• 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'

Harshaw said:
One of the reasons you want your witness to have pleaded guilty to a more serious charge is that the jury knows what's at stake for him if he doesn't cooperate. They know he's facing a potentially heavy sentence, and if he doesn't tell all he knows, truthfully, then he's got all of that weight coming down on him. That makes what he says not only credible, but powerfully credible.

That doesn't happen if he's only copping to a minor charge with a light sentence.
Click to expand...

That sounds like under duress to me.
 
Absentglare said:
Oh now what the ****?

A republican who served in the marines is in on some sort of grand left wing conspiracy to rig the 2018 elections?

This is easily the stupidest ****ing thing i've seen yet. We have overwhelming evidence of quid pro quo with President Trump's unanimous praise of Putin, trashing US institutions in the process, after Putin helped him win. Now you want to act like it's impossible that anyone in President Trump's orbit is genuinely guilty and that it's a left wing conspiracy without any SHRED of evidence whatso****ingever? Give me a break.
Click to expand...

We must wait and see when these collusion with Russia to rig the election endictments (if any) come about.
 
Why is that conservatives are so terrified of this investigation? Whatever Mueller produces will have to stand on evidence, not whether his team likes the president or not.

Now, if Mueller were a Democratic activist himself, and was withholding a report clearing the president in order to use the powers of his office to harass the president in a fishing expedition, you guys would have a point.

But so far Mueller has been following leads related to serious criminal matters, and has removed sources of bias within his office, despite being under no legal obligation to do so.

As opposed to Starr who withheld a report clearing president Clinton in all the matters related to Whitewater, so he could continue to harass the Clinton WH.

#hypocrites.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Well you are, wrong that is.

As long as you are creating the division of "libs" you have made it worse. You president is the single most destructive force ever unleashed on the American people, and if you think your "saving" the country by praising neo-Nazis, undermining the confidence in the judiciary, and his own executive branch then you have lost site of what America stands for.

And the bias crack that "libs" want "payback" is so far out of real you need a telescope to see it. You forget I was around and bashing Obama when "righties" were getting their own "payback" If there is a side that wants vengeance, look in the mirror. "Your side" has people who think the woman who was killed in Charlottesville was the one in the wrong.

And to back that, you know I was there when you were comparing the Obama's to "Monkeys" and going ape **** every time he played golf or issued an executive order.

The fact you ignore these things in Trump shows there is no integrity in the American right. None.

For an idea whos destroying America look in the mirror
Click to expand...

Look, I'll tell you that I think that both parties, and their partisans have done their share to destroy the values that this country was founded on. I just think that progressive liberals are worse on the scorecard. :shrug:

If there is no integrity in the American right as you say, do you really think that there is on the American left? Really?

We have grown into a mass of sniping, vitriolic, bunch of children here that can't stand to have someone oppose our views.

So, how do we fix it? Have any solutions? or just more tearing down of opposition?
 
MovingPictures said:
Why is that conservatives are so terrified of this investigation? Whatever Mueller produces will have to stand on evidence, not whether his team likes the president or not.
Click to expand...

Maybe at one time I would have said you're right. But, remember we are in a time where just an accusation is enough now....

Now, if Mueller were a Democratic activist himself, and was withholding a report clearing the president in order to use the powers of his office to harass the president in a fishing expedition, you guys would have a point.
Click to expand...

How do you know that isn't the case?

But so far Mueller has been following leads related to serious criminal matters, and has removed sources of bias within his office, despite being under no legal obligation to do so.
Click to expand...

So Weisman has been removed? I have not heard that....Plus, remember Sztrok was only removed AFTER the IG had the texts leaked.....Before that you don't think he knew? Really?

As opposed to Starr who withheld a report clearing president Clinton in all the matters related to Whitewater, so he could continue to harass the Clinton WH.

#hypocrites.
Click to expand...

Hypocrisy is the life blood of politics...But you know that....Also like Fitzgerald who knew who the source leaking Plame to the press was within the first couple of days, but with held that so he could pad his pockets for a while....
 
Last edited:
tres borrachos said:
I hope he's not that stupid. That would be political suicide (even more than the current political suicide he commits pretty much every day).

Then again, it is President Trump, and his brain isn't wired right.
Click to expand...

Seeing how the investigation is rigged and Flynn was illegally surveiled, a pardon would be appropriate.
 
MovingPictures said:
Why is that conservatives are so terrified of this investigation? Whatever Mueller produces will have to stand on evidence, not whether his team likes the president or not.

Now, if Mueller were a Democratic activist himself, and was withholding a report clearing the president in order to use the powers of his office to harass the president in a fishing expedition, you guys would have a point.

But so far Mueller has been following leads related to serious criminal matters, and has removed sources of bias within his office, despite being under no legal obligation to do so.

As opposed to Starr who withheld a report clearing president Clinton in all the matters related to Whitewater, so he could continue to harass the Clinton WH.

#hypocrites.
Click to expand...

Actually, we're laughing our asses off at how it's an obvious sham.
 
j-mac said:
Look, I'll tell you that I think that both parties, and their partisans have done their share to destroy the values that this country was founded on. I just think

 :shrug:

If there is no integrity in the American right as you say, do you really think that there is on the American left? Really?

We have grown into a mass of sniping, vitriolic, bunch of children here that can't stand to have someone oppose our views.

So, how do we fix it? Have any solutions? or just more tearing down of opposition?
Click to expand...



We will agree to disagree on who has been a destructive force in America.

How do you fix it?

You are not going to like the answer. Clearly the great "constitutional system is not working, so dump it and become a parliamentary democracy...that will fix everything.

We aren't going to see that so it's a bigger job. You start holding your politicians to account. They do not fear the voter, and that makes them predatory. Here the politicians know that if they **** up EVERYONE will get on him, including his ow party.

I hear Americans say they are embarrassed by Trump. No you're not. Not enough anyway, not enough to start a recall petition anyway. What, it won't work? You don't know until you try and simply doing it sends a message they can't play the same way.
You organize women and encamp the White House until you get heard.

Activism...not couch potato whining.

A few years ago we had a premier who seemed popular enough..but he made a deal for a sales tax with Ottawa weeks after the election in which he had said there would not be a new sales tax.

He was forced out of office even though he had a five year mandate.

They need to FEAR you or they get lazy and take bribes and do what the check signers want them to not what their constituents want. If I were living there I would do everything in my party to audit the in incomes of every politician I could.

I was talking to an American woman on the beach last summer and she was lamenting Trump's antics. So I asked her "have you written him a letter telling him that?" What good will that do? When we wanted to get rid of that premier the Liberal Party of BC was fielding over 1,000 emails a day.

You want to fix it? Shut down your computer and go find people who want to fix it too. Then you contact the next town and the next and the next so when you have your "I'm not going to take it anymore" moment you have their attention.

How do you think the poor, uneducated black women stopped Donald Trump and his sidekick Judge Roy?

Do that.

As an aside, you need a third party. The problem is that they always try to start at the top. To get to the White House you have to win your local city council.

What WILL DEFINITELY NOT work is to continue to drive the "librul" "rightie" war. It's how they controlled you for the last 50 years
 
Fearandloathing said:
As an aside, you need a third party.s
Click to expand...
Hard to do with our winner take all system. Both R's and D's benefit by teaming up against the third.

I agree on activism though. We are complacent, we've never had someone this bad so it's all new. I like your idea about auditing politicians...I think my first thought is I'd be worried they would come after me if they found out. I'd rather it be a group with legal recourse and funding I suppose.
 
Fearandloathing said:
We will agree to disagree on who has been a destructive force in America.

How do you fix it?

You are not going to like the answer. Clearly the great "constitutional system is not working, so dump it and become a parliamentary democracy...that will fix everything.

We aren't going to see that so it's a bigger job. You start holding your politicians to account. They do not fear the voter, and that makes them predatory. Here the politicians know that if they **** up EVERYONE will get on him, including his ow party.

I hear Americans say they are embarrassed by Trump. No you're not. Not enough anyway, not enough to start a recall petition anyway. What, it won't work? You don't know until you try and simply doing it sends a message they can't play the same way.
You organize women and encamp the White House until you get heard.

Activism...not couch potato whining.

A few years ago we had a premier who seemed popular enough..but he made a deal for a sales tax with Ottawa weeks after the election in which he had said there would not be a new sales tax.

He was forced out of office even though he had a five year mandate.

They need to FEAR you or they get lazy and take bribes and do what the check signers want them to not what their constituents want. If I were living there I would do everything in my party to audit the in incomes of every politician I could.

I was talking to an American woman on the beach last summer and she was lamenting Trump's antics. So I asked her "have you written him a letter telling him that?" What good will that do? When we wanted to get rid of that premier the Liberal Party of BC was fielding over 1,000 emails a day.

You want to fix it? Shut down your computer and go find people who want to fix it too. Then you contact the next town and the next and the next so when you have your "I'm not going to take it anymore" moment you have their attention.

How do you think the poor, uneducated black women stopped Donald Trump and his sidekick Judge Roy?

Do that.

As an aside, you need a third party. The problem is that they always try to start at the top. To get to the White House you have to win your local city council.

What WILL DEFINITELY NOT work is to continue to drive the "librul" "rightie" war. It's how they controlled you for the last 50 years
Click to expand...

Well, thanks for the thought out answer, but I'd like to see our own system be righted....If I wanted Canada's system I'd move there....
 
Chomsky said:
No, that's Trump-speak for:

"Let's test the waters, and see what type of reaction it gets"

Trump does this often. He gauges the reception or backlash, then proceeds based upon the feedback.
Click to expand...

Or he gets ready to jump into the boiling lava, and his babysitters drag him away from the cliff.

j-mac said:
Just wondering...Have you or any of the other 'hate Trump army' ever thought about what you are going to say when there is nothing to this crap other than what has already been done?

Will you admit that you were wrong, or just continue to say that everyone else is wrong but you're not?
Click to expand...

Not gonna happen. Charges have already been filed - testimony agreements already made.

Chomsky said:
Actually, he could also preemptively pardon him for the mature in perpetuity.
Click to expand...

And Flynn would still have to testify according to his agreement.

j-mac said:
LOL, that's a good one....:lol: I'm not saying that republican's aren't corrupt, hell it is clear as day among the 'neverTrump' wing like McCain, Flake, Corker, etc. But, if there was any there there at all, you can bet that after a year, Muller would have already charged it....This whole thing is a bunch of hot air, designed to render Trump's presidency dismantled, and ineffective.....

I hope, and I mean really hope that you people like the precedent y'all are setting here....When this is used on a President you like, get ready.
Click to expand...

What amazes me is that you seem to think that the republicans have never done this before! It has been used on several presidents already - it's just that this one looks like he's committed more high crimes and misdemeanors.

Cardinal said:
Actually, this is trumpspeak for "I'm going to do this."
Click to expand...

I would love to see that happen. Trump pardons - new charge - Trump pardons again - another new charge...and so on infinitum. Now that would be a very entertaining news cycle. Even more entertaining once Flynn's relatives get charged.
 
Angelus said:
I would love to see that happen. Trump pardons - new charge - Trump pardons again - another new charge...and so on infinitum. Now that would be a very entertaining news cycle. Even more entertaining once Flynn's relatives get charged.
Click to expand...

"May you live in interesting times."
 
JANFU said:
Not what I asked, I asked can they make an agreement.
Click to expand...

I have no idea why any state AG would do it. Mueller would have nothing to offer. It's not up to the state AG to prosecute crimes, anyway.

What Mueller can't do is guarantee against any state action.
 
Harshaw said:
You quoted and bolded exactly why your conclusion here is erroneous.
Click to expand...
Harsaw, with all respect here and with yourself in your debate with me on this topic, you seem impervious to the fact that Mueller may indeed have further charges he can bring if he so chooses.

Can you more deeply expound upon your issue with this supposition? Why is it not plausible, in your view?
 
Chomsky said:
Harsaw, with all respect here and with yourself in your debate with me on this topic, you seem impervious to the fact that Mueller may indeed have further charges he can bring if he so chooses.

Can you more deeply expound upon your issue with this supposition? Why is it not plausible, in your view?
Click to expand...

I've already explained; prosecutors just don't do it that way.

1) Justice Department policy is to indict for the most serious provable crime, and not plead down to lesser charges. Not doing so suggests that there isn't the evidence to do so. In which case, what could the person in question possibly have to offer if he hasn't admitted to anything more?

2) Indicting for the most serious crime gives more leverage over the person you're trying to convince to cooperate, because you'll have him in a position where he has much more to lose and much more to gain cooperating. Indicting for a lesser crime front-loads the benefit of cooperating. Why give him the goods -- the lesser charge, the lesser sentence --
before he cooperates? Only when faced with a serious penalty is there motive for cooperating. A guy facing 20 years off the bat is more likely to sing than a guy facing 5, or none.

Are you more likely to cooperate with someone who has a gun pointed directly at you, or someone who says that he'll go get the gun you've never seen if you don't?

3) Indicting for the most serious crime makes for a more credible witness.

4) Merely indicting for a false statement makes the witness a lot less credible, because, well, he makes false statements, and there's little penalty for him if he reneges on a cooperation deal.

5) Indicting for the most serious crime brings more weight against the "bigger fish," because it establishes the serious crime.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Flynn pleaded down to minor things. There are numerous other very serious charges he is trying to avoid by cooperating.
Click to expand...

That is generally the nature of plea deals. If you help the state nail someone else then you skate, otherwise the deal changes and you get up-charged.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
We must wait and see when these collusion with Russia to rig the election endictments (if any) come about.
Click to expand...

And yet obstruction of justice occurred whether Russia collusion was explicit or not.

President Trump is really a complete ****ing moron if he's wholly innocent of Russian collusion and behaved this way anyway.
 
Chomsky said:
Harsaw, with all respect here and with yourself in your debate with me on this topic, you seem impervious to the fact that Mueller may indeed have further charges he can bring if he so chooses.

Can you more deeply expound upon your issue with this supposition? Why is it not plausible, in your view?
Click to expand...
The fact that Mueller requested Deutsche bank release information related to Flynn, means a FARA case is being built against Flynn, and in the end they'll get him on that.

Flynn knows that, his lawyers know that, and they both know that even though the case hasn't been brought yet, plea deals and 5k letters that are available now might not be down the road.

Hell, just recently a witness came forward detailing that Flynn told a business associate that a deal to bring nuclear technology with the assistance of Russia could go forward, as the sanction currently preventing it would be "ripped up" once Trump took office.

#CrookedFlynn
 
Harshaw said:
I have no idea why any state AG would do it. Mueller would have nothing to offer. It's not up to the state AG to prosecute crimes, anyway.

What Mueller can't do is guarantee against any state action.
Click to expand...

Harshaw said:
I've already explained; prosecutors just don't do it that way.

1) Justice Department policy is to indict for the most serious provable crime, and not plead down to lesser charges. Not doing so suggests that there isn't the evidence to do so. In which case, what could the person in question possibly have to offer if he hasn't admitted to anything more?

2) Indicting for the most serious crime gives more leverage over the person you're trying to convince to cooperate, because you'll have him in a position where he has much more to lose and much more to gain cooperating. Indicting for a lesser crime front-loads the benefit of cooperating. Why give him the goods -- the lesser charge, the lesser sentence --
before he cooperates? Only when faced with a serious penalty is there motive for cooperating. A guy facing 20 years off the bat is more likely to sing than a guy facing 5, or none.

Are you more likely to cooperate with someone who has a gun pointed directly at you, or someone who says that he'll go get the gun you've never seen if you don't?

3) Indicting for the most serious crime makes for a more credible witness.

4) Merely indicting for a false statement makes the witness a lot less credible, because, well, he makes false statements, and there's little penalty for him if he reneges on a cooperation deal.

5) Indicting for the most serious crime brings more weight against the "bigger fish," because it establishes the serious crime.
Click to expand...

You keep claiming it's "Justice Department policy" to indict for as serious a crime as possible. I don't think you understand the specifics of this situation. Mueller is using Flynn to pursue a bigger fish in President Trump's circle. In the indictment, it specifically states that Flynn could still face more charges.

And you're really missing the point. They're trying to take down a conspiracy, a set of criminal actors, and they're so very far from complete. It is straight up delusional to claim that the indictments will stop here- you can almost guarantee that another indictment is coming based on the text of Flynn's plea.

This is an amazing article on lawfareblog and i suggest you give it a read, but the important bit is here:

It reflects something else too: that Flynn is prepared to give Mueller substantial assistance in his investigation and that Mueller wants the assistance Flynn can provide. We are not going to speculate about what that assistance might be. But prosecutors do not give generous deals in major public integrity cases to big-fish defendants without good reason—and in normal circumstances, the national security adviser to the president is a very big fish for a prosecutor. The good reason in this case necessarily involves the testimony Flynn has proffered to the special counsel’s staff. The information in that proffer is not in any of the documents released Friday, and it may not even be related to the information in those documents. Prosecutors tend to trade up. That is, for Mueller to give Flynn a deal of this sort, the prosecutor must believe he is building a case against a bigger fish still.

There’s another peculiar nuance: Section 3 of the plea agreement leaves Flynn unprotected against certain future prosecutions. The section is titled “Additional Charges” and states in its entirety that “In consideration of your client’s guilty plea to the above offense, your client will not be further prosecuted criminally by this Office for the conduct set forth in the attached Statement of the Offense” (emphasis ours). The office, in other words, seems to be reserving the right to prosecute Flynn for conduct not set forth in that document, which is to say all of the other conduct on which he might be vulnerable. It is hard to know what to make of this language. It could mean nothing at all. It could mean that the threat of further prosecution is being held over Flynn’s head if he does not hold up his end of the bargain. It could mean that another plea agreement covering other matters is coming.
Click to expand...

https://www.lawfareblog.com/flynn-plea-quick-and-dirty-analysis
 
Mach said:
Hard to do with our winner take all system. Both R's and D's benefit by teaming up against the third.

I agree on activism though. We are complacent, we've never had someone this bad so it's all new. I like your idea about auditing politicians...I think my first thought is I'd be worried they would come after me if they found out. I'd rather it be a group with legal recourse and funding I suppose.
Click to expand...



The main difference I have always seen in our two systems is the fact our politicians fear us. From my early days as a reporter in Ottawa, a green kid, you could tell everyone, in any of the then four parties knew there was a line you cannot cross. In the last federal election a several candidates had to drop out because of comments they'd made years prior, a local Conservative was bounced for having written a comment about a woman's boobs in a high school year book. You can call it PC run amok, I see it as the politicos know they live and die on what WE think.

Compare that to Judge Roy and the fact he came close. They have no respect for you.

Believe me, when the middle class leaves the back yard BBQ for activism they listen. We staged a kind of recall on the aforementioned sales tax, we needed 55% in each of the 85 ridings. We got 64%

They listen now.

I would agree, that with the current climate becoming a lone activist is probably a bad idea. Safety in numbers
 
MovingPictures said:
The fact that Mueller requested Deutsche bank release information related to Flynn, means a FARA case is being built against Flynn, and in the end they'll get him on that.
Click to expand...

:roll:

No, it doesn't. That is sheer speculation.

You appear to continually confuse what you really hope is the case with what is actually happening, steeped with a knowledge of legal procedure garnered entirely from Hollywood.
 
I saw some big guns on Maddow tonight, actual law professors and people who worked for Mueller in a high level legal capacity, etc. Some R's, some Ds.

They know as much as we do, that it's intriguing, and not "typical" in many cases, but that we cannot glean any sure facts from all of it.
They may have charged Flynn light because they have very little on him anyway, or it may be because he gave them a juicy proffer that warranted a bare minimum charge (as many please do).
They did note that his plea agreement didn't seem typical (things like the narrow immunity, etc.)

It's all speculation at this point.There were all basically in agreement with each other on everything.

Of note, they were all in agreement that:
1. Mueller is a fantastically good and professional prosecutor
2. The FBI is incredibly professional and as non-partisan as they come.
3. That Trump attacking the FBI harms the FBI and the nation in terms of all the cases they may be working, along with their morale.

The guy most outspoken about that was a Bush appointee who served in the FBI.

Also, they didn't seem to think Trump would pardon Flynn, or try to fire Mueller.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom