"Trump Team Going To Jail For The Rest Of Their Lives"

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: knoxie
hysterical considering the "lock her up" chants. even more considering Flynn was right there chanting away. LOL isn't he a convicted felon now?

He actually said "if I don't a tenth of what she had done..... I would be locked up"

Its kind of funny now if you think about it.

Yeah Trump was really worried after Flynn got a plea deal. That's why he did a charakter assassination on Twitter. Oh wait no he did the opposite. Flynn worked a few years for the Obama admin and was treated like crap. Nobody had his back then. I think they will regret that decision pretty soon.

LMAO!

This is why I love having Trump as President. The media are exposing who they really represent. That alone was worth Trump's victory.

I am having a blast with all of this. I actually kind of think Trump is having a blast with it also.

originally posted by: 3daysgone
LMAO!

This is why I love having Trump as President. The media are exposing who they really represent. That alone was worth Trump's victory.

I am having a blast with all of this. I actually kind of think Trump is having a blast with it also.

I already imagined his smug face when the SC ends without resulting in him being charged. The saltmines will never run dry after that.

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError
They said some people might go to jail.
Jesus f christ you conservatives are so easily triggered.

For the rest of their lives? Jesus f christ you libs are so given to exageration

originally posted by: Perfectenemy

originally posted by: 3daysgone
LMAO!

This is why I love having Trump as President. The media are exposing who they really represent. That alone was worth Trump's victory.

I am having a blast with all of this. I actually kind of think Trump is having a blast with it also.

I already imagined his smug face when the SC ends without resulting in him being charged. The saltmines will never run dry after that.

lol. Yeah.

You know though, even if he is charged, it will still be worth it, then the left will have to work with Pence. Remember when they were making fun of Pence for not having lunch with women without his wife around. lol. With everything that is going on about sexual harassment it turns out he was smarter than any other politician.

a reply to: FauxMulder


This is hilarious. There is no basis to their claim whatsoever. I'd love to see one of them produce the relevant USC language that outlaws anything they've even been accused of.

Of course these aren't official accusations, since none of those have been made

But of course...the court of public opinion is in session on MSNBC

a reply to: Perfectenemy


We will have a hilarity-rich-environment, that is for sure. From WaPo's "Democracy dies in darkness banner" to the hordes of sky screamers and Russian hysteria, that saltmine is going to be the gift that keeps on giving.

When SC is gone and Trump is still standing, Fox should design a giant "We told you so." banner

And team Mueller should be ashamed of themselves. Giving congress the runaround, and protecting an agent with a clear bias who directly let Hillary off from Comey's language - which described the crime of espionage to a T. Of course it isn't just Mueller, Comey, Lynch and the entire Obama Admin was complicit. Outing and exposing their appointees and deep state holdovers is crucial at this point, though.

I love how some people contest the existence of a deep state in the US, though. Look no further than Gladio, RE: NATO. Ask Aldo Morro whether Gladio is a real thing. There is absolutely a deep state.

Remember when they were making fun of Pence for not having lunch with women without his wife around. lol. With everything that is going on about sexual harassment it turns out he was smarter than any other politician.

Couldn't have said it better

This is what smart people do, who realize the opposition's malicious use of sexual related allegations is a real threat.

a reply to: FauxMulder

Federal prosecuting guidelines say they must go after the biggest readily provable charge.

From the the memorandum:

There will be circumstances in which good judgment would lead a prosecutor to conclude that a strict application of the above charging policy is not warranted. In that case, prosecutors should carefully consider whether an exception may be justified. Consistent with longstanding Department of Justice policy, any decision to vary from the policy must be approved by a United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General, or a supervisor designated by the United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General, and the reasons must be documented in the file.

They have discretion.

A procedural offense is all they have here. There is nothing to flip him over.

That Flynn was illegally lobbying for the Turkish government is pretty much self-evident just from what's been revealed in the reporting but even it weren't, it's right in section 5 of the statement of offense.

5. On March 7, 2017, FLYNN filed multiple documents with the Department of Justice pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act ("FARA") pertaining to a project performed by him and his company, the Flynn Intel Group, Inc. ("FIG") for the principal benefit of the Republic of Turkey ("Turkey project"). In the FARA filings, FLYNN made materially false statements and omissions, including by falsely stating that (a) FIG did not know whether or the extent to which the Republic of Turkey was involved in the Turkey project, (b) the Turkey project was focused on improving US business organizations' confidence regarding doing business in Turkey, and (c) an op-ed by published in The Hill on November 8, 2016, was written at his own initiative; and by omitting that officials from the Republic of Turkey provided supervision and direction over the Turkey project.

While he was pleading guilty to lying, unlike with the phone calls in the first sections of the statement of offense, he's actually admitting that he lied about committing a crime — a crime for which he is not being prosecuted.

Right? Lying about illegal lobbying for Turkey is not the same crime as the lobbying itself. The Mueller team clearly could have charged him with acting as an "unregistered agent of a foreign principal" — which Manafort was charged with. In fact, Manafort was charged with both acting as an unregistered foreign agent AND lying about it.

So you're demonstrably wrong on your point that lying was the only thing he could be charged with.

Brzezinski, thank god her father is dead.

originally posted by: dashen

That guy appears to be doping, do they have performance enhancing drug policy in the media? I'm pretty sure that guy is shooting horse testosterone.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Yes you do, their news chicks are way hotter.

Seconded! Its a cast I can really get behind!

I think people care trying to make it into the Trump Tweet club...lol lets call it #andmetoo wait that is already used...

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: dashen

That guy appears to be doping, do they have performance enhancing drug policy in the media? I'm pretty sure that guy is shooting horse hormones.

Kevin Arnold sure looks skinny since he went vegan! Never the same since Winnie Cooper broke his heart

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: theantediluvian

Clearly you find it odd that someone would be given a deal and not flip on greater charges.

What are you basing that on.

See my last post. He pleaded guilty to lying about unregistered lobbying for Turkey. He was not charged with the crime itself. Also, the FARA filing was a completely separate lie unrelated to the interview, correct?

So now we actually have three things we're certain he could have been charged with, right?

* Lying to the FBI in the January interview.
* Lying in his filings to the DOJ regarding his lobbying.
* Acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign principal.

Manafort and Gates were both charged with the second two. I'm not sure about the first. Am I wrong?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FauxMulder

A talk show host with zero legal qualifications makes a dumb legal proclamation. News at 11!

Yup, no surprise there, just another day in lib media.

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FauxMulder

A talk show host with zero legal qualifications makes a dumb legal proclamation. News at 11!

Yup, no surprise there, just another day in media.

fixed that for you.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: theantediluvian

Clearly you find it odd that someone would be given a deal and not flip on greater charges.

What are you basing that on.

See my last post. He pleaded guilty to lying about unregistered lobbying for Turkey. He was not charged with the crime itself. Also, the FARA filing was a completely separate lie unrelated to the interview, correct?

So now we actually have three things we're certain he could have been charged with, right?

* Lying to the FBI in the January interview.
* Lying in his filings to the DOJ regarding his lobbying.
* Acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign principal.

Manafort and Gates were both charged with the second two. I'm not sure about the first. Am I wrong?

But what does any of this have to do with your idea that this shows they will use Flynn to get charges against others.

Normally I would agre, that would be the logical thing to do.

You don't give some one immunity or let them slide on charges unless you are trying to flip them to get bigger fish.

However, Damn near everyone got immunity in the Hillary investigation, and who did that lead to charging.

No one.

And before you say well we know Flynn committed crimes,

Remember, at the very least we know someone was guilty of destoyimg subpeonead evidence (i believe combetta and whoever oredered him).

Yet they received immunity for this crime, and it resulted in no charges against others.

So clearly given your comments about flynn, you would find this very odd of the fbi to do.

Which gets to the big point.

You say you have no problem reinvestigating Hillary.

Why would that be necessary though?

Its because of the terrible behavior of the actual investigators.

So if that's the case, those investigators too should be investigated.

And if there strange behavior on that case was through bias or incompetence, Why are some of them now working on the trump investigation.

a reply to: FauxMulder

Now you did make a worthwhile point in the OP (and one that I've heard Dershowitz make) that I wanted to address.

When a prosecutor has a cooperator (Flynn) who was an accomplice in a major criminal scheme, the cooperator, (Flynn) is made to plead guilty to the scheme. This is critical because pleading guilty to the scheme proves the existence of a criminal conspiracy.

And besides, pleading guilty to lying carries an inherent risk of calling into question the credibility of the witness. Though, I'd argue that there's always a question in the minds of jurors about cooperating witnesses and whether or not they're simply saying what the prosecution wants them to say for their own self-interest.

Let's take a look at the statement of offense again:

a. On or about December 28, 2016, then-President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13757, which was to take effect the following day. The executive order announced sanctions against Russia in response to that government's actions intended to interfere with the 2016 presidential election ("U.S. Sanctions").

b. On or about December 28, 2016, the Russian Ambassador contacted FLYNN.

c. On or about December 29, 2016, FLYNN called a senior official of the Presidential Transition Team ("PTT official"), who was with other senior members of the Presidential Transition Team at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, to discuss what, if anything, to communicate to the Russian Ambassador about the U.S. Sanctions.

On that call, FLYNN and the PTT official discussed the U.S. Sanctions, including the potential impact of those sanctions on the incoming administration's foreign policy goals. The PTT official and FLYNN also discussed that the members of the Presidential Transition Team at Mar-a-Lago did not want Russia to escalate the situation.

d. Immediately after his phone call with the PTT official, FLYNN called the Russian Ambassador and requested that Russia not escalate the situation and only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner.

e. Shortly after his phone call with the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with the PTT official to report on the substance of his call with the Russian Ambassador, including their discussion of the U.S. Sanctions.

What I find interesting here (what most people find interesting here) is of course the inclusion of these facts regarding calls to "PTT." The lies that he told here were that a) he'd did not call Kislyak to ask him to ask the Russian government to refrain from responding to the Obama sanctions and that b) that there was no follow up call in which Kisylak affirmed that Russia was moderating its response.

The facts above aren't necessary to prove that those were lies as we all know now, there were intercepts which are direct evidence of the calls and their content.

Furthermore, in the next section, a similar set of facts are presented which implicate yet another person — "a very senior member of the Presidential Transition Team" — in regards to a lie Flynn told about the UN Security Council resolution.

Now step back for a minute. The calls themselves were not illegal. (the consensus is clearly that the Logan Act is an empty threat that is dragged out for rhetorical purposes)

That doesn't mean that there's not a criminal conspiracy to be prosecuted if the conspiracy is to obstruct justice. If that's what they're pursuing, lying as he did would be part and parcel to his involvement in a conspiracy to obstruct justice. If the two unnamed people (assumed to be KT McFarland and Jared Kushner) also lied, Flynn can provide testimony that they both lied.

Anyway, I have a work meeting so I'll have to leave for a bit here but I'll check back when I return.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FauxMulder

A talk show host with zero legal qualifications makes a dumb legal proclamation. News at 11!

Yup, no surprise there, just another day in lib media.

fixed that for you.

As usual you have your facts wrong, you didn’t fix it.