, what are the chances that this actually has anything to do with the Russian Collusion angle....you know, the thing he is supposed to be investigating?


Considering Flynn's FARA violations have to do with Turkey ...



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Kryties
Firing Mueller would open a can of worms that would result in Trumps removal.


How so? Republicans control Congress, you are not going to get a super majority to impeach him.


Does every single one of those Republicans agree with Trump? No.

Are there enough to side with the Democrats if they think Trump has gone too far? Maybe, I'm not 100% sure of the numbers.

You really think people like McCain etc will put up with Trump firing someone else investigating him?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties
Does every single one of those Republicans agree with Trump? No.


The question you need to ask is 'does every single one of those Republicans agree with Trump and will they vote to impeach him?'. The easy answer is 'no'.


You really think people like McCain etc will put up with Trump firing someone else investigating him?


You really think you're going to get 19 republican Senators to jump ship? Come on.




edit on 6-11-2017 by AugustusMasonicus because: 👁️ 💓 🧀 🍕



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

That is a very interesting read.

If true, it shows how Mueller really knows what he is doing and is playing the game wisely.

Personally, I don't think Trump would just start pardoning people knowing Mueller could pass this on to the states.

Plus that would smell to high heaven of corruption, which is about as swampy as you could get and contradictory to what his supporters sent him to DC for.

But I highly doubt his supporters would care.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Kryties

But I highly doubt his supporters would care.


No I don't think they will either. Given some of the ridiculous reasonings and excuses Trump supporters come up with, nothing would surprise me about them any more.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

The question you need to ask is 'does every single one of those Republicans agree with Trump and will they vote to impeach him?'. The easy answer is 'no'.


The "less easy answer" is we really don't know until it happens.


You really think you're going to get 19 republican Senators to jump ship? Come on.


If they see that firing Mueller is an obvious attempt to obstruct justice, and they are truly committed to their promises to serve the American people, yes they will.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties
The "less easy answer" is we really don't know until it happens.


You ae not going to get nearly 40% of the Senate to flip and even more on the House's side. It's never going to happen.


If they see that firing Mueller is an obvious attempt to obstruct justice, and they are truly committed to their promises to serve the American people, yes they will.


The are truly committed to their party, on both sides.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Kryties
The "less easy answer" is we really don't know until it happens.


You ae not going to get nearly 40% of the Senate to flip and even more on the House's side. It's never going to happen.


If they see that firing Mueller is an obvious attempt to obstruct justice, and they are truly committed to their promises to serve the American people, yes they will.


The are truly committed to their party, on both sides.


That is nothing more than a guess, as neither of us can predict how the Republicans would react to Trump firing someone else who was investigating him.

I don't claim to know everything that happened in the Nixon debacle but I know it ended with him resigning after Congress passed a vote to impeach him. Clearly both side CAN come together when it is necessary.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties
I don't claim to know everything that happened in the Nixon debacle but I know it ended with him resigning after Congress passed a vote to impeach him. Clearly both side CAN come together when it is necessary.


That was only to hold an impeachment trial, there still would have been a vote of the full Congress required for removal.

I would wager any amount that you will not see an impeachment and removal of any President, let alone Trump.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Kryties
I don't claim to know everything that happened in the Nixon debacle but I know it ended with him resigning after Congress passed a vote to impeach him. Clearly both side CAN come together when it is necessary.


That was only to hold an impeachment trial, there still would have been a vote of the full Congress required for removal.

I would wager any amount that you will not see an impeachment and removal of any President, let alone Trump.


Obviously Nixon was nervous enough about the result to make him resign. If there was any chance that Congress wouldn't vote to remove him do you think Nixon would have resigned?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties


I'm sure there was plenty of behind the scenes discussion. Nixon was also under investigation, Trump currently isn't.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Kryties

Trump currently isn't.


If you don't think that Mueller isn't doing all of this with the aim of getting to the bottom of the Trump/Russia collusion story and the obstruction of justice allegations then you are sorely mistaken.

The "right" has convinced themselves that the current indictments mean Trump is innocent and not being investigated, while at the same time failing dismally in seeing the bigger picture.

edit on 6/11/2017 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties
If you don't think that Mueller isn't doing all of this with the aim of getting to the bottom of the Trump/Russia collusion story then you are sorely mistaken.


It doesn't mean he will find anything and at this point, from what I've read, there isn't anything.


The "right" has convinced themselves that the current indictments mean Trump is innocent and not being investigated, while at the same time failing dismally in seeing the bigger picture.


I don't care what the right thinks.




top topics



 
69
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join