- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What Flynn Is Telling Us
Posted on 3/31/17 at 12:01 pm to AUstar
Posted on 3/31/17 at 12:01 pm to AUstar
quote:
In other words, if the government had anything on Trump, they would take this deal in a heartbeat. The truth is the Senate is scared of what Flynn is going to say.
If you're making the fewest amount of assumptions, the logical conclusion to reach as to why the SIC would turn down his deal is that they don't believe he could provide any facts that they don't already have or could obtain eventually.
3
Posted on 3/31/17 at 12:02 pm to Goldrush25
quote:This is probably the case, which means this development isn't all that exciting, and probably just ended.
If you're making the fewest amount of assumptions, the logical conclusion to reach as to why the SIC would turn down his deal is that they don't believe he could provide any facts that they don't already have or could obtain eventually.
Posted on 3/31/17 at 12:05 pm to Goldrush25
quote:
If you're making the fewest amount of assumptions, the logical conclusion to reach as to why the SIC would turn down his deal is that they don't believe he could provide any facts that they don't already have or could obtain eventually.
Actually, if you were using logic you would say "the Senate can't offer immunity and any lawyer would know that, so no lawyer would advise Flynn to ask the Senate for something they can't provide and there is zero chance that Flynn is dealing with the Senate, or anyone else, on this matter without consulting a lawyer, so therefor it is illogical to think that Flynn asked the Senate for fricking immunity when the Senate can not give someone immunity.
And further, if Flynn really were in trouble from a legal standpoint and had something on Trump, Trump could and would just pardon him and go on with his day.
But, logic and partisans have never been a first name basis.
Posted on 3/31/17 at 12:05 pm to Goldrush25
quote:
If you're making the fewest amount of assumptions, the logical conclusion to reach as to why the SIC would turn down his deal is that they don't believe he could provide any facts that they don't already have or could obtain eventually.
*emphaiss mine
That's a good point. Just because he isn't getting immunity now doesn't mean he can't be offered immunity later. Since these specific committees are early in their investigation , they may want to see what they can find on their own first and only give immunity if they hit a road block
Posted on 3/31/17 at 12:06 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
A) THere was no offer of immunity
His attorney wrote a letter that is public. It sounds like he is asking for immunity to me. Quote:
No reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicized, witch hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution.
quote:
B) I can tell you from experience that an offer of immunity for testimony against another person doesn't always mean there is no evidence against that other person
True, but usually when immunity is granted the authorities do not have enough to make a case without the witness. That witness may be what it takes to turn a "circumstantial" case into a slam dunk.
Moreover, do you not think the committee would love to have Flynn testify? He is the biggest fish next to Trump/Pence themselves. And, as I am sure you're aware, immunity doesn't make one immune from perjury -- Flynn would still be obligated to tell the truth lest he face potential charges.
quote:
C) as we saw with the immunity offers made in the email "investigation" even the justice department will do shady things.
Comey is a political hack. He has no credibility.
Posted on 3/31/17 at 12:16 pm to AUstar
quote:
His attorney wrote a letter that is public. It sounds like he is asking for immunity to me. Quote:
No reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicized, witch hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution.
That is true, but what I'm saying is the offer would have to be made from the Justice Department, or the request would have to be made TO the Justice Department.
His lawyer makes the comments he did because there is a concurrent FBI investigation going on and of course anything said during a Congressional hearing could be used as evidence in a criminal investigation.
quote:
rue, but usually when immunity is granted the authorities do not have enough to make a case without the witness. That witness may be what it takes to turn a "circumstantial" case into a slam dunk.
Not always, I was CID in the Army and often times I would have a solid case against Person A , and Person B may have been a pretty inconsequential factor, so why not offer them immunity to assure you get Person A, even when you are fairly certain you have the case made ? The thing to remember about prosecuting attorneys is they all have a full arse caseload, and if they can plead out a case, they will and that includes giving immunity to minor criminals who were probably looking at small time anyway in exchange for more solid cases against a more wanted person.
quote:
Comey is a political hack. He has no credibility.
True, but again, even as the Director of the FBI , Comey can NOT offer immunity in exchange for testimony, well I mean he can offer but his offer has no legal standing, so no attorney would trust him. Those immunity deals HAD to have came from the Justice Department, specifically, an assistant attorney general had to approve the immunity deals and sign the documents, otherwise they are meaningless.
Comey could literally offer a deal, and then the Attorney General could say "no, you had a deal with Comey, we didn't make a deal" and prosecute that person, and no judge would throw out the charges.
They might go after Comey, but they wouldn't throw out the case.
Posted on 3/31/17 at 12:38 pm to AUstar
quote:That's possible, but the opposite could also be true. They could have as much as they need to frick Flynn and everybody up and down the chain.
If it is true that the Senate is turning down Flynn's immunity request, this is a big red flag that the Senate has absolutely NOTHING incriminating on Flynn's superiors (Trump, Pence, etc.).
Outside of the people intimately involved in this, we just don't know.
Posted on 3/31/17 at 12:46 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
Not always, I was CID in the Army and often times I would have a solid case against Person A , and Person B may have been a pretty inconsequential factor, so why not offer them immunity to assure you get Person A, even when you are fairly certain you have the case made ?
Because then you're giving out an incentive (immunity) that isn't commensurate with the value of their testimony. That doesn't do anything to deter the behavior of which they're accused.
Posted on 3/31/17 at 1:02 pm to Lakeboy7
answer the question... why was he prohibited?
Posted on 3/31/17 at 1:06 pm to AUstar
Spicer just said POTUS says let them all go and testify so we can move on to the nations business.
Posted on 3/31/17 at 1:09 pm to Goldrush25
quote:
Because then you're giving out an incentive (immunity) that isn't commensurate with the value of their testimony. That doesn't do anything to deter the behavior of which they're accused.
It's not always about that though. Sometimes in the course of an investigation you come across someone who definitely violated the law, but as a LEO or as prosecutor, you can't always just be a hard arse, sometimes you do want to cut people a break. And immunity is one way to do that.
Posted on 3/31/17 at 1:09 pm to AUbused
quote:
Its just become kinda pathetic at this point. Like a bunch of desperate junkies looking to suck any dick they can for one more hit of MAGA.
Posted on 3/31/17 at 1:15 pm to Navytiger74
Trump wants him to testify which means his testimony supports Trump. That's why the committees don't want him to testify.
Posted on 3/31/17 at 2:19 pm to ladyluckUGA
lakeboy is a hack, don't bother.
BTW: I just remembered the medias line of questioning to Burr the other day. Burr said, we don't want people to have to drag lawyers in here.
BTW: I just remembered the medias line of questioning to Burr the other day. Burr said, we don't want people to have to drag lawyers in here.
Posted on 3/31/17 at 2:24 pm to Gaspergou202
quote:
Immunity would only lead to an Olie North testimony
remember, it was the dems that got burned by olie!
ain't gonna happen again, i guarantee!
Posted on 3/31/17 at 2:25 pm to ladyluckUGA
quote:
why was he prohibited?
If you or any other citizen contacts individuals or foreign officials that are deemed to be a threat to the US you can bet your arse its recorded, transcribed and given to whatever team in whatever agency that has eyes on that individual or entity.
By initiating the contact probable cause is solved for that particular communication. The content of the communication can then be used for further authority and/or investigation.
Posted on 3/31/17 at 2:30 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:executive privilege pardon only applies after trump became president. nothing before.
And further, if Flynn really were in trouble from a legal standpoint and had something on Trump, Trump could and would just pardon him and go on with his day.
also, pardon never applies to perjury!
and perjury is why they have flynn by the balls!
also, as soon as 45 does first pardon, that is a sign of guilt, and he will be indicted within the hour!
Posted on 3/31/17 at 2:37 pm to Lakeboy7
quote:
why was he prohibited?
If you or any other citizen contacts individuals or foreign officials that are deemed to be a threat to the US you can bet your arse its recorded, transcribed and given to whatever team in whatever agency that has eyes on that individual or entity.
By initiating the contact probable cause is solved for that particular communication. The content of the communication can then be used for further authority and/or investigation.
That doesn't make them "prohibited"
Also, if you are an American citizen, no your part of the conversation or any mention of your name is NOT supposed to go out to whatever agency is investigating the foreign target. That's the point of the fricking law, the ONLY way anyone is supposed to get that information is if they are investigating the AMERICAN involved.
From what we've heard the last week or so, the transcripts that have been coming out, are NOT the result of Americans being investigated.
Really people, if you just don't understand the law, just don't comment.
Posted on 3/31/17 at 2:39 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
no your part of the conversation or any mention of your name is NOT supposed to go out to whatever agency is investigating the foreign target. That's the point of the fricking law, the ONLY way anyone is supposed to get that information is if they are investigating the AMERICAN involved.
Thats not how it works man. By initiating the contact most of your privileges go out the window.
This post was edited on 3/31/17 at 2:40 pm
Posted on 3/31/17 at 2:53 pm to Lakeboy7
Did Russia influence your vote? That should be the next poll. I'm betting it is 100% no.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News