• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump on a Flynn pardon - 'Lets see'

Chomsky said:
Plus Flynn is protecting his son. Trump would have to pardon a plethora of people, including anyone in Flynn's or the others' families with any possible legal exposure.

The fact that Trump even raises the possibility of pardoning Flynn during the active investigation, shows him for the crap he is. He doesn't have America's interest at heart. Not at all.

The interests of the country, and the interests of Trump, are not compatible.
Click to expand...

To be fair, wasn’t he asked specifically about a Flynn pardon?
 
Fearandloathing said:
"Hate Trump army?"

**** me, the paranoia is getting smelly.

One, have you ever stopped for a few seconds and asked your self 'with all this smoke could there really be a fire?"

In answer to your question what happened to the "Lock her up" crowd when after a zillion hours of investigation by the "brightest" in the Republican party and found NOTHING?

Pay back IS indeed a bitch. But one difference here. Every time we look under anything Trump we find **** that needs investigating waaaaaay beyond some emails stored on the wrong server.

So long as we find dirty dealings the investigation will continue...so the next time you're tempted to post garbage like this remember what assholes the party made of themselves with an outright vengeful hate fest of a competitor. When this begins to look anything like the "lock her up" inquests I will be the first to let you know. I can't stand either of them so I have no dog in this fight
Click to expand...
I would offer that two seperate felony pleas involving cooperating co-conspirators, and two other felony indicted defendants totaling over a dozen counts, in only 6 months, is a very productive and efficient investigation!

Why anyone would want to stop such a successful and fruitful investigation, is beyond me!
 
Chomsky said:
I would offer that two seperate felony pleas involving cooperating co-conspirators, and two other felony indicted defendants totaling over a dozen counts, in only 6 months, is a very productive and efficient investigation!

Why anyone would want to stop such a successful and fruitful investigation, is beyond me!
Click to expand...

Sure...I believe you. I really do....
 
roughdraft274 said:
Flynn probably wouldn't take the pardon. His deal with Mueller would be thrown out and likely get rammed up the asshole with charges in state courts. He's smart to play ball. And mueller probably wouldn't have offered a sweetheart deal unless he has information.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you know how "deals" work, legally or practically.

Flynn is charged with rather minor things. That's not what you do if you're trying to extract cooperation. You nail him on the biggest thing you can; the leverage then comes from the amount of punishment which can be avoided. Charging him with something minor lessens the hold you have over him. Charging him with the maximum possible increases it.

You also owe it to the people who pay your salary (the taxpayers) to charge a person fitting of the crimes. On the STATE level, sometimes lesser charges are pled down to, but there's a floor on that. No one who commits a serious crime is ever offered a minor charge.

Further, if you want to establish a conspiracy, you have to establish a crime. Charging the guy you want to cooperate with the crime that the conspiracy is supposed to be about establishes that the crime existed to have conspired with.

Also, no federal deal can prevent state charges. Never mind that there are no state crimes of which he's accused to be charged with. They're all federal. State courts do not prosecute federal offenses.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I would have little fear of what a self-confessed liar has to offer in testimony. If Flynn were offered outright immunity, rather than had pled guilty to lying, then Trump and his lawyers might be more worried.
Click to expand...
I don't know if I'd agree with that.

Mueller may be giving out get-out-of-jail passes, but still be handing out felonies, for good reason. The probational offence gets the witness cooperation to stay out of jail, and the felony charge puts others on notice to come clean and not play games.

I think it's a shrewd move. Everything we see Mueller do, when examined carefully in full context, seems to be extremely competent and thought out. I've come to believe his reputation as a smart, experienced, competent pro, is accurate. If he's made an error, or missed a detail, I've yet to see it.
 
Harshaw said:
I'm not sure you know how "deals" work, legally or practically.

Flynn is charged with rather minor things. That's not what you do if you're trying to extract cooperation. You nail him on the biggest thing you can; the leverage then comes from the amount of punishment which can be avoided. Charging him with something minor lessens the hold you have over him. Charging him with the maximum possible increases it.

You also owe it to the people who pay your salary (the taxpayers) to charge a person fitting of the crimes. On the STATE level, sometimes lesser charges are pled down to, but there's a floor on that. No one who commits a serious crime is ever offered a minor charge.

Further, if you want to establish a conspiracy, you have to establish a crime. Charging the guy you want to cooperate with the crime that the conspiracy is supposed to be about establishes that the crime existed to have conspired with.

Also, no federal deal can prevent state charges. Never mind that there are no state crimes of which he's accused to be charged with. They're all federal. State courts do not prosecute federal offenses.
Click to expand...

I would think that the last crime that I would want my "credible" witness to be convicted of (especially by confessing to it) is lying under oath.
 
Harshaw said:
I'm not sure you know how "deals" work, legally or practically.

Flynn is charged with rather minor things. That's not what you do if you're trying to extract cooperation. You nail him on the biggest thing you can; the leverage then comes from the amount of punishment which can be avoided. Charging him with something minor lessens the hold you have over him. Charging him with the maximum possible increases it.

You also owe it to the people who pay your salary (the taxpayers) to charge a person fitting of the crimes. On the STATE level, sometimes lesser charges are pled down to, but there's a floor on that. No one who commits a serious crime is ever offered a minor charge.

Further, if you want to establish a conspiracy, you have to establish a crime. Charging the guy you want to cooperate with the crime that the conspiracy is supposed to be about establishes that the crime existed to have conspired with.

Also, no federal deal can prevent state charges. Never mind that there are no state crimes of which he's accused to be charged with. They're all federal. State courts do not prosecute federal offenses.
Click to expand...
Different prosecutors work different ways. Some pile on all the charges at once, others work to slowly squeeze people; that's how it works with organized crimes members.

Flynn is looking for what's known as a 5K letter from Mueller. It's a letter that Mueller can direct to the court detailing Flynn's cooperation, that Mueller can issue should he or any other prosecutor find other crimes that Flynn is convicted of.

If you're a guy like Flynn with all kinds of serious legal jeopardy hanging over your shoulder, and you're not convinced the president will pardon you, it's best to start early by pleading guilty to lesser charges.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...7c8a68c1a66_story.html?utm_term=.94f095aa0a4c

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/10/michael-flynn-trump-turkish-dissident-cleric-plot

https://www.lawfareblog.com/flynn-fisa-and-fara-foreign-principals-and-agents-foreign-powers

The least of this mans problems is lying to the FBI, and if you're one of his lawyers you don't start pleading guilty unless you know investigators are on the track to sending your client to jail.
 
Chomsky said:
I don't know if I'd agree with that.

Mueller may be giving out get-out-of-jail passes, but still be handing out felonies, for good reason. The probational offence gets the witness cooperation to stay out of jail, and the felony charge puts others on notice to come clean and not play games.

I think it's a shrewd move. Everything we see Mueller do, when examined carefully in full context, seems to be extremely competent and thought out. I've come to believe his reputation as a smart, experienced, competent pro, is accurate. If he's made an error, or missed a detail, I've yet to see it.
Click to expand...
Yes, the special counsel is demonstrating they're willing to play 'perjury' and go after people for false statements. This was done likely to put Sessions, Page, and Kushner on notice to start "recalling" or face an indictment.
 
MovingPictures said:
Different prosecutors work different ways. Some pile on all the charges at once, others work to slowly squeeze people; that's how it works with organized crimes members.
Click to expand...

According to whom? Different prosecutors may have slightly different styles, but the dynamics are the same.

Flynn is looking for what's known as a 5K letter from Mueller. It's a letter that Mueller can direct to the court detailing Flynn's cooperation, that Mueller can issue should he or any other prosecutor find other crimes that Flynn is convicted of.
Click to expand...

Yeah, which is relevant only to sentencing. The court can't come up with new charges absent the letter.

A minor charge brings minor sentencing. You can't offer much of an incentive if the maximum penalty isn't very big.

If you're a guy like Flynn with all kinds of serious legal jeopardy hanging over your shoulder, and you're not convinced the president will pardon you, it's best to start early by pleading guilty to lesser charges.
Click to expand...

Might be better for Flynn. It's not better for holding leverage OVER Flynn.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...7c8a68c1a66_story.html?utm_term=.94f095aa0a4c

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/10/michael-flynn-trump-turkish-dissident-cleric-plot

https://www.lawfareblog.com/flynn-fisa-and-fara-foreign-principals-and-agents-foreign-powers

The least of this mans problems is lying to the FBI, and if you're one of his lawyers you don't start pleading guilty unless you know investigators are on the track to sending your client to jail.
Click to expand...

Which is why you want the maximum possible sentence hanging over his head. Minor charges don't give you that.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I would have little fear of what a self-confessed liar has to offer in testimony. If Flynn were offered outright immunity, rather than had pled guilty to lying, then Trump and his lawyers might be more worried.
Click to expand...

You do realize countless criminals have been taken down by testimony of other criminals, it's not just common it's intentionally how they organize such investigations.
You also must realize that testimony itself has only some legal weight, it typically takes a lot of other evidence all together that would be enough for a grand jury to agree with.
 
Harshaw said:
I'm not sure you know how "deals" work, legally or practically.

Flynn is charged with rather minor things. That's not what you do if you're trying to extract cooperation. You nail him on the biggest thing you can; the leverage then comes from the amount of punishment which can be avoided. Charging him with something minor lessens the hold you have over him. Charging him with the maximum possible increases it.
Click to expand...
But that's what you may do when there's negotiated a plea deal. The single probational felony was possibly the result of the plea negotiation. If the deal is reneged (by Flynn), the full weight of any other applicable possible charges can be brought to bare.

You also owe it to the people who pay your salary (the taxpayers) to charge a person fitting of the crimes. On the STATE level, sometimes lesser charges are pled down to, but there's a floor on that. No one who commits a serious crime is ever offered a minor charge.

Further, if you want to establish a conspiracy, you have to establish a crime. Charging the guy you want to cooperate with the crime that the conspiracy is supposed to be about establishes that the crime existed to have conspired with.

Also, no federal deal can prevent state charges. Never mind that there are no state crimes of which he's accused to be charged with. They're all federal. State courts do not prosecute federal offenses.
Click to expand...
Well, you do make an interesting point here.

So now I wonder if when bringing conspiracy charges, do all conspirators need be charged? I'm not a lawyer, and would be interested in knowing this.

Perhaps Flynn's co-conspirator status, if it were to be, is currently sealed? That could be possible, though I don't want to stretch this.
 
Chomsky said:
I don't know if I'd agree with that.

Mueller may be giving out get-out-of-jail passes, but still be handing out felonies, for good reason. The probational offence gets the witness cooperation to stay out of jail, and the felony charge puts others on notice to come clean and not play games.

I think it's a shrewd move. Everything we see Mueller do, when examined carefully in full context, seems to be extremely competent and thought out. I've come to believe his reputation as a smart, experienced, competent pro, is accurate. If he's made an error, or missed a detail, I've yet to see it.
Click to expand...

Surely a "probational offense" could be offered and plead to that did not involve lying under oath. As a juror one could certainly have "reasonable doubt" about the testimony of a self-confessed liar.
 
Harshaw said:
According to whom? Different prosecutors may have slightly different styles, but the dynamics are the same.



Yeah, which is relevant only to sentencing. The court can't come up with new charges absent the letter.

A minor charge brings minor sentencing. You can't offer much of an incentive if the maximum penalty isn't very big.



Might be better for Flynn. It's not better for holding leverage OVER Flynn.



Which is why you want the maximum possible sentence hanging over his head. Minor charges don't give you that.
Click to expand...
I think you're misunderstanding.

They may not have the goods on him yet, but if he knows that with time they will, it makes perfect since for him to start cooperating before deals are off the table.

FARA? They undoubtedly have him on that and not disclosing his foreign payments to the government. It's the kidnapping scheme they probably don't have enough evidence to charge him with yet.

It makes absolutely no sense for his legal time to have Flynn plead guilty, if they think the government has no case on everything else.
 
Mach said:
You do realize countless criminals have been taken down by testimony of other criminals, it's not just common it's intentionally how they organize such investigations.
You also must realize that testimony itself has only some legal weight, it typically takes a lot of other evidence all together that would be enough for a grand jury to agree with.
Click to expand...

My concern is the nature of the charge - self-confessed liars are not exactly star witness material. That is less important if they offered up where the bodies are buried or the name of the hit man used but if their testimony is required it would be dumb to convict them of lying.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Surely a "probational offense" could be offered and plead to that did not involve lying under oath. As a juror one could certainly have "reasonable doubt" about the testimony of a self-confessed liar.
Click to expand...
But to bring other charges would alert others as to the state of the investigation, and what Mueller knows. Mueller's power in part rests with his investigatory subjects not knowing what he knows. It gives impetus for those that are dirty to come in from the cold quickly, to be first and get the best deal they can.

Also, if Flynn doesn't do his job right for Mueller, the prosecutor can further add any other more substantial charges that may be applicable.

I believe Mueller is acting extremely shrewdly here, keeping his cards close to his vest.
 
Chomsky said:
But that's what you may do when there's negotiated a plea deal. The single probational felony was possibly the result of the plea negotiation. If the deal is reneged (by Flynn), the full weight of any other applicable possible charges can be brought to bare.
Click to expand...

But you don't do that, for the reasons that I said.

Well, you do make an interesting point here.

So now I wonder if when bringing conspiracy charges, do all conspirators need be charged? I'm not a lawyer, and would be interested in knowing this.

Perhaps Flynn's co-conspirator status, if it were to be, is currently sealed? That could be possible, though I don't want to stretch this.
Click to expand...

That's determined case-by-base, but strategically speaking, the charges against Flynn don't do much if you're searching for bigger fish.
 
MovingPictures said:
Yes, the special counsel is demonstrating they're willing to play 'perjury' and go after people for false statements. This was done likely to put Sessions, Page, and Kushner on notice to start "recalling" or face an indictment.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Plus a perjury charge gives no hints at to what Mueller knows or has; he's playing his cards close to his vest. He appears to be a shrewd prosecutor.
 
Chomsky said:
But to bring other charges would alert others as to the state of the investigation, and what Mueller knows. Mueller's power in part rests with his investigatory subjects not knowing what he knows. It gives impetus for those that are dirty to come in from the cold quickly, to be first and get the best deal they can.

Also, if Flynn doesn't do his job right for Mueller, the prosecutor can further add any other more substantial charges that may be applicable.

I believe Mueller is acting extremely shrewdly here, keeping his cards close to his vest.
Click to expand...

Extremely shrewdly may be to offer the indictments in October, 2018 such that the assumed guilt hoses the republicants as badly as possible but no trial is needed until after the elections.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Extremely shrewdly may be to offer the indictments in October, 2018 such that the assumed guilt hoses the republicants as badly as possible but no trial is needed until after the elections.
Click to expand...
You're assuming he has political motive.

And yes, if he did have political motive he might do as you suggested.

Regardless of motive, he's rooting crime out of government, and I think it's noble and he should keep going. In fact, I wish his position was a permanent office, assigned to keep this and subsequent administrations and campaigns clean. If you want to occupy the White House, no bums need apply. You commit felonies, you go to jail. Don't stink the place up for the rest of us.
 
MovingPictures said:
I think you're misunderstanding.

They may not have the goods on him yet, but if he knows that with time they will, it makes perfect since for him to start cooperating before deals are off the table.
Click to expand...

That REALLY doesn't make any sense. If they don't have any goods on him, then he's not much good for getting anyone else.

And what you describe here just doesn't happen -- you say they're getting him to cooperate on lesser charges so that he isn't indicted later on charges that they may or may not have evidence for later.

If nothing else, no defense attorney would go for that, and would laugh a prosecutor out of a room for trying to leverage evidence he doesn't have. And if the defense attorney DID know that more evidence for bigger stuff was out there to be found, he's not going to tip his hand by agreeing to lesser charges just in case they happen to find it; that's pretty stark admission that there's something else to find, and that would be malpractice.

You cannot extract a deal from someone by threatening charges for which you do not have evidence. And if you do have evidence, you nail him on the highest charge you can in order to have the most leverage over him.

FARA? They undoubtedly have him on that and not disclosing his foreign payments to the government.
Click to expand...

Based on WHAT, other than your wishes, hopes, and belief that what happens in movies and TV shows is real?

It's the kidnapping scheme they probably don't have enough evidence to charge him with yet.
Click to expand...

And what makes you so sure such "evidence" exists? If you aren't aware of any such evidence, what makes you so sure he's guilty?

It makes absolutely no sense for his legal time to have Flynn plead guilty, if they think the government has no case on everything else.
Click to expand...

That's bat-guano. That makes no sense at all. It makes perfect sense for Flynn to plead guilty to charges for which there is evidence if a lesser sentence can obtain.
 
MovingPictures said:
I see no reason to believe state charges are a possibility.

Flynn's legal liability comes in a variety forms, including not disclosing payments he received from Turkey and registering a foreign agent. this doesn't take into account his perjury on his SF-86 form, the alleged plot to kidnap a US citizen on behalf of Turkey, and whether anything else comes up.

Trump could absolutely pardon Flynn "for any crimes between X-date and Y-date" and there would be nothing anyone could do. All that could be done is for Trump to be impeached for abuse of office and obstruction of justice for his own actions.
Click to expand...

If it could be fixed with a quick pardon then he wouldn't have agreed to cooperate. Very likely they have state charges pending on his ass.
 
Harshaw said:
I'm not sure you know how "deals" work, legally or practically.

Flynn is charged with rather minor things. That's not what you do if you're trying to extract cooperation. You nail him on the biggest thing you can; the leverage then comes from the amount of punishment which can be avoided. Charging him with something minor lessens the hold you have over him. Charging him with the maximum possible increases it.

You also owe it to the people who pay your salary (the taxpayers) to charge a person fitting of the crimes. On the STATE level, sometimes lesser charges are pled down to, but there's a floor on that. No one who commits a serious crime is ever offered a minor charge.

Further, if you want to establish a conspiracy, you have to establish a crime. Charging the guy you want to cooperate with the crime that the conspiracy is supposed to be about establishes that the crime existed to have conspired with.

Also, no federal deal can prevent state charges. Never mind that there are no state crimes of which he's accused to be charged with. They're all federal. State courts do not prosecute federal offenses.
Click to expand...

Flynn pleaded down to minor things. There are numerous other very serious charges he is trying to avoid by cooperating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom