Flynn Pleads Guilty
I hope you guys are right but I personally don't see it right now.
Was anyone ever charged under the Logan act? I heard supporters of Mueller say if he charged Flynn with it they would back away from supporting him.
The one thing that makes me think there is more to it then what it appears is that he lied about something he didn't need to lie about.
Logan act has been charged once back in early 1800’s and did not stick. There is some belief that anyone who got convicted under it would end up getting relief under various constitutional provisions.
Doesn’t mean it’s unconstitutional. Does mean it’s a pretty high risk way to try to take down a president.
I agree with the assessment that, to this point, there’s not much. I’ll also point out that the erroneous news story from ABC caused so much joy amongst my lefty friends that it’s clear this goes far beyond policy and into some serious emotional territory. And that’s fine. I would point out however that the left should be ready for the idea that the whole thing is nonsense and that there is no moment, as a frighteningly emotionally incontinent post suggested in this thread, where the President ends up murdered in prison.
And about that... that is quite a post to have on a community message board.
There is soooo much to go after him about in terms of behavior that is not in dispute- policy stuff and otherwise- that I wonder if the best strategy for emotional coping for the left isn’t to just let the investigation roll and focus the narrative on other things. If there has been criminal behavior by President Trump it doesn’t matter if you fixate on it daily. It’s an asteroid that will hit whether you cheer it on or not.
drummerboy said:
You know - this Flynn thing, so far, seems like a whole lotta nuthin.
Flynn made it worse by lying to the FBI, for some damn reason, but the root "offense" is pretty much nuthin'. He talked to the Russian ambassador out of turn? Oh my!
I'm not crazy about going after people for lying to the FBI. (Is lying to your municipal police also a criminal offense? I'm thinking no. Why does the FBI get special treatment?)
Moeller is not impressing me so far.
Stop harshing my glee! 
The irrepressible Van Jones...
“I spent about ten years of my life doing criminal justice work in Oakland,” Jones said on CNN’s AC360. “I‘m just going to make this as plain as possible to the CNN viewers: when one of the main home boys turns snitch, a bunch of people about to go to jail. That’s just how that works.”
“This is a huge deal, you cannot pretend it’s not,” he concluded. “One of your main homeboys just turned snitch — all y’all in trouble.”
GL2 said:
The irrepressible Van Jones...
“I spent about ten years of my life doing criminal justice work in Oakland,” Jones said on CNN’s AC360. “I‘m just going to make this as plain as possible to the CNN viewers: when one of the main home boys turns snitch, a bunch of people about to go to jail. That’s just how that works.”
“This is a huge deal, you cannot pretend it’s not,” he concluded. “One of your main homeboys just turned snitch — all y’all in trouble.”
There's a lot that we don't know but what we do know is that Flynn is giving Mueller something or someone(s) that he wants and the lenient deal reflects that cooperation.
His name has not come up, but it would tickle me to no end if Bannon's was found on Santa's naughty list.
Formerlyjerseyjack said:
His name has not come up, but it would tickle me to no end if Bannon's was found on Santa's naughty list.
Oh I SO agree!!!
Could be him but I am leaning towards Kushner.
Formerlyjerseyjack said:
His name has not come up, but it would tickle me to no end if Bannon's was found on Santa's naughty list.
Jackson_Fusion, I agree that there is so much emotion involved that the media and far left jump too quickly to scream victory. This only plays in to Trumps narrative of fake news and his supporters are quick to believe him, especially when nothing has been tied directly to him yet. The reactions by some of the media yesterday only shows their hatred for Trump and weakens their credibility. Just report the news, maybe even speculate where it MIGHT lead but don't scream victory until it is a done deal.
We need to take everything at face value and not over react at every turn in the case.
I believe Trump will go down for something, I am just not sure it will be for collusion. At least not yet.
Formerlyjerseyjack said:
His name has not come up, but it would tickle me to no end if Bannon's was found on Santa's naughty list.
Lord knows, if there was slop to wallow in, Bannon was oinking away.
Trump today admitted to obstruction of justice. If he knew Flynn lied to the FBI when he asked Comey to let it go, then there is your case. Ty Cobb must be having a fit.
"I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!"
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/937007006526959618
Trump has been POTUS for less than a year. A special prosecutor was named within four months of him taking office. Two of his campaign employees have plead guilty to federal charges and two others have been indicted.
I hardly call this fake news.
EricBurbank said:
Jackson_Fusion, I agree that there is so much emotion involved that the media and far left jump too quickly to scream victory. This only plays in to Trumps narrative of fake news and his supporters are quick to believe him, especially when nothing has been tied directly to him yet. The reactions by some of the media yesterday only shows their hatred for Trump and weakens their credibility. Just report the news, maybe even speculate where it MIGHT lead but don't scream victory until it is a done deal.
We need to take everything at face value and not over react at every turn in the case.
I believe Trump will go down for something, I am just not sure it will be for collusion. At least not yet.
Keep in mind the pardon angle, too. By not charging Flynn (and Manafort before him) on many of these federal charges, it leaves open the possibility for them to be charged by the appropriate states, thus negating the possibility of a Trump pardon.
(eg, see this Slate article walking through this)
mfpark said:
Depends on what Flynn actually has. If all he has is his word that Trump told him to go to the Russians, then it will not amount to much at all. But if he has it in writing or on tape, from Trump or one of the Trumpettes, it will be meaningful.
Or if someone or two people corroborate it.
CBS reported that it was Trump's lawyer who tweeted the infamous "Flynn lied to the FBI" tweet! Is this now absurd enough for you boys!!!???
peaceinourtime said:
mfpark said:
Depends on what Flynn actually has. If all he has is his word that Trump told him to go to the Russians, then it will not amount to much at all. But if he has it in writing or on tape, from Trump or one of the Trumpettes, it will be meaningful.
Or if someone or two people corroborate it.
Trump would corroborate it right now. In fact he has. That’s the point of the earlier article. There is a difference between “candidate trump” and “president elect trump”, which is why the stock market sold off sharply after the ABC report and then swiftly recovered, and why Brian Ross will be home for the holidays and why Trump said it was silly for Flynn to lie about something that was perfectly legal, especially since he didn’t have to talk to the FBI at all, was not under suspicion for anything, and didn’t have to say a word.
Once again, not the crime- he was not concealing a crime- but the coverup.
Trump is on a tweet storm this morning as a result of his tweet yesterday that he fired Flynn because he lied to the FBI. It's being reported that pre-dawn Trump tweeted that he never asked Comey to stop investigating Flynn and that Comey lied. That tweet has been deleted from Trump's twitter page (or at least I couldn't find it.) But he doesn't deny that he fired Flynn because he lied to the FBI. More fun for his lawyers.
"WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Sunday in a tweet that he never asked former FBI Director James Comey to stop investigating his ex-national security adviser Michael Flynn, issuing a fresh denial amid a shifting timeline on when he may have known that Flynn had lied to the FBI.
Trump said on Twitter before dawn, "I never asked Comey to stop investigating Flynn. Just more Fake News covering another Comey lie!" The president reiterated his version of events after Comey testified before Congress in June that Trump had asked him in a one-on-one meeting if he could see to "letting Flynn go."
eta: Mueller is having a field day just on the basis of Trump's tweets over the past 24 hours.
I'm not really one for schadenfreude, but there is something strangely appealing about having Trump being taken down in the end by his own Tweets.
Everything you point out is true but none of it points to collusion by Trump during the election. That is what Mueller was hired to find and what everyone is waiting for.
I am glad those who were caught breaking the law were prosecuted but lets remember what we were looking for.
And yes, I know Mueller has the authority and was also charged with finding any criminal activity. But to scream victory over these charges is a little premature.
yahooyahoo said:
Trump has been POTUS for less than a year. A special prosecutor was named within four months of him taking office. Two of his campaign employees have plead guilty to federal charges and two others have been indicted.
I hardly call this fake news.
EricBurbank said:
Jackson_Fusion, I agree that there is so much emotion involved that the media and far left jump too quickly to scream victory. This only plays in to Trumps narrative of fake news and his supporters are quick to believe him, especially when nothing has been tied directly to him yet. The reactions by some of the media yesterday only shows their hatred for Trump and weakens their credibility. Just report the news, maybe even speculate where it MIGHT lead but don't scream victory until it is a done deal.
We need to take everything at face value and not over react at every turn in the case.
I believe Trump will go down for something, I am just not sure it will be for collusion. At least not yet.
Trump and campaign were using information from stolen/Russian hacked Hillary emails throughout the campaign. If he and/or they did so while knowing the source, they are guilty of not reporting the crime to authorities.
Possible scenario --
Trump Jr.: "Hillary's email last night said '---- and ---- and ---.' You can bring it up in the next debate or put it in tomorrow's 5 a.m. tweet."
The Gropenfuhrer: "Where did you get this information from? How do I know its true?"
GL2 said:
The irrepressible Van Jones...
“I spent about ten years of my life doing criminal justice work in Oakland,” Jones said on CNN’s AC360. “I‘m just going to make this as plain as possible to the CNN viewers: when one of the main home boys turns snitch, a bunch of people about to go to jail. That’s just how that works.”
“This is a huge deal, you cannot pretend it’s not,” he concluded. “One of your main homeboys just turned snitch — all y’all in trouble.”
Van Jones is clueless.
Flynn's Plea Is Another NothingBurger In Russiagate
Formerlyjerseyjack said:
The Gropenfuhrer: "Where did you get this information from? How do I know its true?"
As show of concern about the provenance of information would be proof it didn't come from Trump.
Couldn't crop it smaller. Headline says "Nixon Denies Role in Cover-up, Admits Abuses by Subordinates
sprout said:
I'm not really one for schadenfreude, but there is something strangely appealing about having Trump being taken down in the end by his own Tweets.
Trump's stupidity is only eclipsed by his belief in his own intelligence.
All I am saying is that Mueller's main charge was to show Trump colluded with the Russians to influence the election. As of now he has not shown it. But if you listen to the far left and a lot of the media, everytime one of them are charged with something they jump up and down like it was proven. Fynn's deal may lead to something but the others had nothing to do with collusion or the election.
Van Jones may be the worst of the bunch. His hatred of Trump shows every time he opens his mouth. He is entitled to hate him but he shouldn't let his hatred cloud the issue at hand.
As for using stolen emails...they have to prove 1) he used them 2) he knew they were stolen and 3) he knew the source. Maybe Flynn can tie some of that together but until then we are just speculating.
Trump will get busted for something its only a matter of time. But to get his supporters to wake up Mueller either has to come up with something proving collusion or just come out and say "we have not found any evidence of collusion during the campaign, however we have found that Trump broke x,y, and z laws." I believe that is the only way his supporters may see through him. You give them the bone of being wrong on the collusion (if it can't be proven) and then maybe they will believe the other charges.
Does this make any sense to some of you?
EricBurbank said:
All I am saying is that Mueller's main charge was to show Trump colluded with the Russians to influence the election. As of now he has not shown it. But if you listen to the far left and a lot of the media, everytime one of them are charged with something they jump up and down like it was proven. Fynn's deal may lead to something but the others had nothing to do with collusion or the election.
Van Jones may be the worst of the bunch. His hatred of Trump shows every time he opens his mouth. He is entitled to hate him but he shouldn't let his hatred cloud the issue at hand.
As for using stolen emails...they have to prove 1) he used them 2) he knew they were stolen and 3) he knew the source. Maybe Flynn can tie some of that together but until then we are just speculating.
Trump will get busted for something its only a matter of time. But to get his supporters to wake up Mueller either has to come up with something proving collusion or just come out and say "we have not found any evidence of collusion during the campaign, however we have found that Trump broke x,y, and z laws." I believe that is the only way his supporters may see through him. You give them the bone of being wrong on the collusion (if it can't be proven) and then maybe they will believe the other charges.
Does this make any sense to some of you?
Not much.
Ken Starr's "main charge" was Whitewater, a land deal in Arkansas.
What do you mean by the "far left"? To me that refers to Antifa or Trotskyite fringe groups. They couldn't care less about this matter.
I do not know much about Van Jones but the quote attributed to him shows humor more than hatred.
I have serious doubts that Trump will get "busted" if by that you mean criminally prosecuted. And his hard core base supporters will never "see through him" or abandon him because to do so they would have to abandon their own self image as well as their image of Trump. But that's the hard core. Many of his supporters will abandon him when they see their taxes go up and/or their income and benefits go down. Some victims of a con get angry when they realize they were conned and some can never admit that they were conned.
So I do not agree with much you have said but thank you for helping me clarify my thoughts.
EricBurbank said:
All I am saying is that Mueller's main charge was to show Trump colluded with the Russians to influence the election. As of now he has not shown it. But if you listen to the far left and a lot of the media, everytime one of them are charged with something they jump up and down like it was proven. Fynn's deal may lead to something but the others had nothing to do with collusion or the election.
Van Jones may be the worst of the bunch. His hatred of Trump shows every time he opens his mouth. He is entitled to hate him but he shouldn't let his hatred cloud the issue at hand.
As for using stolen emails...they have to prove 1) he used them 2) he knew they were stolen and 3) he knew the source. Maybe Flynn can tie some of that together but until then we are just speculating.
Trump will get busted for something its only a matter of time. But to get his supporters to wake up Mueller either has to come up with something proving collusion or just come out and say "we have not found any evidence of collusion during the campaign, however we have found that Trump broke x,y, and z laws." I believe that is the only way his supporters may see through him. You give them the bone of being wrong on the collusion (if it can't be proven) and then maybe they will believe the other charges.
Does this make any sense to some of you?
And there you have the biggest knock on special councils and prosecutors. You start off investigation one thing and end up impeaching someone for a “soiled” blue dress. There seem to be no boundaries for how far they can dig.
Putting any presidential organization under non-stop investigation will eventually net you something to make hay about. Conviction? The drum beat of subpoenas and rumors makes that somewhat moot. Whether the country is better for having an executive constantly battling investigations is up to your judgment.
JF,
"Counsel"
Have you ever read Scalia's dissent in the case upholding the Special Prosecutor law?
As I recall one of the things he said is that in a usual criminal investigation you start with a crime and look for the perpetrator. A Special Prosecutor starts with an alleged perpetrator and looks for the crime. Further he doesn't stop until he finds the crime and when he does he puts himself out of a job.
This makes a lot of sense, except the part about the "far left." The people pushing the Russia story are establishment Democrats. CNN, MSNBC, etc. are also mainstream, corporate news. There is nothing far or left about it. Progressives who are further to the left (but not really "far left" - not sure we even have far left in this country) think it's mostly a waste of time, and a huge distraction from the real issues like the tax bill and net neutrality. I don't watch much mainsteam TV, but I heard that Rachel Maddow spent less than two minutes talking about net neutrality and 45 or more on Russia. The networks probably don't want net neutrality, but anyway. . . .
EricBurbank said:
All I am saying is that Mueller's main charge was to show Trump colluded with the Russians to influence the election. As of now he has not shown it. But if you listen to the far left and a lot of the media, everytime one of them are charged with something they jump up and down like it was proven. Fynn's deal may lead to something but the others had nothing to do with collusion or the election.
Van Jones may be the worst of the bunch. His hatred of Trump shows every time he opens his mouth. He is entitled to hate him but he shouldn't let his hatred cloud the issue at hand.
As for using stolen emails...they have to prove 1) he used them 2) he knew they were stolen and 3) he knew the source. Maybe Flynn can tie some of that together but until then we are just speculating.
Trump will get busted for something its only a matter of time. But to get his supporters to wake up Mueller either has to come up with something proving collusion or just come out and say "we have not found any evidence of collusion during the campaign, however we have found that Trump broke x,y, and z laws." I believe that is the only way his supporters may see through him. You give them the bone of being wrong on the collusion (if it can't be proven) and then maybe they will believe the other charges.
Does this make any sense to some of you?
For Sale
-
leather couches $300
More info
Free Items
Rentals
-
Huge Brand New construction Apartment in 2 family home with 4 bedrooms 3 bathrooms
4 Bd | 3Full Ba
$4,500
Advertisement
In exchange for cooperating fully with Mueller's investigation, prosecutors have agreed not to pursue additional charges related to Flynn's lies to the FBI and not to charge Flynn for false statements he made when he belatedly registered last March as a foreign agent of Turkey. By mentioning this, the prosecutors are telling Flynn that they might charge Flynn Jr., if Flynne doesn't cooperate fully. Not mentioned are the other charges that the prosecutors could bring against Flynn such as obstruction of justice, money laundering or the alleged kidnapping scheme.
It is also possible that Flynn could be charged with violating the Logan Act.
eta - The most compelling reason for Flynn to cooperate fully is that if he doesn't, his son will be charged. His lawyers must have thought that the prosecutors had enough to make a case against Flynn Jr.