Flynn charged with one count of making false statement

a reply to: conscientiousobserver

www.cnn.com...

originally posted by: conscientiousobserver
a reply to: Xcathdra

Further down in the article it mentions both sanctions.

Of course that by itself is not illegal, but dropping them as part of a deal with a foreign adversary. Most certainly is, although so is obstruction of justice. So who knows what Trump will get impeached over first.

Again, the transcripts of what Flynn discussed have been out for a long time now, and the FBI knows there is no evidence of quid pro quo in them. If Mueller was indicting Flynn over that level of conspiracy, he would have indicted Flynn on charges relating to that conspiracy as part of the agreement because he would have needed Flynn's testimony as part of the conspiracy to establish that it existed.

Instead, he indicts him on a process crime.

As to obstruction of justice ... when an administration comes into power, it is not at all unusual for the heads of all major criminal depts. to be replaced by the president. If simply removing the heads of the FBI, CIA, NSA, DoJ, et al., were analogous to obstruction of justice of an ongoing investigation by those agencies, no president would ever be able to fire any acting head because there are always numerous ongoing investigations to be potentially interrupted by such replacement.

Yes, Trump waited to replace Comey, but it has been repeatedly testified that Comey's firing had no affect on any ongoing investigations being carried out.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Yeah your position and me comparing it to other members of the former administration is relevant, whether you like that or not.

As for glass houses it goes with the reaction by the left who had no issues with Obamas authority only to scream for change when Trump won. It is one of those instances where one party doesnt look far enough into the future to the extent they find themselves out of power and understand the other party will inherit those very same powers / abilities.

As for the investigation by Mueller im more concerned with the fact there is no oversight of his investigation and also it delving into areas that are in fact outside the authority granted. Which is to say anything that arises during the investigation into Russian collusion.

Meaning financial transactions a decade before Trump was elected would be outside his authority as defined.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Sillyolme

Flynn took the deal to protect his son. Yes.

You raise an interesting issue (although I am not interested in any of your thoughts on it, fyi).

If Flynn has agreed to give any testimony or confess guilt to anything with an agreement his son will be protected from prosecution, then that is not going to have much evidentiary weight and would likely be suppressed as evidence against Trump/Kushner/Someone Else.

It's coercion.

***

ETA: And it's one of several very questionable and possibly critical errors I've noticed about Mueller's collection of evidence.

Coercion is precisely how EVERY cooperating witness becomes a cooperating witness.

There is nothing legally illegitimate about coercing a witness into testifying.

Coercing someone to commit a crime is a real thing though.

Coercing someone to cooperate in an investigation happens every day and in every way.

Witness credibility is key to the evidentiary value of their testimony. Witness testimony that has been coerced with the promise that their child will be spared prosecution is worthless.

The entirety of case law in the united states disagrees with you.

No, it doesn't:

Excluding Coerced Witness Testimony to Protect a Criminal Defendant’s Right to Due Process of Law and Adequately Deter Police Misconduct

Courts have been mixed on coerced witness statements, and juries have expressed credibility issues with testimony given by witnesses who have made plea deals or have been granted immunity.

Jurors don't have to accept every witness is credible. And I think the Defense for whoever would argue to exclude testimony from Flynn IF he made a deal to give it in exchange for a promise his son wouldn't be prosecuted for the Turkey stuff.

***

ETA: The fact is...Flynn's testimony in such a case would not be enough evidence to convict. Prosecutors would need more.

originally posted by: conscientiousobserver
a reply to: Xcathdra

Further down in the article it mentions both sanctions.

Of course that by itself is not illegal, but dropping them as part of a deal with a foreign adversary. Most certainly is, although so is obstruction of justice. So who knows what Trump will get impeached over first.

Sure but again we come back to the action being lawful.

A review will occur anytime a complex situation is going to be changed. A review does not always mean changes.

Man reading all these post from Trump defenders is sad,sad.."Believe Me" they are twisting themselves into pretzels to try,and deflect.Flynn is just the first card to be pulled in the house of cards..

a reply to: greydaze

No.

The reality is that we still don't know much of anything.

Flynn isn't even in "the House" anymore. And all most people have to go on is rumor and speculation, much like with Manafort and Papadopolis.

BOOM! WAPO REPORTER CAUGHT ADMITTING WHAT EVERYONE ALREADY KNEW ABOUT RUSSIA STORY - THIS IS HUGE!

originally posted by: greydaze
Man reading all these post from Trump defenders is sad,sad.."Believe Me" they are twisting themselves into pretzels to try,and deflect.Flynn is just the first card to be pulled in the house of cards..

That's some professional projecting. The only ones twisted into pretzels right now are those who still think this is gonna lead to Trump colluded with Russia to win the election. There's still zero evidence of that whatsoever.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yeah your position and me comparing it to other members of the former administration is relevant, whether you like that or not.

I fail to see how.
I haven’t defended the previous administration, nor do I ever intend to.
All you’re doing is preaching to the choir.

The following is my “position”. You might be surprised.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

As for glass houses it goes with the reaction by the left who had no issues with Obamas authority only to scream for change when Trump won. It is one of those instances where one party doesnt look far enough into the future to the extent they find themselves out of power and understand the other party will inherit those very same powers / abilities.

I really don’t think you are even reading my posts.
Because nothing I said, relates to the above quote.

I really don’t care about the left, and I care even less about Obama.

I struggle to see how this relates to me saying that a proven liar cannot be trusted to testify.
There is absolutely nothing that can prevent him from lying again.

If he testifies that there is fire behind the apparent smoke, he could quite easily be trying to shift culpability for his own mistakes, or worse, treason.
If he says that nothing nefarious happened, and takes the brunt of the blame, it could easily be another Ollie North moment to protect certain people.

No matter what he testifies, it can be shrugged off as just more bullsh*t from a known liar.
What credibility does he have, to be of any use?

If we are being brutally honest, on both sides, he has none.
& that fuels my overall point... it’s a distraction.

As for the investigation by Mueller im more concerned with the fact there is no oversight of his investigation and also it delving into areas that are in fact outside the authority granted. Which is to say anything that arises during the investigation into Russian collusion.

That’s a reasonable concern to have.
My main concern, is that if it’s proven that members of Trump’s administration did work with the Kremlin, you have elected a President that is being used and deceived by his own people, and has no clue about it.
Which could have all sorts of disastrous consequences.

Don’t mistake that for an anti-Trump position...
I’d consider him a victim if that was indeed the case.

originally posted by: face23785
That's some professional projecting. The only ones twisted into pretzels right now are those who still think this is gonna lead to Trump colluded with Russia to win the election. There's still zero evidence of that whatsoever.

i'm pretty sure they'll get him on obstruction of justice, at this point.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
So far the only person who lied was Flynn and it was in regards to issues before Trump was sworn in

hm really... what about every time everyone said 'i didn't meet the russians and i don't know of anyone who did'?

No clue why he lied.

come now

originally posted by: ketsuko
when an administration comes into power, it is not at all unusual for the heads of all major criminal depts. to be replaced by the president. I

Except, of course, when you go on national T.V. and declare that you were firing the Director of the FBI because of this "Russiar thing, with Trump and Russiar"

a reply to: alphabetaone

Then I guess all those people who later on testified under oath that the investigations were not disrupted in any way should be indicted for lying under oath like Flynn? Yes?

originally posted by: fiverx313
hm really... what about every time everyone said 'i didn't meet the Russians and i don't know of anyone who did'?

and Flynn was charged with lying. The issues with sessions was the way Franken asked his questions. He asked sessions in the context of a Trump surrogate. He did not ask about his contacts as a US Senator.

and in case you forgot a lot of people from both sides said they never met with Russians only to find out they did.

No clue why he lied.

come now
I can speculate but until Flynn or the investigators provide the info its just speculation.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: ketsuko
when an administration comes into power, it is not at all unusual for the heads of all major criminal depts. to be replaced by the president. I

Except, of course, when you go on national T.V. and declare that you were firing the Director of the FBI because of this "Russiar thing, with Trump and Russiar"

Except he was fired for his actions on handling the Clinton fiasco, among a few other failures.

Even now there is absolutely nothing that comes close to Trump colluding with Russia in order to win a presidential election.

ABC has changed their story about meetings and Trump.

Oliver Darcy‏Verified account @oliverdarcy
37m37 minutes ago

Oliver Darcy Retweeted ABC News

ABC News spokesperson tells me that “World News” will clarify that this should be president-elect Trump, not candidate Trump.

That does make a difference.

There is no use guessing what the plea deal is for. I plan to just wait and it may be a long time until we find out.

a reply to: Xcathdra

But not fake news...just 'unclarified.'

originally posted by: Grimpachi
There is no use guessing what the plea deal is for. I plan to just wait and it may be a long time until we find out.

Exactly.

I recall the days of the so-called Plame Affair when everyone was sure that Libby's indictment was one short step away from Cheney getting frog-marched out of the White House in chains. Some even thought it was going to bring down Bush.

Things didn't turn out that way.

I'm not saying that will be how this goes. It could go upward to the top, but right now. We just don't have that evidence.