Politicsmuellerwastingmoney

Fri Dec 1, 2017, 06:42 PM

Charge against Flynn more evidence Mueller has nothing

Merry Fitzmas



News media are breathlessly reporting that Gen. Michael Flynn has agreed to plead guilty to lying to the FBI. You can read the Statement of the Offense here. The false statements alleged by the government seem rather pathetic: 1) Flynn falsely told an FBI agent that he didn’t ask the Russian ambassador to “refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions” the U.S. had just imposed, and 2) that he didn’t recall the ambassador subsequently telling him that the Russians had moderated their response per his request; 3) Flynn falsely said that he didn’t ask the Russian ambassador to delay or defeat a pending U.N. Security Council resolution, and 4) that the ambassador never subsequently described his country’s response to that request. (Flynn tried, unsuccessfully, to convince several members of the Security Council, including Russia, not to proceed with an anti-Israel resolution. This is to his, and President Trump’s, credit.)

That’s it, after a year of huffing and puffing. Nothing about the election, nothing about the long-awaited “collusion” between the Trump campaign and Russia. I have no idea why Flynn apparently lied to an FBI agent, assuming that he did. But the communications described in the information are exactly the sorts of contacts that a national security advisor to an incoming president should be having with foreign powers.

In short, the allegations against Flynn suggest that Robert Mueller has nothing significant against President Trump or other members of his administration.

The press, of course, is gleeful. ABC‘s headline blares, “Flynn Prepared To Testify Against Trump, Trump Family, White House Staff.” Really? Testify to what?

ABC’s Brian Ross reports: Michael Flynn promised “full cooperation to the Mueller team” and is prepared to testify that as a candidate, Donald Trump “directed him to make contact with the Russians.”

But of course, there is nothing wrong with directing Flynn to make contact with the Russians. ABC says this is contrary to statements that Trump has made, but I don’t know whether that is true or not. It would require considerable research into Trump’s many statements to discern whether he has said that he never directed Flynn to contact any Russian on any subject.

In any event, what is the point? Contacting foreign governments was part of Flynn’s job, and directing Flynn to contact foreign governments was part of Trump’s job.

Andy McCarthy sees the Flynn plea the same way that I do:

Obviously, it was wrong of Flynn to give the FBI false information; he could, after all, have simply refused to speak with the agents in the first place. That said, as I argued early this year, it remains unclear why the Obama Justice Department chose to investigate Flynn. There was nothing wrong with the incoming national-security adviser’s having meetings with foreign counterparts or discussing such matters as the sanctions in those meetings. Plus, if the FBI had FISA recordings of Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak, there was no need to ask Flynn what the conversations entailed. Flynn, an early backer of Donald Trump and a fierce critic of Obama’s national-security policies, was generally despised by Obama administration officials. Hence, there has always been cynical suspicion that the decision to interview him was driven by the expectation that he would provide the FBI with an account inconsistent with the recorded conversation — i.e., that Flynn was being set up for prosecution on a process crime.

In the information filed against Flynn, what is most important is what is not there–the dog that isn’t barking:

hen a prosecutor has a cooperator who was an accomplice in a major criminal scheme, the cooperator is made to plead guilty to the scheme. This is critical because it proves the existence of the scheme. In his guilty-plea allocution (the part of a plea proceeding in which the defendant admits what he did that makes him guilty), the accomplice explains the scheme and the actions taken by himself and his co-conspirators to carry it out. This goes a long way toward proving the case against all of the subjects of the investigation. That is not happening in Flynn’s situation. Instead, like Papadopoulos, he is being permitted to plead guilty to a mere process crime. A breaking report from ABC News indicates that Flynn is prepared to testify that Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians — initially to lay the groundwork for mutual efforts against ISIS in Syria. That, however, is exactly the sort of thing the incoming national-security adviser is supposed to do in a transition phase between administrations. If it were part of the basis for a “collusion” case arising out of Russia’s election meddling, then Flynn would not be pleading guilty to a process crime — he’d be pleading guilty to an espionage conspiracy.

I suppose it is still possible that Mueller could surprise us, but General Flynn was supposed to be the key witness, and he apparently has little or nothing to say that is newsworthy

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/12/flynn-indictment-is-more-evidence-that-mueller-has-nothing.php

32 replies, 1682 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 32 replies Author Time Post
Reply Charge against Flynn more evidence Mueller has nothing (Original post)
Gunslinger201 Dec 2017 OP
okletstalk Dec 2017 #1
Gunslinger201 Dec 2017 #2
Gunslinger201 Dec 2017 #3
okletstalk Dec 2017 #4
Nostrings Dec 2017 #15
NavyBrat Dec 2017 #5
Gunslinger201 Dec 2017 #6
wonderwarthog Dec 2017 #7
joefriday6 Dec 2017 #8
Trevor Dec 2017 #9
TM999 Dec 2017 #10
Trevor Dec 2017 #11
TM999 Dec 2017 #12
Trevor Dec 2017 #13
I814U2CY Dec 2017 #14
Trevor Dec 2017 #17
I814U2CY Dec 2017 #18
Trevor Dec 2017 #20
I814U2CY Dec 2017 #21
Trevor Dec 2017 #22
I814U2CY Dec 2017 #23
Trevor Dec 2017 #27
I814U2CY Dec 2017 #28
Trevor Dec 2017 #29
I814U2CY Dec 2017 #30
Trevor Dec 2017 #31
I814U2CY Dec 2017 #32
Nostrings Dec 2017 #26
DavesNotHere Dec 2017 #25
Squeek Dec 2017 #16
I814U2CY Dec 2017 #19
TM999 Dec 2017 #24

Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Fri Dec 1, 2017, 07:10 PM

1. You don't have to look very far to find Trump's contradictory statements about directing Flynn.



The question all along has been why all the apparent lies and cover ups?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 1, 2017, 07:23 PM

2. Heres the Liars and Covering up

ABC, NBC Cover-Up Revelation Susan Rice Ordered Trump Aides Unmasked, CBS Defends



A massive revelation in the alleged surveillance of President Trump’s aides broke Monday morning when Bloomberg reported that “ormer National Security Adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign.” With their identities unmasked, it allowed for someone to freely and illegally leak their names to the press. It’s controversial news but ABC and NBC both chose to ignore it that night, while CBS defended Rice.

“We learned more today about the President's allegation that he and his aides were caught up in Obama-era surveillance,” CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley said, teeing up reporter Margaret Brennan. Strangely, Pelley stayed away from flinging the fiery insults which drew him much praise from the left. Instead of calling Trump’s claims “baseless,” he kept it neutral, only referring to them as “allegations.” He also described what the concern was as “Obama-era surveillance,” something he had not done in the past.

Brennan played defense for Rice, stating: “Well, Scott, as national security adviser to the president, Susan Rice could and did request the names of individuals who were picked up during legal surveillance of foreign nationals.” She then cited unnamed sources who told her there was nothing wrong with what Rice did:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 1, 2017, 07:25 PM

3. You're behind the Powercurve



K. T. McFarland Told Flynn to contact the Russian Ambassador, Not Trump. Thats been established (but thanks for playing)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 1, 2017, 07:34 PM

4. Don't get all defensive.

Here's the quote from the article you posted that I was responding to.

"But of course, there is nothing wrong with directing Flynn to make contact with the Russians. ABC says this is contrary to statements that Trump has made, but I don’t know whether that is true or not. It would require considerable research into Trump’s many statements to discern whether he has said that he never directed Flynn to contact any Russian on any subject."

I was simply showing that you don't have to look very far to know what Trump has said on record about whether or not he directed Flynn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okletstalk (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 3, 2017, 07:58 AM

15. No, those questions came AFTER the beginning of an investigation with no crime to point to.

Today, right now, we still have an investigation in search of an original crime to justify it.

The ONLY questions that have been there all along, is why, and what original crime is the basis for this investigation in the first place.

To date, nobody can answer those questions with any legitimate specificity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Fri Dec 1, 2017, 07:39 PM

5. C'mon 201, how about 4 paragraphs and a link?

 

I know righty doesn't give a flying fuck about the TOS and/or copyright restraints, but shouldn't you guys at least PRETEND every now and then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Fri Dec 1, 2017, 08:18 PM

7. ...




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Fri Dec 1, 2017, 09:02 PM

8. Your header post was what Rush said using the exact same words. Incredible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Sat Dec 2, 2017, 12:45 AM

9. The key sentence

" I have no idea why Flynn apparently lied to an FBI agent, assuming that he did."

I can tell you why Flynn lied. He did it because Trump told him to. Flynn will testify that Trump ordered him to lie. I'm not sure which crime that is but it has to be a serious violation.

The assuming he did part is weird. Flynn already pleaded guilty to the crime. There is no doubt he did it. We no longer have to "assume."

Trump's order to lie will also impact the obstruction case. When Trump asked Comey to let Flynn go, Trump was trying to save his own ass. That looks far worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 2, 2017, 01:50 AM

10. Still delusional I see.



No you can't tell us why he lied. You have no special insight or knowledge. You have fantasy and the propaganda you have been fed, that is all.

And even on the rarest chance he did 'order' him to lie, there is no crime or violation there. It does not 'prove' jack shit. No collusion. No obstruction.

Flynn has plead guilty to a process violation, not to criminal conspiracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 2, 2017, 11:23 PM

11. Flynn's deal obviously was to lesser charges than he otherwise would have faced.

So we don't know if there was a criminal conspiracy or not. I know Trump told him to lie, and that's a conspiracy.

I know because before it was over Flynn was fired supposedly for lying to Pence. There was nothing about him lying to Trump. Trump must have never been lied to. So Trump knew all along.

Also telling was the amount of time Flynn was allowed to stay on when he should have been fired. The reason he wasn't fired was because Flynn was only doing what he was told to do.

So Trump knew all along including when the public was being fed lies by the Trump White House. There was no way Flynn could promise the Russians that Obama's sanctions would be lifted without approval from Trump. How else would Flynn know for certain that would happen?

With all this going on, Trump was certainly notified that Flynn was facing questions from the FBI. Trump approved lies about what happened all along. Flynn would not have lied if he wasn't told to do so, and nobody else would have been important enough to make him do it.

This was why Trump was so anxious to get Comey to drop the investigation of Flynn. Trump knew if the truth came out he'd be implicated.

You'll see this all when it come out. I've been predicting this scenario for months here, since soon after it happened. You'll know what a genius I am when its announced. I have special insight because of my ability to reason.

Telling a subordinate to lie to the FBI is an impeachable offense. Of course, not enough Republicans will vote to remove Trump, but the scandal will further divide the nation and the Republican party. Bad news for the GOP in the 2018 elections.

We know Flynn must have given Mueller something very significant. Otherwise Flynn wouldn't have received such a sweet deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 3, 2017, 02:22 AM

12. No Trevie, it is NOT obvious.

No where except on the liberal propaganda sites is this 'obvious'.

Given this bullshit from the start of your post, I know the rest is bullshit as well. Flynn did not receive a 'sweet deal'. He was prosecuted for the process error he was guilty of. Period.

Sorry no Fitzmas again this year little blue team bot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 3, 2017, 02:31 AM

13. It also says Flynn agreed to cooperate

You probably aren't aware of all the other trouble Flynn was in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 3, 2017, 06:28 AM

14. Cooperating in a matter his own charging document show is not illegal.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 3, 2017, 10:34 AM

17. People don't get sweet plea deals

unless they have something more than that to offer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 3, 2017, 10:36 AM

18. People don't plead to escape bigger crimes unless the document affirms the crime.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 3, 2017, 10:40 AM

20. The document only deals with the crime charged

It doesn't deal with other crimes Flynn was on the hook for. He was in trouble for many other things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 3, 2017, 10:44 AM

21. Flynn didn't plead to lying about colluding with Russia because he can't because he didn't.

 

So you think you're going to make the case that Trump colluded with Russia based on the testimony of an admitted liar - who Trump fired for lying - but who nowhere admitted he was lying to cover up collusion.


This is where you pin your hopes and dreams.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 3, 2017, 11:29 AM

22. Right now

My hopes and dreams are that Flynn will admit Trump told him to lie to the FBI, which he did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 3, 2017, 11:31 AM

23. If that were the case it would be part of the Flynn's plea agreement.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #23)

Sun Dec 3, 2017, 03:30 PM

27. They obviously wouldn't make those details public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #27)

Sun Dec 3, 2017, 03:44 PM

28. Yes, they would. They have to charge for Crime X in order to claim the agreement relates to Crime X

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #28)

Sun Dec 3, 2017, 03:53 PM

29. No they don't

Prosecutors agree all the time not to bring charges on some matters in exchange for a guilty plea on another.

Anyway, they probably have another agreement that hasn't been released.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #29)

Sun Dec 3, 2017, 03:56 PM

30. Yes, I understand that but if you want to connect Flynn's plea to Trump you have to connect his

 

actions to the presumed crime supposedly committed by Trump.


"Anyway, they probably have another agreement that hasn't been released."




Thanks for admitting you're just making shit up as you go along. Maybe some day you can be a real boy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #30)

Sun Dec 3, 2017, 04:07 PM

31. I admit

We'll need more than we have now to get Trump. I don't admit to making stuff up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #31)

Sun Dec 3, 2017, 04:10 PM

32. "We'll need more than we have now to get Trump."

 

Thanks for admitting this investigation is bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 3, 2017, 01:01 PM

26. They seem not to understand how any of this works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 3, 2017, 12:57 PM

25. Sure, just ask Jeffrey Epstein. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 3, 2017, 10:30 AM

16. Hah!

"Given this bullshit from the start of your post, I know the rest is bullshit as well. Flynn did not receive a 'sweet deal'. He was prosecuted for the process error he was guilty of. Period. "


You are not paying attention. It sounds like you (and most other Trump supporters) are getting your information from places like Fox News which has dedicated itself to making him happy. And his lawyers...they're doing their best to downplay the whole thing, most likely to keep Trump from going off the deep end and sending out deranged Tweets, making their job even more difficult.

If you put the Pollyanna "everything is bluebirds and rainbows and unicorn farts" crap on one side of the continuum, and the ultra Liberal news media "Trump is headed for 20 to life in Siberia" crap on the other and look in the middle, that's likely where the truth lies. And it's still not good for Trump or people in his immediate shadow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squeek (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 3, 2017, 10:39 AM

19. We're paying attention. In fact, we're paying so much attention we're happily discussing the

 

actual facts of the case rather than hiding behind vagaries and innuendo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squeek (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 3, 2017, 12:04 PM

24. You bet your sweet ass I am not getting my 'news'

from places like ABC who just suspended a 'journalist' for lying about this plea.

So you were saying?

Yeah, actually I have been paying attention from the start. For more than a year now, an actual criminal conspiracy of Russia and Trump throwing this election has not been proven in the slightest. In fact, the exact opposite.

The only ones dreaming of rainbows and Fitzmas are you propagandized blue bots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicsmuellerwastingmoney