Trump on a Flynn pardon - 'Lets see'

[Harshaw]

Flynn pleaded down to minor things. There are numerous other very serious charges he is trying to avoid by cooperating.

You quoted and bolded exactly why your conclusion here is erroneous.

 

[Harshaw]

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.

There's nothing he's accused of doing even by the fringiest of the fringe which could result in a state charge. There are no state laws he's even suggested as having broken. It's all federal.

If you think there is, what is it?

 

[roughdraft274]

You quoted and bolded exactly why your conclusion here is erroneous.

You're misunderstanding. There are serious charges, and Mueller and Flynn agree to a plea deal. "You cooperate and we only charge you with this crime which you plead guilty to, if you don't cooperate then we bring on the more serious charges".

 

[Harshaw]

You're misunderstanding. There are serious charges, and Mueller and Flynn agree to a plea deal. "You cooperate and we only charge you with this crime which you plead guilty to, if you don't cooperate then we bring on the more serious charges".

I don't misunderstand that I already explained to you the flaw in this conclusion, an explanation that you yourself put in bold when you quoted me. Simply repeating it again doesn't repair the error.

 

[MovingPictures]

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.

What I'm describing is exactly the kind of thing that happens all the time with Mafia soldiers. When the lawyers know that their client has a lot of serious crimes to account for, they recommend they cooperate as soon as possible, so that when more serious charges do come along they have a 5k letter at sentencing.

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.

If there's a paper trail a mile wide and ANOTHER cooperating witness against your client, then it's definitely a good idea to start playing ball.

Reza Zarrab was recently ben in the news, and word was out that he was working on some kind of deal. There had been word that Flynn was trying to extradite Zarrab to Turkey, and that the latter might have knowledge of a kidnapping plot (that James Woolsey also overheard) of a Turkish cleric living here in the US, which Turkey promised Flynn a bribe in exchange for.
Who is Reza Zarrab? Turkish-Iranian gold trader may be working with Mueller investigation of Michael Flynn - World - CBC News

Interestingly enough, as soon as Zarrab started cooperating, Flynn shortly pleaded guilty thereafter.opcorn2:

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.

Uh, if you're after someone higher and that's your target, yeah you do. You let him no know that YOU KNOW what he's involved in, and that serious jail time could be in the pipeline.

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

Oh, I don't know, the ****ing law of the land?

Flynn was acting as an agent of Turkey and other nations, and was being compensated for it handsomely. The law requires him to disclose that to the government, but he didn't. He broke the law, simple as that.

Pay attention.

 

[roughdraft274]

I don't misunderstand that I already explained to you the flaw in this conclusion, an explanation that you yourself put in bold when you quoted me. Simply repeating it again doesn't repair the error.

There is no error on my part. I'm not sure where you are losing it, but you're not following me correctly.

 

[Harshaw]

What I'm describing is exactly the kind of thing that happens all the time with Mafia soldiers. When the lawyers know that their client has a lot of serious crimes to account for, they recommend they cooperate as soon as possible, so that when more serious charges do come along they have a 5k letter at sentencing.

You're changing what you're saying, and you are misapplying what the "5K letter" can do. I think you may not know you are, because I don't think you have as good a grasp on this as you think you do.

Even if all of this is true -- and what you say is more fueled by movies than by reality -- it doesn't change what prosecutors do to extract cooperation, and that Justice Department policy is to indict on the most serious readily provable charge, and not plea down. I already told you all the reasons why. Federal sentencing guidelines also encourage indicting on the most serious charge, because there's a lot more leeway in the sentencing when the more serious charge is in the works. You don't have much leverage over someone if there's not much leeway in what you can offer.

Another strategic reason to have the more serious crime admitted to and out there for public relations purposes when it comes time to getting the bigger fish.

If there's a paper trail a mile wide and ANOTHER cooperating witness against your client, then it's definitely a good idea to start playing ball.

Not without evidence, you don't.

Reza Zarrab was recently ben in the news, and word was out that he was working on some kind of deal. There had been word that Flynn was trying to extradite Zarrab to Turkey, and that the latter might have knowledge of a kidnapping plot (that James Woolsey also overheard) of a Turkish cleric living here in the US, which Turkey promised Flynn a bribe in exchange for.
Who is Reza Zarrab? Turkish-Iranian gold trader may be working with Mueller investigation of Michael Flynn - World - CBC News

Interestingly enough, as soon as Zarrab started cooperating, Flynn shortly pleaded guilty thereafter.opcorn2:

:roll: This is all wild speculation.

Uh, if you're after someone higher and that's your target, yeah you do. You let him no know that YOU KNOW what he's involved in, and that serious jail time could be in the pipeline.

No defense attorney worth his salt -- which is to say, no defense attorney working for Michael Flynn -- is going to cave to such innuendo.

You have seen too much TV.

Oh, I don't know, the ****ing law of the land?

Flynn was acting as an agent of Turkey and other nations, and was being compensated for it handsomely. The law requires him to disclose that to the government, but he didn't. He broke the law, simple as that.

Pay attention.

No, there's considerably more to it than that. FARA is lightly-enforced and the DoJ pretty much always just pesters people to register -- which he has done. It's only a felony if he intentionally failed to do so (and even then, prosecutions are few). Do you have evidence that he did so intentionally? You seem to think it's a slam dunk with what is undisputedly known, so establish it. :shrug:

 

[Harshaw]

There is no error on my part. I'm not sure where you are losing it, but you're not following me correctly.

You keep repeating this:

Flynn pleaded down to minor things. There are numerous other very serious charges he is trying to avoid by cooperating.

Yet you bolded this quote from me:

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.

This explains comprehensively why your statement is in error.

I really don't know why you can't follow that. It's not very complicated.

Do you have any response as to what state charges you think could be brought against Flynn?

 

[Harshaw]

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.

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.

 

[JANFU]

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.

As mentioned State charges - Tax evasion- then add in he loses all 5th A rights. Then when testifying, he lies, back to more charges. Flynn has a sweet deal, his son is off the hook, his pension is safe and he needless to say has records, from emails, paper copies to text, to who was present when specific issues were discussed.
Flynn is the key, the next one could be KT McFarland.
As I have mentioned before,and I will wear it in the event I am wrong, more Felonies by end Feb.

 

[Absentglare]

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.

The irony of this post cannot be overstated.

Of course, it is routine to charge a cooperating witness on a lesser charge.

Whining about taxpayers is fruitless with the millions right wing liars wasted on Benghazigate. If republicans want non-republicans to take them seriously, they'll have to find a ****ing leg to stand on, which'll be basically impossible with all the reckless partisanship they've lashed out wildly with for the past decade.

 

[JANFU]

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.

And Mueller could arrange that. Yes?

 

[j-mac]

I didn't mention "hate" in any form, but your slip is most telling.

The publicly available evidence is already more than sufficient for obstruction of justice charges. The only thing holding it back is republican corruption.

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.

 

[Absentglare]

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.

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.

 

[Harshaw]

As mentioned State charges - Tax evasion- then add in he loses all 5th A rights.

There are no state charges he can be charged with, and no, he doesn't lose "all 5th A rights."

 

[j-mac]

Isn't lying about a video the reason you guys went crazy over Benghazi for like 4 years? Clinton lying about a blowjob was apparently grounds for impeachment. Now lying is a BS charge?

Benghazi was actually looking into dereliction of duty, and what exactly what was the ambassador doing meeting with the Turks there in the first place....

Clinton's BJ, was actually NOT the reason for the impeachment, lying to a judge was. And I agree that for Starr to lurch into that crap shouldn't have been allowed in hindsight...SP's should have strict parameters, and be held to them....

And come on, we both know that "lying to the FBI" is a process charge. It can be as simple as being asked a question in August, then in March of the next year being asked the same question, and the answer while similar, is not exactly the same.....So, spare me that Flynn is some kind of criminal element...Haven't you demos ruined him enough?

 

[Absentglare]

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.



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



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?



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.

I don't think you realize how little sense you're making.

Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI by asking Russia to not react to new sanctions as he was assuring them that President Trump would undermine them.

That's already more than just lying to the FBI, they already gave him a softball. Mueller issued a single federal charge with the plea deal to bait President Trump into a pardon.

And this is exactly how legal proceedings against criminal organizations play out. The naïve ignorance of your posts here is truly remarkable.

 

[j-mac]

Why, exactly, would one plead guilty to a BS charge?

From what I understand, the man was ruined...Dead broke, having to sell his family's home to pay attorneys. And Weisman was threatening to go after his son, just like a common thug would do....I don't know all of his thoughts because I don't know the man, but from reports it was also taking a huge toll on his family....

Ain't that great? A man of his service to the country, ruined and spit out like so much bad corned beef.

 

[JANFU]

There are no state charges he can be charged with, and no, he doesn't lose "all 5th A rights."

I stand corrected, not all 5th A would be lost.
As to State charges you know as much as I do. Meaning we both have opinions as we do not know exactly what he was involved in.

 

[Absentglare]

You quoted and bolded exactly why your conclusion here is erroneous.

... You don't know what Mueller and Flynn did behind closed doors.

You can't just assert your ignorance of other charges as proof that they don't exist.

 

[MovingPictures]

You're changing what you're saying, and you are misapplying what the "5K letter" can do. I think you may not know you are, because I don't think you have as good a grasp on this as you think you do.

Even if all of this is true -- and what you say is more fueled by movies than by reality -- it doesn't change what prosecutors do to extract cooperation, and that Justice Department policy is to indict on the most serious readily provable charge, and not plea down. I already told you all the reasons why. Federal sentencing guidelines also encourage indicting on the most serious charge, because there's a lot more leeway in the sentencing when the more serious charge is in the works. You don't have much leverage over someone if there's not much leeway in what you can offer.

Another strategic reason to have the more serious crime admitted to and out there for public relations purposes when it comes time to getting the bigger fish.




Not without evidence, you don't.



:roll: This is all wild speculation.




No defense attorney worth his salt -- which is to say, no defense attorney working for Michael Flynn -- is going to cave to such innuendo.

You have seen too much TV.




No, there's considerably more to it than that. FARA is lightly-enforced and the DoJ pretty much always just pesters people to register -- which he has done. It's only a felony if he intentionally failed to do so (and even then, prosecutions are few). Do you have evidence that he did so intentionally? You seem to think it's a slam dunk with what is undisputedly known, so establish it. :shrug:

Prosecuting people for having unauthorized servers/email accounts is not typically done either, but I never heard it applied to Clinton last year. Any law that is on the books can be enforced by any prosecutor who believe it is appropriate to do so, even if it's typically not done.

Flynn's not registering with the DOJ as an foreign agent was not an oversight, but was an intentional ploy to deceive the US government and hide his income. You could've argued that it was an oversight, but his lying to the Pentagon and the Congress on other government forms completely blows that argument out of the water, and demonstrates a pattern of deception.

Not registering as an agent of a foreign actor, lying on government forms, and not reporting income are all felonies.

It's obvious to any person with the facts presented in front of them what Flynn was doing, so I'm not going to keep repeating myself to you simply because you're not convinced. I've learned some people on the internet are just going to stick to their guns, even when the get the evidence they request, so don't count on me continuing this back and forth.

 

[Harshaw]

I stand corrected, not all 5th A would be lost.
As to State charges you know as much as I do. Meaning we both have opinions as we do not know exactly what he was involved in.

There is not a single allegation -- much less evidence -- against him which would be a state offense. It's all federal.

 

[Absentglare]

There's nothing he's accused of doing even by the fringiest of the fringe which could result in a state charge. There are no state laws he's even suggested as having broken. It's all federal.

If you think there is, what is it?

Now you're straight up lying. Or you're confusing "accused" with "charged.

Flynn allegedly conspired with Erdogan to accept money to kidnap someone from the US and send them to Turkey. That's kidnapping, assault, and bribery which are state crimes in Pennsylvania and New York.

 

[JANFU]

There is not a single allegation -- much less evidence -- against him which would be a state offense. It's all federal.

The only evidence we have seen was the charging document.

 

[Harshaw]

Prosecuting people for having unauthorized servers/email accounts is not typically done either, but I never heard it applied to Clinton last year. Any law that is on the books can be enforced by any prosecutor who believe it is appropriate to do so, even if it's typically not done.

Flynn's not registering with the DOJ as an foreign agent was not an oversight, but was an intentional ploy to deceive the US government and hide his income. You could've argued that it was an oversight, but his lying to the Pentagon and the Congress on other government forms completely blows that argument out of the water, and demonstrates a pattern of deception.

Not registering as an agent of a foreign actor, lying on government forms, and not reporting income are all felonies.

It's only a felony if it's intentional. You have not presented a lick of evidence that it was, only innuendo, and false conclusions based on his statements concerning other things.

Keep in mind, it's you who's arguing he's dead to rights on FARA. It's up to you show it, conclusively. Not by innuendo and speculation, but with fact.

You bring up Hillary. She was not prosecuted because there wasn't sufficient evidence that it was intentional on her part. Are you now going to go in and say she did commit felonies should have been prosecuted? You'll have to if you want your arguments to hold water.

It's obvious to any person with the facts presented in front of them what Flynn was doing, so I'm not going to keep repeating myself to you simply because you're not convinced. I've learned some people on the internet are just going to stick to their guns, even when the get the evidence they request, so don't count on me continuing this back and forth.

In other words, you want it to be true, so it's true. There's no other way to read this.