Flynn charged with one count of making false statement

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.

Again Coercing someone that has admitted to a crime to commit a "lawful act" and testify against others is exactly what a cooperating witness is.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Yes it is possible thats the only law he broke.

Again, for the millionth time, it is not illegal to speak to people of foreign governments. During transitions it is not illegal for the transition staff to speak to foreign governments. Flynn was directed to make contact with several governments, including Russia, in regards to a UN vote.

Also - not illegal.

originally posted by: kurthall

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
Zero Hedge has a copy of the inductment.

Take a few minutes to go and read it. He's charged with falsely claiming that he didn't ask the Russian ambassador to avoid escalating the situation, and falsely claiming that he didn't ask him to delay a UN vote.

I'm sure I'm not going to be the only person who asks: THAT'S IT ?!?! THAT'S THE WORST THING MUELLER COULD NAIL THIS GUY ON?

It was their upbringing...Flynn is a Democrat...Picked by Obama...And that's what Democrats do...Manafort had serious ties to the perverted Podesta brothers...And of course we know who they are...



Uh, he lied about quite a few things, I did read it. I don't know why I cant copy paste it. So why do so many of trumps team feel the need to LIE about Russia?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: soberbacchus

Yes it is possible thats the only law he broke.

Again, for the millionth time, it is not illegal to speak to people of foreign governments. During transitions it is not illegal for the transition staff to speak to foreign governments. Flynn was directed to make contact with several governments, including Russia, in regards to a UN vote.

Also - not illegal.

then why did they all lie about it so much?

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.

***

ETA: Imagine you are on a jury and hear testimony from a witness against a Defendant. The Defense tells you that in exchange for that testimony, prosecutors agreed not to charge the witness' child.

Witness credibility comes down to the jury / judge hearing the case. Standard tactic is to impeach the witnesses testimony if possible to discredit their claims on the stand, creating doubt in the minds of the jurors / judge about the testimony being provided.

If you can show the witness is lying/ misleading / omitting information while on the stand you reached your goal.

Usually defense will go after a witness who has received favorable treatment in exchange for their testimony. Smart prosecutors raise that issue themselves to take the "gotcha" factor away from the defense on cross.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: soberbacchus

Yes it is possible thats the only law he broke.

Again, for the millionth time, it is not illegal to speak to people of foreign governments. During transitions it is not illegal for the transition staff to speak to foreign governments. Flynn was directed to make contact with several governments, including Russia, in regards to a UN vote.

Also - not illegal.

That is what people technically call a straw man.

When have I claimed it is illegal for US Citizens to speak with members of a foreign government?

Let me know how Flynn's promises to Kisylak re:sanctions differ from chatting up a Russian tourist and get back to me.

originally posted by: fiverx313

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: soberbacchus

Yes it is possible thats the only law he broke.

Again, for the millionth time, it is not illegal to speak to people of foreign governments. During transitions it is not illegal for the transition staff to speak to foreign governments. Flynn was directed to make contact with several governments, including Russia, in regards to a UN vote.

Also - not illegal.

then why did they all lie about it so much?

So far the only person who lied was Flynn and it was in regards to issues before Trump was sworn in.

No clue why he lied.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: soberbacchus

Yes it is possible thats the only law he broke.

Again, for the millionth time, it is not illegal to speak to people of foreign governments. During transitions it is not illegal for the transition staff to speak to foreign governments. Flynn was directed to make contact with several governments, including Russia, in regards to a UN vote.

Also - not illegal.

That is what people technically call a straw man.

When have I claimed it is illegal for US Citizens to speak with members of a foreign government?

Let me know how Flynn's promises to Kisylak re:sanctions differ from chatting up a Russian tourist and get back to me.

Well, no its not a strawman...

a tourist wont be in a position of being a member of a government acting in an official capacity. Making deals with Russia on sanctions is not illegal. Talking about easing sanctions, or even implementing sanctions, is not illegal.

As for claiming you cant talk to other people of other countries it is the overriding theme. That Flynn talked to people of a foreign government and then lied about it because it was a legal violation.

It is not.

a reply to: xuenchen

Not so much

To be perfectly honest...

I think every single one of you is being played and distracted, no matter what you believe/want/expect to happen.

The fact is he lied to the FBI.
He is, because of that fact, not a reliable witness at all.

Why should/would anyone, involved in the investigation or on the sidelines with the popcorn, believe a word he says about anything from this moment forward?


He is nothing more than tainted goods.
But yeah, you all keep believing he will exonerate or drag down Trump.
Or some other mug (like Kushner), that will eventually lead to exonerating or dragging down Trump.

To me, you’re all no better than the talking heads on Fox & CNN, who will convince you all to become the conduits of their narratives you all proclaim is fake news.



He is a liar.
He didn’t plead guilty out of remorse.
If it hadn’t been discovered, he’d still be lying about it to this day.
Nothing he testifies to can be considered or trusted.

originally posted by: conscientiousobserver
a reply to: xuenchen

Not so much

Which sanctions was he reviewing?

The sanctions dealing with Ukraine and Crimea or the sanctions for meddling in our election? The article does not say and only uses a hearsay source from a former obama members.


Finally - the review or removal are not illegal.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: soberbacchus

Yes it is possible thats the only law he broke.

Again, for the millionth time, it is not illegal to speak to people of foreign governments. During transitions it is not illegal for the transition staff to speak to foreign governments. Flynn was directed to make contact with several governments, including Russia, in regards to a UN vote.

Also - not illegal.

That is what people technically call a straw man.

When have I claimed it is illegal for US Citizens to speak with members of a foreign government?

Let me know how Flynn's promises to Kisylak re:sanctions differ from chatting up a Russian tourist and get back to me.

Making deals with Russia on sanctions is not illegal. Talking about easing sanctions, or even implementing sanctions, is not illegal.

It is when you are not the US Government (yet) and (a) Undermining present US authority and (b) Potentially doing it in trade for given assistance from that foreign government to get your team elected into US Government...or (c) Offering up US Security Policy at the direction of someone that is fearful of blackmail material the recipient might have.


Or any gradient or combination of the above. Whatever Flynn offered Mueller it was substantial. Compare his "charge" to Manaforts very long "Indictment".

Flynn talked to people of a foreign government and then lied about it because it was a legal violation.

It is not.

Strange. It was not illegal? Yet a former 3 star General, Director of National Intelligence and National Security Advisor to the President decided he would lie to the FBI on a whim? Nothing Illegal to cover up, but what the hell, let's risk a Federal Felony Indictment and career ending scandal

a reply to: xuenchen

Like i said Congress did everything they could to stop him from dropping the sanctions. This bill, that Trump opposed and was forced to sign, is the result of that.

HERE is the report about Trump wanting to drop sanctions the moment he was in office.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
The fact is he lied to the FBI.
He is, because of that fact, not a reliable witness at all.

Why should/would anyone, involved in the investigation or on the sidelines with the popcorn, believe a word he says about anything from this moment forward?

Using your logic / legal standard -

The Trump dossier should not be believed because it is not verified.
The people responsible for the dossier are untrustworthy because they lied by claiming the dossier as truthful.
Clinton and Tapper lied when they claimed 17 Intel agencies said the dossier was valid.
Clinton lied with regards to her emails and server.
Clinton lied in regards to the FBI "review" of her "matter" (investigation / investigation).
Tapper lied to Congress when he said Americans weren't spied on.

I can keep going but you get the idea. Careful setting a standard while thinking it only appli4es to one party or person.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
It is when you are not the US Government (yet) and (a) Undermining present US authority and (b) Potentially doing it in trade for given assistance from that foreign government to get your team elected into US Government...or (c) Offering up US Security Policy at the direction of someone that is fearful of blackmail material the recipient might have.

No really it is not illegal nor did it undermine Obama.
There is no collusion so stop repeating that lie.
The incoming Admin can legally speak to foreign countries and entertain policy shifts.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
Or any gradient or combination of the above. Whatever Flynn offered Mueller it was substantial. Compare his "charge" to Manaforts very long "Indictment".

Not it was not substantial.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
Strange. It was not illegal? Yet a former 3 star General, Director of National Intelligence and National Security Advisor to the President decided he would lie to the FBI on a whim? Nothing Illegal to cover up, but what the hell, let's risk a Federal Felony Indictment and career ending scandal

Again Flynn / Trump admin people speaking to foreign governments is not illegal.

Lying to the FBI IS illegal during the course of an investigation. You dont seem to understand the difference / stand alone issue of that statute (18 USC 1001).

Had Trump violated the law the Democrats would be screaming impeachment.
The Democratic leadership has not.
They told their members to stop with the impeachment crap.
Democrats on the intel committees have stated numerous times there is no evidence of collusion.

Even Panetta can't quite make this rise to the occasion of a deep crime.

It's clear he really wants to though.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Ok... firstly, I do not give the slightest sh*t, nor have an opinion, on the dossier.
Secondly, if Hillary was found guilty of lying to the FBI and subsequently was offered a plea deal for info, I wouldn’t believe a word she had to say either. I’m guessing that not many of the people who want her locked up would, either.

Now...

Careful setting a standard while thinking it only appli4es to one party or person.

Actually, that’s not what I’m doing.
I’d apply this standard to pretty much anyone, regardless of the party they belong to.

Liars, who only come clean because they were caught, hold no weight of reliability.
We (the public, not just me and you lol) will never be able to get past that fact.


Here... I’ll predict something...
People (on both sides) will only trust his testimony if it jives with the ultimate result they are hoping for...
& if his testimony somehow shatters their beliefs, they will be very vocal about how it cannot be trusted & some injustice was done.

Ya dig?

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.

a reply to: FatSoldier

Source?

originally posted by: conscientiousobserver
a reply to: xuenchen

Like i said Congress did everything they could to stop him from dropping the sanctions. This bill, that Trump opposed and was forced to sign, is the result of that.

HERE is the report about Trump wanting to drop sanctions the moment he was in office.

From your source -

One of those officials, Tom Malinowski, who stepped down as President Barack Obama's assistant secretary of state for human rights on January 19, corroborated those reports in an interview on Friday.

"I heard after stepping down that,

unsurprisingly, the White House was beginning to consider drafting the actual substance of a deal with the Russians," Malinowski told Business Insider. "That doesn't mean any decisions had been made, but as you would expect for a president who campaigned on getting rid of impediments to chummy US-Russia relations, his administration immediately started charting ways forward to achieving that."

If he were a part of the actual review f sanctions then it would fly. Hearsay does not a legal argument make.

Finally the sanctions on Russia were via executive order (by Obama). It was not until the summer of 2017 that the Senate passed a bill that requires Congress approve any changes in sanctions to Russia. That requirement is challenged on constitutional grounds as sanctions are the purview of the President and not Congress.

Either way a review of sanctions with a possibility of removing / easing them is once again normal practice during a change in administrations.