Michael Flynn Pleads Guilty, Is Cooperating

Via the New York Times:

President Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, pleaded guilty on Friday to lying to the F.B.I. about conversations with the Russian ambassador last December during the presidential transition, bringing the special counsel’s investigation into the president’s inner circle.

Mr. Flynn, who appeared in federal court in Washington, acknowledged that he was cooperating with the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, into Russian interference in the 2016 election. His plea agreement suggests that Mr. Flynn provided information to prosecutors, which may help advance the inquiry.

(my emphasis)

Flynn was not indicted, he was charged by Information (available here). The Information charges three sets of false statements to the FBI: One set concerns communications with the Russian Ambassador and Trump Transition Team officials about sanctions, one set pertains to communications with Russia about the U.N. Resolution submitted by Egypt and the third set pertains to the Turkey communications, which also involve his company and reportedly his son. [More...]

Other members of Team Trump are mentioned. As to the Russian Sanctions:

On or about December 29, 2016, FLYNN called a senior official of the Presidential Transition Team ("PIT official''), who was with other senior · ·members of the Presidential Transition Team at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, to discuss what, if anything, to communicate to the Russian Ambassador about the U.S. Sanctions. ....The PIT official and FLYNN also discussed that the members of the Presidential Transition Team at Mar-a-Lago did not want Russia to escalate the situation.

As to the U.N. resolution by Egypt regarding Israeli settlements:

Specifically FLYNN falsely stated that he only asked the countries' positions on the vote, and that he did not request that any of the countries take any particular action on the resolution. FLYNN also falsely stated that the Russian Ambassador never described to him Russia's response to FLYNN's request regarding the resolution. In truth and in fact, however, FLYNN then and there knew that the following had occurred:

On or about December 22, 2016, a very senior member of the Presidential Transition Team directed FLYNN to contact officials from foreign governments, including Russia, to learn where each government stood on the resolution and to influence those governments to delay the vote or defeat the resolution. (my emphasis)

On or about December 22, 2016, FLYNN contacted the Russian Ambassador about the pending vote. FLYNN informed the Russian Ambassador about the incoming administration's opposition to the resolution, and requested that Russia vote against or delay the resolution.

d. On or about December 23, 2016, FLYNN again spoke with the Russian Ambassador, who informed FLYNN that if it came to a vote Russia would not vote against the resolution

In another article, the Times says Donald Trump tried to get members of Congress to end the Russia investigation.

Jared Kushner was recently interviewed by Team Mueller about Flynn, according to the New York Times, but not other topics. That suggests to me he knocked Flynn further under the bus. The Times suggests there will be additional Jared interviews. While Jared may just be hoping to sing for his supper, I wonder what happens when those he sings against decide to join the refrain and do the same to him. and more importantly, his father in law?

< Tax Bill Will Change Your Life, For Worse | Senate Passes Tax Bill >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I hope that Kushner is... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by desertswine on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 03:24:57 PM EST
    sh---ing in his pants, the way poor people might when they know they're about to thrown out of their apartments, or maybe every time they see a cop. Like that.

    I think it's pretty sure (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 04:08:11 PM EST
    Kush is not the only one soiling themselves

    It also pretty clear (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 04:38:01 PM EST
    Pence is involved.  With all the references to "senior transition officials"

    Hello president Pelosi.

    Huh, I was thinking (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 05:44:50 PM EST
    President Ryan......But maybe it will take a year or so, and that things go right for the Dems in 2018.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 05:48:17 PM EST
    I commented about this before.  Takes Mueller a year, dems win the house, president Pelosi.

    That said Ryan might see the advantage to moving more quickly since I have read he could lose his re-election for the house.


    Doubtful, Howdy (none / 0) (#44)
    by Towanda on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 06:18:33 PM EST
    I am a couple of miles from Ryan's district, so I see a lot of  local coverage, hear a lot from his constituents -- and suffer from the same state Democratic Party.

    As usual, the state Dems deified a candidate who, upon the least bit of journalistic digging, turns out to be a deadbeat dad.

    The other Dem in the running is the opposite, a single mom, but we are hearing nothing from or about her, because the state Dems again backed . . . the one with th p@nis.


    I'm assuming (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 06:43:46 PM EST
    this the Iron Stache guy that we heard so much about. Someone should talk to him about dropping out of the primary now.

    Did you see the MI slate of candidates? The AG candidate said "they say we can't run all women". She said phooey on that. We can have all women nominees and still win.


    Yep, the self-described Iron Man (none / 0) (#76)
    by Towanda on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 07:58:42 PM EST
    couldn't get the lead out in time to pay off his child support, until after the journalistic expose. Oh, and he also only then paid off a debt to an ex-girlfriend, per a court order years ago.

    That also has allowed the ex-girlfriend to tell more about him. . .

    But he has the anatomical equipment that is preferred in politics in Wisconsin, the state that is not and never was progressive for anything but men.


    Sad (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 06:23:31 PM EST
    This is the nightmare scenario for next year.

    The Peter Principal should be renamed the Democrat Principal


    I (none / 0) (#59)
    by FlJoe on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 06:46:52 PM EST
    swear to Hades, this country would better off if men were banned from running for public office, we could sunset it in 10 years if they figure out how to behave themselves.

    Gotta say (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 04:39:31 PM EST
    I want to buy a drink for the guy screaming "LOCK HIM UP" when Flynn came out if court today.

    If it weren't against my anti-incarceration (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by Peter G on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 04:44:18 PM EST
    principles and instincts, I would give that comment a 5, Howdy.

    Personally, I'm enjoying the Schadenfreude. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 05:45:27 PM EST
    "Yes, that's right, lock her up! ... You know why we're saying that? We're saying that because if I -- a guy who knows this business -- if I did a tenth of what she did, I would be in jail today."
    - Gen. Michael Flynn (Ret.), GOP National Convention (July 18, 2016)

    It couldn't have happened to a nicer walking rectal cavity.


    Offensive to rectal cavities (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 05:50:53 PM EST
    And those who love them

    I was so hoping someone in the crowd (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Anne on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 05:11:22 PM EST
    would shout that out as Flynn was making his way into the courthouse.

    And I can't help but think Hillary Clinton was shouting it at her TV...

    Nary a peep from Trump today.  Mike Pence has all but disappeared from view.  Lots of quiet in the West Wing.

    And it's not the good kind of quiet, it's the kind from a horror movie.


    Eerie (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 05:20:55 PM EST
    Just saw some speculation Trump is being restrained by the various keepers.

    But TOMORROW.....

    and SUNDAY......


    Straight (none / 0) (#36)
    by FlJoe on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 05:26:40 PM EST
    jacket? Thorazine?

    Read on the intertubes today.... (none / 0) (#83)
    by vml68 on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 09:09:47 PM EST
    "Trump is right about one thing, he did get me to start saying "Merry Christmas" again!"

    Important (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by FlJoe on Sat Dec 02, 2017 at 10:07:32 AM EST
    question Why Did Mike Flynn Bother To Lie To The FBI?
    Among the many new questions following former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn's guilty plea Friday to lying to the FBI is: Why did he lie in the first place?

    By the time Flynn was interviewed by the FBI in late January 2017, his contacts with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak had been publicly reported. As Flynn's guilty plea alleges, other members of Trump's orbit had not just been aware of the contacts since they happened but had discussed them and even directed them in real time.

    I'm sure Mueller has already asked him that question and I suspect the answer is a smoking gun in the obstruction of justice case.

    that too (none / 0) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 02, 2017 at 10:30:59 AM EST
    to protect his son (none / 0) (#100)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Dec 02, 2017 at 02:18:09 PM EST
    is my opinion

    Gosh, what a noble and selfless act! (Not.) (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Dec 03, 2017 at 11:55:19 AM EST
    "Yes, I know who Judas was. He was a man I worked for and admired -- until he disgraced the four stars on his uniform."
    - Col. Martin "Jiggs" Casey (Kirk Douglas) to Gen. James Mattoon Scott (Burt Lancaster), "Seven Days in May" (1964)

    Both father and son have long impugned the patriotism and integrity of Democrats and liberals -- and pretty much everyone else who stood in their way, for that matter.

    And now, the record will reflect and history will long remember how those two jackwagons betrayed their own country, by undermining its principles, policies and rule of law for thirty pieces of silver from Moscow and Ankara.

    No sympathy for either of them will be found here in this quarter.


    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by FlJoe on Sun Dec 03, 2017 at 01:13:34 PM EST
    Former national security adviser Michael Flynn was warned by senior members of President Trump's transition team about the risks of his contacts with the Russian ambassador weeks before the December call that led to Flynn's forced resignation, current and former U.S. officials said.

    Flynn was told during a late November meeting that Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak's conversations were almost certainly being monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies, officials said, a caution that came a month before Flynn was recorded discussing U.S. sanctions against Russia with Kislyak, suggesting that the Trump administration would reevaluate the issue.

    Officials were so concerned that Flynn did not fully understand the motives of the Russian ambassador that the head of Trump's national security council transition team asked Obama administration officials for a classified CIA profile of Kislyak, officials said. The document was delivered within days, officials said, but it is not clear that Flynn ever read it.

    Interesting lead up to that
     NOV 10:
    President Obama warns Trump against appointing Mike Flynn to a top national security post.
    Nov 11:
    Pence Replaces Christie as Transition Team Chair
    ... Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) had warned Trump not to give a high-level administration position to retired Gen. Michael Flynn,

    Nov 18:
    Trump Names Flynn National Security Adviser

    Late November:
    Flynn Tells Senior Trump Advisers He's Scheduled Kislyak Meeting
    and apparently Kushner didn't get the memo either, Dec 1:  
    Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak visits Trump Tower to meet with Kushner and Trump's national security adviser-designate Mike Flynn.

    this is hard to beat (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 03, 2017 at 02:29:56 PM EST
    The transition official, KT McFarland, told the unnamed colleague in the email obtained by the New York Times that the sanctions were aimed at delegitimizing Trump's election victory.

    "If there is a tit-for-tat escalation Trump will have difficulty improving relations with Russia, which has just thrown U.S.A. election to him," she wrote.

    I guess KT (none / 0) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 03, 2017 at 06:21:21 PM EST
    won't be getting an interview about an ambassadorship anytime soon or maybe never.

    Don't (none / 0) (#125)
    by FlJoe on Sun Dec 03, 2017 at 06:35:53 PM EST
    fret for poor KT, I'm sure her dance card will soon be all filled up, with Mueller crooning "KT, save the last dance for me"

    Mueller (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by CST on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 09:21:17 AM EST
    Officially going after the finances.

    I think my favorite part of this story, like all Mueller stories, is this part:

    "Mueller issued a subpoena to Germany's largest lender several weeks ago, forcing the bank to submit documents on its relationship with Trump and his family, according to a person briefed on the matter, who asked not to be identified because the action has not been announced."

    Emphasis mine.  They are keeping a tight ship.

    The finances (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 12:16:14 PM EST
    of Trump will likely tell the story and reasons for the serial lying...the "collusion" between the Alabama of Europe (i.e., Russia) and one of the benefactors of the "collusion,"  (i.e., the public corruption of the Trump and family).

    The worry is the danger....to Trump, whose finances would be challenged by scrutiny...and to Mueller, whose investigation is thus placed in renewed peril owning to cornered rat.


    See the cat? See the cradle? (1.00 / 5) (#61)
    by thomas rogan on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 06:52:16 PM EST
    Another Scooter Libby.  It seems as if there was no actual crime committed, or at least there was no charge.  Simply a charge of perjury.  
    If there were an actual crime, then I assume that Flynn would have been smart enough refuse to answer anything and to plead the fifth if put on trial.
    Didn't Ted Kennedy send the Russians a letter when Reagan was elected?

    I was going for the 2, based on a straight flush (5.00 / 7) (#67)
    by Peter G on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 07:05:06 PM EST
    of erroneous inferences and false assumptions, until I got to the Ted Kennedy part.

    See the commenter (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Towanda on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 07:50:34 PM EST
    who is either desperate or lacking in reading comprehension?

    To be generous, perhaps your problem is the latter, because you misread your marching orders that told you that your dear leader doesn't use the term "cat." He prefers to call it "pussy."


    Not a crime? Ask (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 08:28:58 PM EST
    Martha Stewart. But that's besides the point.

    When you plead guilty to an Information in advance of an Indictment, it's because there's a benefit -- either knowing that the grand jury is about to return an Indictment with more serious charges and/or that early cooperation against others may keep you out of prison or at least provide for a much lesser sentence.

    In this case, Flynn's son is reportedly up the creek due to Turkey, and I wouldn't be surprised if Flynn is falling on his sword for his son, knowing that Donald Trump would do the same for his son and/or son in law. The Flynns were reportedly doing Turkey's dirty work to try and get the U.S. to send Fethullah Gülen back there (and not by lawful extradition), as Erdogan regards Gülen as responsible for the failed coup against him.

    Also, Flynn does not have to wait until trial to plead the 5th. He could be subpoenaed to the grand jury and immunized, and if he refused, be held in criminal contempt which has no maximum sentence -- ask Susan McDougal what that's like.

    There's also Flynn and the Israeli settlement resolution -- which Kushner may or may not have already admitted to Mueller.

    If you are buying into Flynn's "#nothingburger" comment, I think you and he will both have to eat your words.


    It is my belief that the only person that Tr*mp (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by vml68 on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 08:58:23 PM EST
    I wouldn't be surprised if Flynn is falling on his sword for his son, knowing that Donald Trump would do the same for his son and/or son in law

    might be willing to fall on his sword for is Ivanka. Even then, I say it is 50:50. Jr and Kushner, no way!


    I actually don't see him taking the fall (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by Anne on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 09:22:10 PM EST
    for anyone, ever.  I don't think he could maintain what little is left of his sanity if he had to admit guilt - I think his sense of self is so fragile that he isn't capable of it.

    I agree (none / 0) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 09:06:50 PM EST
    martha stewart (none / 0) (#86)
    by linea on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 10:15:12 PM EST
    is why i would never say anything to the federal police other than, "i should talk to my lawyer first" and if my lawyer thinks it's okay to talk to federal law enforcement with him present, i would replace him with a lawyer who knows better. i don't see any positives to ever talk to federal police. ever.

    my opinion.


    No kidding (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 02, 2017 at 01:13:46 PM EST
    It seems as if there was no actual crime committed, or at least there was no charge.  Simply a charge of perjury.

    That tends to happen when a cooperating witness is flipping on the bigger fish.  But just to be clear for those who don't know any better, "perjury"/lying to the FBI IS actually a crime.  A felony, in fact.


    Wow (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 06:57:07 PM EST
    And Ty Cobb just said Thanksgiving.  He didn't say what year.

    Good lord (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 07:08:06 PM EST
    You must not have kept up with what has been happening. You are assuming that Mueller has no tape recordings, no flight receipts or anything and that Flynn could just sit there and say nothing. He himself said he was going to cooperate with Mueller. The only real guessing going on is who is next? Kushner? Don Jr.? Kellyanne? Bannon?

    Kushner (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 07:10:29 PM EST
    Definitely Kushner

    That seems (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 07:12:32 PM EST
    to be the popular opinion. I wonder if Trump figured this out and it was one of the reasons he was pushing him and Ivanka to move back to NY.

    No accident (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 07:22:30 PM EST
    Kush was interviewed a couple of day ago.

    Ivanka brilliantly decamped to India. (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 08:43:58 PM EST
    Second that (none / 0) (#99)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 02, 2017 at 01:16:05 PM EST
    But if I was being offered an early Christmas present, I would wish for Donnie Jr.

    The (none / 0) (#150)
    by FlJoe on Mon Dec 04, 2017 at 05:48:44 PM EST
    barrel is getting mighty crowded.
    An email former Donald Trump deputy national security adviser K.T. McFarland sent during the presidential transition contradicts testimony she gave before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in July, the New York Times reports.
    As part of her sworn testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, McFarland was asked, in writing, " "Did you ever discuss any of General Flynn's contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak directly with General Flynn?"

    "I am not aware of any of the issues or events as described above," she replied.

    Plead out KT, while the pleading's good, your ex boss is ratting you out as we speak.

    Whistling (none / 0) (#73)
    by FlJoe on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 07:17:18 PM EST
    past the graveyard again, I see. Mueller had several slam dunk charges on him and probably some solid evidence on several others.

    You mean like asking (none / 0) (#77)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 08:14:03 PM EST
    the CIA to pressure the FBI into dropping an investigation?

    I am sure there is some small crime like a two-bit burglary behind it all......

    We have a huge cover-up, and we know that it is the cover-up, you know....

    I do agree we should see what it is they are trying to cover up....That will be interesting.


    Have another shot of Cuervo, ... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 10:04:22 PM EST
    ... if it makes you feel better. That said, four guys, of whom two are senior campaign officials, are presently under felony indictment, and two have pleaded guilty. In that regard, what might really help is to cease defending the indefensible. This is serious, and you might want to try being on the right side of history for a change.

    Except you are muddying the (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 10:47:53 PM EST
    procedural history. Two indicted. Two by filing of Information followed by entry of guilty plea.  See Peter G.  

    I care about obtaining justice for our country and setting things right. However we get there is likely up to Robert Mueller and his legal team at this point, because it's obvious that we sure can't depend upon our Republican congresscritters. We are presently in a world of Schitt, thanks in no small part to a$$hats like the father and son duo at Resilient Patriot, LLC.

    the alleged crime (1.00 / 1) (#112)
    by thomas rogan on Sun Dec 03, 2017 at 02:15:29 PM EST
    The alleged crime was a violation of the Logan Act.  Unfortunately, in 218 years no one has ever been convicted of violating this law although there have been many politically motivated accusations from Richard Nixon to Jesse Jackson to Jane Fonda.  
    The immediate issue was that the lame duck Obama regime preferred sanctions against Israel which the newly elected Trump administration opposed, and it seems as if Flynn wanted to get Russia to block the sanctions which would otherwise take effect before January 20.
    Will it really cost Trump net votes as it is publicized that his alleged crime was designed to help Israel?

    I see no reason to infer the suspected crime (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Peter G on Sun Dec 03, 2017 at 04:07:54 PM EST
    that Flynn was trying to cover up by lying to the FBI -- even assuming that another crime was the motive, which it need not have been -- was a violation of the Logan Act. That actually seems the least likely to me, for the very reason you state. Americans interact with foreign government representatives all the time for various good reasons, often in pursuit of First Amendment protected activities such as opposing a war (Fonda in Vietnam, Ramsey Clark in Iraq), or for humanitarian reasons (Quakers in Vietnam, Catholics in Iraq) or to rescue hostages (Jesse Jackson, Bill Richardson, Dennis Rodman, Jimmy Carter). Logan Act vioations are basically neer prosecuted. To the point that I wonder if it is even a valid law anymore.

    You seem to be looking at this (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by Anne on Sun Dec 03, 2017 at 04:10:08 PM EST
    plea agreement as a stand-alone event, when I think most people understand that it is inextricably connected to any number of other members of the Trump campaign/administration.

    You can't lie to the FBI.  It doesn't much matter when he did it, what's important is that he did it.  And it's given Mueller a wedge to get information from Flynn that is likely to be far more damaging to individuals even higher up the chain.

    There's also the matter of Flynn, Jr., who may have been facing much worse because of his own actions, and his father likely made this deal to protect him.

    You can get hung up on the Logan act if it makes you feel better, but while you have your nose pressed up that particular tree, you are ignoring the forest around you.


    Your Logan Act argument is a red herring. (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Dec 03, 2017 at 08:12:21 PM EST
    I would suggest that you read the accompanying documents that were filed with the court by Special Counsel Mueller's office last Friday, concurrent with Flynn's plea agreement.

    With regards to anything costing Trump votes, it's increasingly becoming an open question whether or not he'll even make it through a full term in office.



    aloha (none / 0) (#131)
    by linea on Sun Dec 03, 2017 at 08:43:30 PM EST
    i believe it is most unlikely that president trump will run for a second term.
    i believe it is most unlikely that he would risk the obvious humiliating defeat to run again in 2020.
    i believe he will anounce `mission accomplished' and retire to collect speaking fees and donations to the trump presidential library.

    Who would defeat him? (none / 0) (#133)
    by McBain on Sun Dec 03, 2017 at 09:33:50 PM EST
    It took Reagan to defeat Carter's attempt at a second term.  Bill Clinton beat H.W Bush. Both of those winners were unusually charismatic or likeable in the eyes of many voters.  It's early but I don't see anyone like them yet.

    As for Trump's performance so far, don't believe the polls.  Look at the stock market. Look at the economy.   The most likely reason for Trump to decide not to run in 2019 is his age. He worked extremely hard to defeat Clinton.  Will he want to do that again?


    Wow. You make George Orwell (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Dec 04, 2017 at 12:36:13 AM EST
    ...look like an optimist.

    I sure hope you are as wrong about this as you have been about everything else.


    I think Mueller is putting (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 04, 2017 at 10:04:04 AM EST
    Together such a huge and killer case he will indict the president.  

    I know some people think that can't be done. The things is lots of very serious people think it can be done.

    I think he will see, and make the case, this threat to our national security simply can't be left to the incompetent tribal congress.

    More of a hope.


    On the other hand (none / 0) (#141)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 04, 2017 at 10:05:04 AM EST
    Making the midterms a referendum on impeachment would not be a bad thing.  At all.

    I have a feeling that going full tilt (none / 0) (#142)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 04, 2017 at 10:43:11 AM EST
    on impeachment may be less successful than just letting the Trump voters realize that Trump sold them down the river to reward big donors and Wall Street.  The last thing we want to convey is any glimmer of an attitude that people who voted for Trump are stupid - we have to sympathize, not shame.

    And if they don't blame Trump, they will turn their ire on the GOP Congress.  It may be harder for them to leave Trump out of the equation, though, given that Trump himself has been out there claiming how wonderful the tax bill will be for ordinary Americans.

    That being said, it's really important that Dems be able to put people on ballots who will actually be good - and not just at the national level - they need to be on ballots in every local and state race.  And with an agenda that works, with real ideas and plans and initiatives, not just "we'll be better than that other guy."

    At the national level, I do still have some concerns though with the DSCC and DCCC not quite getting it, so I think it's important that state Democratic organizations build up some muscle and strengthen their spines so they can make their opinions and wishes known.

    It's gotta be all hands on deck, and it's not too early to start now.


    No reason (none / 0) (#143)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 04, 2017 at 01:40:16 PM EST
    to not do both though I hope no one talks about selling out to millionaires because Trump voters think they are going to be millionaires one day. Sticking to what is actually in that awful bill and running against it ought to be enough.

    As far as the "less worse" argument that's the one the press makes because it's lazy and easy. That is why people have to find a way to get around the press because they are not going to report on issues.


    Well said (none / 0) (#144)
    by McBain on Mon Dec 04, 2017 at 02:54:25 PM EST
    Is Trump trying to (none / 0) (#151)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 04, 2017 at 08:39:21 PM EST
    corral anti-impeachment conviction votes in the Senate?

    Endorsing Roy Moore (the tax bill will pass anyway without his vote) to secure his not guilty vote in the Senate?

    Trump's effusive praise of Orrin Hatch and "ordering" the reduction in National Monuments in Utah long favored by Hatch.  Asking Hatch to not retire, as is rumored--because Mitt Romney would take the seat.

    Could Trump expect Impeachment and is securing anti-conviction votes?


    Anyone (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 04, 2017 at 08:53:33 AM EST
    It's funny how conservatives want to focus solely on the stock market as the barometer of Trump.  Never mind the fact that he's at 33% approval in the polls.  Try to focus on the fact that we've had a bull market for 103 months, of which 10-11 were under Trump's watch.. Ignore the indictments.  Ignore the looking was with a nuclear armed country  ignore the unhinged tweets promoting fascist groups and racist lies.



    Same with the employment numbers. (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Dec 04, 2017 at 09:21:42 AM EST
    Unemployment was headed down when Obama left office. The current numbers are just a continuation of that trend.

    Let's see how things look after (none / 0) (#136)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 04, 2017 at 07:17:34 AM EST
    the midterms, shall we?

    I know as much as some people want Mueller to wrap up his investigation in time for it not to be an issue for the midterms, I don't think that's going to be the case.  And there are no guarantees that even if it does wrap in the next six months, say, the result won't be more than a few high-level members of the Trump administration facing legal proceedings - or impeachment.

    I can't imagine it would be easy to run a campaign for re-election under those circumstances.

    We also have to see the fallout from the tax bill - assuming it is reconciled, passed and signed into law.  This will also be a factor in the midterms.  

    I think it's likely we can expect to see more Republicans declining to run again, which is going to open up opportunities for Democrats.

    As for the economy and the job situation, I think - and many economists agree - that it is way too early to know how much credit Trump can take.  The stock market is going off expectations - the promises Trump made in the campaign.  It's reasonable to think that if the tax bill passes, markets will be happy, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.

    Don't believe the polls?  Okay, sure, that sounds a little foolish, but if it makes you feel better, have at it.

    It's too soon to speculate on what the Democratic presidential field will look like, but I'm not sure that another three years of Trump - if he even gets another three years -  is going to be much incentive for anyone to vote to re-elect him, or, if he doesn't run, to vote for anyone with an (R) after his or her name.  

    We shall see.


    There's no way (none / 0) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 04, 2017 at 08:35:20 AM EST
    this is going to be wrapped up in six months simply based on the fact that Manafort is going on trial in May 2018 and he's just the first. So unless there are a ton more guilty pleas I would think this is going to last well past the mid terms and maybe even into the 2020 presidential election.

    I liked your other post better (none / 0) (#145)
    by McBain on Mon Dec 04, 2017 at 03:00:29 PM EST
    where you talked about putting quality candidates on the ballot.  "We don't like Trump" didn't work well in 2016, I don't think it will work well in 2020 unless there's someone else compelling with a clear message to vote for.



    Well (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 04, 2017 at 03:19:21 PM EST
    we don't know how it would have worked without the Russians helping Trump out. There was more than "we don't like Trump" but that is the only game the press played in 2016. Like is the press's lazy analysis game.

    It (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by FlJoe on Mon Dec 04, 2017 at 04:08:12 PM EST
    wasn't just the Russians, Hillary suffered million cuts. The Russians, Comey, the press, voter suppression, CDS, die hard Bernie bots...the list goes on.

    Everybody wants to blame Hillary for being so "flawed", when the truth is that the very institutions of this country are fkng broken.

    We can sit around all day wishing for the white horse candidate...it ain't going to happen, and even if we got close to the perfect candidate there is no guarantee that they would be able to overcome the nonsense and the noise of the continual lies and cheating by the Republicans.


    She got outworked (1.00 / 1) (#153)
    by McBain on Mon Dec 04, 2017 at 09:52:40 PM EST
    but you're right, there are several reasons why she lost.  The one that rarely gets talked about is the most obvious.... she was of the party as Obama.  That's not a knock against Obama, it's just simple history.  After 8 years voters usually want something different.

    With the disadvantage of being a Democrat in 2016, Hilary needed to explain to swing state voters how she was different. She failed.  This is why many people wanted Bernie.  2016 was a change election.


    Correct (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by FlJoe on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 05:19:03 AM EST
    History was one of the many forces arrayed against her, let me add misogamy. No way she was "outworked", there was simply not enough time in the day to fight against the forces arrayed against her.

    She worked her butt off while tRump jet-setted around the country giving the same rabble-rousing stump speech and throwing out shiny objects for the press while the Russian bot army fought in the trenches for him.


    He got millions fewer votes than Hillary, (5.00 / 5) (#155)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 06:56:47 AM EST
    so in terms of popularity, I think the referendum was decisive: people didn't like Trump then, and they for sure don't like him better now.  Yes, he did a better job working the electoral college, but he had help she didn't have.

    [And as an aside, I believe it eats at him that even with help, he still couldn't get more votes than she did]

    A compelling message?  Golly, there are so many, it's hard to choose just one.  What do Republicans have?  "Wait - we aren't finished shaking you down for every last nickel that could be hiding in your sofa cushions?"



    Trump had MAGA (none / 0) (#160)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 10:42:11 AM EST
    a slogan that played perfectly for a change election. (I don't happen to agree with it, I think American has always been great.)  He also wore an ugly baseball hat that created the illusion he was a regular person.  What did Hilary do?  

    people didn't like Trump then, and they for sure don't like him better now.

    How do you know that? How do you know that's how people feel about him in the swing states? The media underestimated Trump during the election.  They're doing the same thing now. No lesson was learned.



    His slogan might as well be (4.00 / 4) (#162)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 12:52:24 PM EST
    Make A-holes Great Again, because it appears that what Trump is really going for is to make A-holes reign supreme - and look at how well he's doing with that!  It may be his greatest success.

    It's like a virus that is spreading through the ranks of the Republican Party, and Trump is simply the latest and most virulent vector.  Being an a-hole means you can also be a child molester.  You can be a serial sexual abuser.  You can strive to turn the American people on their heads for the pleasure of collecting the change that falls out of their pockets, and then you can throw them on a pile to be further picked over.

    Orrin Hatch can't find money for CHIP - and he doesn't want to, because the man who's spent his entire stinkin' (and it stinks more every day) career working for people who don't have a chance - his words - thinks its okay to punish children for his erroneous perception that their parents are just grifting off the government.  but corporate grift?  Good.  Donald Trump grift?  The best!

    Charles Grassley thinks those of us who don't have enough assets to require estate tax returns are just spending all our money on booze, women and movies.  What?  

    Paul Ryan has been wetting his pants for years to cut a social safety net that helped send him to college.

    Why?  There is no good reason.

    Maybe they will let Trump wear his special hat in the prison yard, or maybe on a Russian gulag somewhere.  I hope he has lots of company.


    The Democrats HAD a "quality" ... (4.00 / 3) (#152)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 04, 2017 at 09:07:16 PM EST
    ... candidate in 2016.

    You guys (a minority) preferred - in the words of your SOS - a "fu#king moron".

    The fact that you want to pretend she wasn't a "quality candidate" is only a reflection of your issues.


    the actual crime (none / 0) (#114)
    by linea on Sun Dec 03, 2017 at 03:12:58 PM EST
    flynn's crime was making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001) to federal police and it seems irrelevant whether israel was being discussed. though i agree with kdog and am in opposition to the breadth of this federal statute.

    in general, i believe what is being investigated is whether there were any violations of campaign laws or federal statutes. for example, a quid pro quo where the trump campaign asked that russia attempt to influence the u.s.presidential election via social media in exchange for the trump administration dropping the sanctions in the Magnitsky Act.


    Nikki Haley (none / 0) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 03, 2017 at 03:41:50 PM EST
    was against doing this apparently.

    Which crime are you talking about Kushner? Flynn? Trump?

    The crime that seems to cover all of them is accepting aid from a foreign entity.


    Wondering why Mueller let (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 01:40:16 PM EST
    be charged via filing an Information as opposed to grand jury Indictment?   Part of plea bargain?

    The Fifth Amendment's Grand Jury Clause (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Peter G on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 04:10:53 PM EST
    guarantees the right not to be charged with a federal felony unless a grand jury concurs and votes to return an indictment.  Like most constitutional rights, this right can be waived. When a suspect negotiates a resolution of a federal criminal investigation pre-indictment, it is commonplace to waive the GJ right and instead plead to an "information." The information can then be crafted by counsel for both sides, including agreed facts in support of an agreed charge. An indictment is drafted solely by the prosecutor and either approved or not (rarely, not) by the grand jury. It will typically charge much more and say much more about those charges than an "information."

    So he really is? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 04:14:42 PM EST
    He's supposedly really giving it up?

    And if he waivers he can then be charged?

    Can he negotiate for his son to remain uncharged Peter?


    Three questions, three answers (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Peter G on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 04:34:45 PM EST
    1. yes
    2. yes
    3. probably already done.

    Seems (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 05:13:52 PM EST
    The most solid evidence he is giving it up is all the thing he was not  charged with.   And that his son was not charged at all.

    It's said the generosity of this deal indicates what he has is nuclear


    3 - already done (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Boo Radly on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 05:46:30 PM EST
    Definitely as MF Jr. Is squawking like a duck on Twitter.

    Going to go read him now (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 06:35:07 PM EST
    That guy, giving military brats a black eye for a generation. Thanks you little son of a traitor!

    Twitter post MFJr. (none / 0) (#68)
    by Boo Radly on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 07:07:40 PM EST
    Apparently the posts are fake - sorry for posting.

    I was going to say (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 07:14:14 PM EST
    That was very surprising.  I would imagine he has been taken to the woodshed where between blows it was explained exactly how many years he was looking at.

    My husband says in his opinion (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 05:11:45 PM EST
    Flynn thinks once again he's smarter than everyone else and he's going to try to play Mueller.

    Due respect to the spouse (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 05:14:37 PM EST
    I don't think so

    For one thing (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 05:18:03 PM EST
    Sentencing is not happening until he gives it up.
    He can get probation or 5 years.  Up to Mueller.
    Or at least heavily influenced by him.
     Plus he can still be charged with the very long list if the things we know he did from conspiracy to kidnap to you name it

    Pffft...this is the guy who ran DIA (none / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 06:31:40 PM EST
    AND THEN... got on the phone to Russian entities and thought the five eyes countries weren't recording him.

    Spouse says Flynn will expect Trump (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 05:22:54 PM EST
    To pardon him if he gets snagged

    NY AG (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 06:32:57 PM EST
    can step in and charge Flynn. Trump can't pardon state crimes. It's been reported that Mueller and Schneiderman have been cooperating.

    I don't think he expects it (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 05:29:07 PM EST
    And I don't expect it.  They have already been distancing themselves from Flynn.

    I do think he might try to fire Mueller.

    Go for it Donald.  What have you got to lose.


    It's (none / 0) (#56)
    by FlJoe on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 06:40:31 PM EST
    probably to late for a pardon, Flynn has probably already given them plenty. If Flynn plays his cards right he and his son will do no time. He gains little from pardon (unless his pension is in danger) and gains much from continuing to cooperate. If he were to get a pardon and suddenly clam up, there would be more charges (possibly unpardonable state ones) against him and his son.

    His pension should be in danger (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 06:43:07 PM EST
    If we had a Democrat in the presidency his pension would be in jeopardy, at least a portion of it.

    Thinking he can still play the person who has (none / 0) (#35)
    by Anne on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 05:23:25 PM EST
    his testicles snugged up with the possibility of crushing them altogether seems like a clear indication of his essential stupidity.

    The only smart thing Flynn ever did (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 07:02:02 PM EST
    Was make Stan McChrystal his best friend, that's the only really smart thing he's done that we have on record :)

    Being reported (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 05:57:12 PM EST
    Trump is saying "FLYNN TURNED ON ME!!"

    Not looking good for a pardon.


    It's (3.00 / 1) (#118)
    by FlJoe on Sun Dec 03, 2017 at 04:17:30 PM EST
    becoming clearer by the day that Flynn was the one thrown under the bus. The filings and the latest emails show that there were at least several high level tRump officials who knew exactly what Flynn was doing in real time, yet when the story broke they sent out Pence and Spicer to immediately lie, leaving Flynn hanging out to dry when the FBI came calling. Finally when the truth was leaked he was banished from the pack of liars...for lying. It's a wonder he didn't flip sooner.

    I actually think he has been flipped (none / 0) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 03, 2017 at 05:19:37 PM EST
    For a while.  To my non lawyer eyes I thought one of the most ominous things, for Trump Inc, in that document was the bit about him taking part in "covert activities".  You would think that has to be referring to things he has already done since it would be hard for him to be covert now.

    Also its a real knee slapper that one of the ways they are trying to discredit Flynn is by saying, as I saw several Trump mouthpieces do today, that you can't believe anything Flynn says because he has admitted lying.

    Of course.  Certainly no one else in Trump would EVER considering lying.


    GUARDIAN (none / 0) (#121)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 03, 2017 at 05:29:54 PM EST
    The least-noticed sentence in Michael Flynn's plea agreement with special counsel Robert Mueller may also be the most important one.

    Section eight of the deal reached by Donald Trump's former national security adviser in the inquiry into Russian meddling in the US election is entitled "cooperation". It specifies that as well as answering questions and submitting to government-administered polygraph tests, Flynn's cooperation "may include ... participating in covert law enforcement activities".

    Long-time students of federal law enforcement practices agreed, speaking anonymously, that "covert law enforcement activities" likely refers to the possibility of wearing a concealed wire or recording telephone conversations with other potential suspects. It is not known whether Flynn has worn a wire at any time.

    There are some (none / 0) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 03, 2017 at 06:57:31 PM EST
    thoughts that Flynn might have tape recorded conversations etc. because he expected to be rolled under the bus by Trump and Co and did it for self protection before he actually inked anything with Mueller.

    I (none / 0) (#122)
    by FlJoe on Sun Dec 03, 2017 at 05:53:16 PM EST
    don't thinks so, his lawyers could not ethically have been cooperating with with the other lawyers.

    I see it more like Flynn has been for sale for months and Mueller knew he could flip in him an instant when the time was right.

    In hind sight the  most ominous things came from Flynn's lawyer back in March

    "General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should the circumstances permit,"
     Too bad for tRump that Mueller is the Master of Circumstance for this particular rodeo, and a good one at that.

    I don't think we know (none / 0) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 03, 2017 at 06:29:12 PM EST
    How much they were cooperating before they officially stopped.  Also it seems like he might have worn a wire not necessarily to get information that could be used in any official filing but just information.

    It just seems an odd thing to put in the plea agreement.  I seriously doubt they think he could do much effective "covert" work at this point.

    Hey Peter, could he have been wired before the official split from Trump lawyers?  Ethically or not.


    I suppose (none / 0) (#126)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 03, 2017 at 06:42:41 PM EST
    It's also possible they just put it in there to freak them out.

    Flynn could not have been cooperating earlier (none / 0) (#128)
    by Peter G on Sun Dec 03, 2017 at 07:49:16 PM EST
    against anyone whose lawyer was in a joint defense agreement with his, but yes against anyone else. As to who that might be, I don't know. Not following the details closely enough.

    BTW (none / 0) (#132)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 03, 2017 at 09:14:16 PM EST
    It was this

    "But justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream" Amos 5:24 (link: https:/www.instagram.com/p/BcKtEUUg4Qa) i

    Just copied from his feed.

    Not sure if you were correcting me or Comey.



    I thought I was correcting you, Cap'n (none / 0) (#134)
    by Peter G on Sun Dec 03, 2017 at 09:48:30 PM EST
    but in fact I see the "truth" is somewhere in between. All standard English translations of this verse begin "But let justice ...."

    And Trump is true to any word (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 06:33:18 PM EST
    Or principle when? When was/is Flynn for that matter?

    And if Trump is really upset (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 06:49:43 PM EST
    Why doesn't he begin the process to remove Flynn's pension for lying to the Vice President and the FBI?

    Who knows he isn't (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 06:56:10 PM EST
    This just happened and Trump is still in restraints.

    Somebody has Trump in restraints? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 06:57:41 PM EST

    You're just trying to turn me on :)


    He has not tweeted about THIS? (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 06:59:46 PM EST
    Definitely restraints or sedation

    It ain't rocket science, Donald. (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 08:38:31 PM EST
    You hubby (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 06:32:05 PM EST
    needs to watch more Investigation Discovery :). A lot of people think this until they are presented with phone logs, taped conversations etc.

    Flynn ran DIA (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 06:38:17 PM EST
    Knew our Intel networks inside and out, then was on the phone bargaining with Turkey and Russia, knowing our five eyes allies were recording him. I think the tie that binds Trump and Flynn is a shared personality disorder.

    Forever wondering why... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 02:58:04 PM EST
    It's a crime to lie to the FBI, but the FBI can lie to you everyday and twice on Sunday to get you to incriminate yourself or commit the crime of lying to them.  So inherently unfair, and should not be ignored just because the targets of the Mueller investigation are most likely the most dangerous criminals in our society at present.

    Talk to SCOTUS about that. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 04:11:21 PM EST
    Quite right (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Peter G on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 04:31:52 PM EST
    Disagreeing with most lower courts, the Supreme Court even ruled that it violates this statute to deny guilt (if you are guilty and they later prove it) rather than remain silent when questioned by the FBI. Even if they don't believe you for one second.

    Heh, well I will never speak to them (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 03:21:14 PM EST
    Without my lawyer present and a recording made. Just one of the many life skills learned on Talkleft.

    Cheeto said he would (none / 0) (#7)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 03:41:15 PM EST
    talk to FBI about this.  Could he really let his ego lead him to do that?  

    Saw an interview (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 04:10:21 PM EST
    With Eric Prince earlier.  He said the lesson of today was 'don't talk to the FBI'

    He also seem a tad anxious


    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by FlJoe on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 04:48:03 PM EST
    because of this
    Erik Prince, a supporter of the Trump presidential campaign and founder of the security firm Blackwater, confirmed to House investigators Thursday that he met with a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin while in the Seychelles earlier this year, according to multiple people familiar with the interview.

    Under questioning, Prince told members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that he had met Kirill Dmitriev, head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, during a secret Jan. 11 meeting in the Seychelles brokered by the United Arab Emirates as part of an apparent attempt to set up backchannel communications between then-President-elect Donald Trump and Moscow.

    Speaking of flea bitten scoundrels (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 04:16:11 PM EST
    If he lies in the forest (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 04:10:36 PM EST
    When he's President does he make a chargeable sound?

    If lying to the FBI (none / 0) (#21)
    by KeysDan on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 04:29:34 PM EST
    is inherently unfair and should not be a crime, then that law should be changed. But, it is the law. And, it is not unfair to charge for a crime, nor is it the time to ignore this felonious activity, which underpins wider and deeper crimes. This is a guilty plea deal and this likely is Flynn's least, but most clear-cut crime---he was untruthful and it is readily provable.

    And, yes, the targets of the Mueller investigation are most likely the most dangerous criminals in our society at present--and the most powerful.  The criminal justice system has a challenge what with all the levers of power to inhibit and obstruct investigations and to thwart by pardon, indictments/charges and convictions by the ring leader.    

    While jail time for income tax evasion may, by some, be viewed as an unfair penalty, it is what got Al Capone.  And, Al, as bad as he was, did not  directly jeopardize the democracy. And, for Al to escape the consequences of his crime, he would have to have been a real good swimmer.


    I hear ya... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 02, 2017 at 02:22:02 PM EST
    But I can't get past the inherent unfairness of it, a law forbidding law enforcement from lying to suspects/witnesses would alleviate the concern.

    The truth and nothing but the truth both ways, absent that there is always silence.


    I think he isn't going to give Trump (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 03:19:49 PM EST
    The opportunity to pardon Flynn all in one swoop that hopefully Murika hears his stoopid refuting of and then moves on.

    From what I read about Mueller's handling of Enron, he started out with charging the obvious first things first. That also triggered a squeeze, and then waves of charges followed as execs began to roll on each other.

    Is Trump going to pardon Flynn 3 different times? That's so much to talk about there. It would almost seem flagrantly corrupt ;)


    I read (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 04:07:39 PM EST
    where Mueller is holding charges over Flynn. This may be all the charges Flynn gets but only if he does everything Mueller wants.

    Roll you flea bitten scoundrel! (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 04:11:36 PM EST
    Flynn's (none / 0) (#20)
    by FlJoe on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 04:22:55 PM EST
    son is the only leverage Mueller needs.

    Is Information better (none / 0) (#6)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 03:37:59 PM EST
    for the accused than Indictment?  Is one public and one not?

    Peter g explained that (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 04:09:54 PM EST
    with grand jury indictment, defendant is arrested on arrest warrant and taken into custody b/4 defendant appears in court. If prosecutor chooses to file an Information, there is no grand jury. Defendant appears in court. If defendant doesn't show up--arrest warrant issued.

    Yes mostly, but not the prosecutor's choice (none / 0) (#16)
    by Peter G on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 04:14:06 PM EST
    The defense must agree, because it requires the waiver of a constitutional right, such as it is (cf. "ham sandwich"), to grand jury screening of the prosecutor's charging decision.

    I forgot that the Greek who pled out (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 04:18:23 PM EST
    also waived grand jury.

    cf. (none / 0) (#119)
    by linea on Sun Dec 03, 2017 at 04:39:23 PM EST
    this is new.

    cf., an abbreviation for the Latin word confer (the imperative singular form of "conferre"), literally meaning "bring together", is used to refer to other material or ideas which may provide similar or different information or arguments.

    Glad to read that you find my comments (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Peter G on Sun Dec 03, 2017 at 07:51:21 PM EST
    occasionally educational, Linea.

    So Flynn is a snitch? (none / 0) (#46)
    by fishcamp on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 06:25:46 PM EST
    Says so (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 06:29:43 PM EST
    Right in the papers.  It even specifies he would "participate in covert activities" or words to that effect.  

    Which I'm pretty sure would refer to things he has already done since they would hardly be covert now.

    Sleep well Trump Inc.


    He is Frankie Five Angels (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 06:31:56 PM EST
    To Trumps Michael Corleone

    Status before inauguration (none / 0) (#48)
    by sphealey on Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 06:30:19 PM EST
    What is the constitutional status of a person who commits a crime(s) after being elected President but before being sworn in?  Does he/she have any Article II Section 4 immunity to ordinary criminal prosecution?

    The Question Everybody is Begging (none / 0) (#88)
    by RickyJim on Sat Dec 02, 2017 at 09:37:38 AM EST
    I've looked but can't find out what was Flynn's motivation for lying.  I assume it was to cover up some crime(s).  What is the best guess for what that crime was?

    collusion (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 02, 2017 at 10:28:30 AM EST
    conspiracy.  heard this discussed by prosecutors last night.  when asked he must have known how dangerous it was to lie.  they say it almost certainly was not fear of the Logan Act.
    but the fact he had been instructed to do what he did by Trump.  

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by FlJoe on Sat Dec 02, 2017 at 10:54:21 AM EST
    Flynn essentially had no criminal exposure by telling the truth about the conversations with Kislyak. He had every reason to believe (as did everyone) that the FBI had transcripts of the calls. He lied for purely political reasons, almost assuredly with the blessings of tRump, Kushner and probably Pence. I'm assuming that Flynn foolishly believed that he would be protected going forward.



    Im curious about The Logan Act (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 02, 2017 at 11:00:07 AM EST
    everyone is saying blah blah now one is ever prosecuted for The Logan Act.

    well yeah, until they are.

    it IS a law.  and a pretty sensible one as far as I can tell.


    I'm (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by FlJoe on Sat Dec 02, 2017 at 11:19:48 AM EST
    of a mind to trot that baby out and see if it flies.

    Flynn knew of the (none / 0) (#95)
    by KeysDan on Sat Dec 02, 2017 at 11:20:06 AM EST
    criminality of lying to the FBI agents, but did so anyway  (as he proclaimed at the Republican Convention, he has been in this "business" a long time).  

    And, as mentioned there was not much concern in the "business" for violations of the obscure Logan Act. So then, what?  My take:  Calculation of risk/benefit. Worthy of a felony risk: The conversations with the Russians were ongoing and conspiratorial.

      The truth may have revealed a partnership between the Putin and the Trump campaign, and, its continuation now that Trump was president. The lies were both about Russia---Russian sanctions by Obama and enlisting Russian support for the Israel settlement vote in the UN....quids and pros, necessary to lie about.


    You know who knows the truth? (none / 0) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 02, 2017 at 11:36:58 AM EST
    Robert Mueller

    I (none / 0) (#97)
    by FlJoe on Sat Dec 02, 2017 at 12:20:23 PM EST
    don't see much of the reward in lying. While I certainly do see these actions as evidence of the payback phase of this partnership, they were hardly of the smoking gun variety. Compared to the other  evidence, they are hardly consequential at all. I find it hard to believe that Flynn thought he could throw the FBI off the scent by lying about a relatively minor factoid, when being caught would probably have the opposite effect.

    I don't think it has much to do with the Logan act (none / 0) (#108)
    by ruffian on Sun Dec 03, 2017 at 10:37:40 AM EST
    per se. I think it has to do with the allegation (to me a pretty clear truth, but I am being diplomatic) that the talks with Kislyak were the reward for the Russians fulfilling their end of the pre-election criminal conspiracy bargain: helping get Trump elected.

    Look at the big picture. This one pleading statement is just a blip.


    Another (none / 0) (#102)
    by FlJoe on Sat Dec 02, 2017 at 05:23:59 PM EST
    day another smoker

    ... emails among top transition officials, provided or described to The New York Times, suggest that Mr. Flynn was far from a rogue actor. In fact, the emails, coupled with interviews and court documents filed on Friday, showed that Mr. Flynn was in close touch with other senior members of the Trump transition team both before and after he spoke with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak, about American sanctions against Russia.
    On Dec. 29, a transition adviser to Mr. Trump, K. T. McFarland, wrote in an email to a colleague that sanctions announced hours before by the Obama administration in retaliation for Russian election meddling were aimed at discrediting Mr. Trump's victory. The sanctions could also make it much harder for Mr. Trump to ease tensions with Russia, "which has just thrown the U.S.A. election to him," she wrote in the emails obtained by The Times.
    But it is evident from the emails -- which were obtained from someone who had access to transition team communications -- that after learning that President Barack Obama would expel 35 Russian diplomats, the Trump team quickly strategized about how to reassure Russia.

    As part of the outreach, Ms. McFarland wrote, Mr. Flynn would be speaking with the Russian ambassador, Mr. Kislyak, hours after Mr. Obama's sanctions were announced
    Mr. Bossert forwarded Ms. McFarland's Dec. 29 email exchange about the sanctions to six other Trump advisers, including Mr. Flynn; Reince Priebus, who had been named as chief of staff; Stephen K. Bannon, the senior strategist; and Sean Spicer, who would become the press secretary.
     (my bold) They all knew in real time what Flynn was up to.

    Missed this (none / 0) (#103)
    by FlJoe on Sat Dec 02, 2017 at 05:44:51 PM EST
    The sanctions could also make it much harder for Mr. Trump to ease tensions with Russia, "which has just thrown the U.S.A. election to him," she wrote in the emails obtained by The Times.

    Sounds damming except the Times does waffle a bit
    It is not clear whether Ms. McFarland was saying she believed that the election had in fact been thrown. A White House lawyer said on Friday that she meant only that the Democrats were portraying it that way.

    Trump's days (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 02, 2017 at 06:21:13 PM EST
    are numbered. Flynn has a plethora of information of which I'm sure Mueller is getting every last bit of. The only question at this point is when it is all going to go down.

    I'm sure the GOP knows this too hence their behavior last night with the tax bill.


    he wont go quietly (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 02, 2017 at 07:07:55 PM EST
    he will force a crisis.  if he comes down on Kushner as we all expect i think he will try to fire Mueller.  

    Yeah, (none / 0) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 02, 2017 at 07:30:28 PM EST
    he's definitely not going to go quietly. I'm not sure if he will fire Mueller though. We are ready to take to the streets though if he does fire Mueller. Mueller has the people of this country behind him. Trump does not. Trump has a cult willing to murder people though. It could get very ugly.

    TRY (none / 0) (#107)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 02, 2017 at 07:33:01 PM EST
    to fire Mueller

    WTF ? (none / 0) (#148)
    by FlJoe on Mon Dec 04, 2017 at 04:19:35 PM EST
    From the "lock him up now files"(sorry Peter)
    Prosecutors working for special counsel Robert Mueller say Donald Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort has been working on an op-ed essay with a longtime colleague "assessed to have ties" to a Russian intelligence service.

    Court papers say Manafort and the colleague sought to publish the op-ed under someone else's name and intended it to influence public opinion about his work in Ukraine. The op-ed was being drafted as late as last week while Manafort is under house arrest. Prosecutors did not name the colleague but noted the person is based in Russia.

    Stupid or seeing a pardon for Christmas?

    I would think this (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 04, 2017 at 04:47:52 PM EST
    kind of thing would be the end of house arrest. I mean if he can't even keep from having the simplest contact with Russian intelligence then he needs to be in a jail cell.

    Eh (none / 0) (#156)
    by CST on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 09:18:37 AM EST
    They caught him, stopped him from publishing it, and now he probably won't get the restrictions dropped that he was looking for.

    Wondering how they caught him (none / 0) (#158)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 09:34:27 AM EST
    Almost seems like they were expecting something like this.

    They (none / 0) (#159)
    by FlJoe on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 09:48:16 AM EST
    reportedly had a FISA warrant on him I don't know if that is still active, I also think being on house arrest might entail monitoring. It is also likely that the Russian involved is being monitored. Just my 2 cents.

    My thoughts (none / 0) (#163)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 12:55:09 PM EST
    are why expend energy monitoring him when we have no shortage of jail cells in this country. Unless of course maybe there is a method to the madness where they think Manafort is going to lead them to  something because of his own idiocy.

    Manafort needed (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 02:24:58 PM EST
    help from his Russian spy friend to write a letter that might make him look good.  Admittedly, that is a tall order, but it does suggest Manafort's inability to so much as draft copy for the Trump campaign without Russian collusion....more evidence for Mueller. And, in any law textbook, if you turn to the chapters on skipping bail, there is a picture of Manafort. It makes me wonder what f....g moron hired this guy to run a presidential campaign.  

    Does anyone but me have a problem (none / 0) (#165)
    by Peter G on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 09:10:07 PM EST
    with a judge ordering an accused person not to speak out (or publish) in his own defense, to the extent he can get anyone to listen to him? I cannot understand how that is a proper or valid condition of bail or of house arrest.

    Doesn't strike me as relevant to conditions (none / 0) (#166)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 05, 2017 at 10:08:18 PM EST
    of release pre-trial.

    Yeah, that part bothers me as well.... (none / 0) (#167)
    by unitron on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 12:18:42 AM EST
    ...though I don't really know what their legal argument was to make that other person off-limits to him.

    I'm assuming it was the contact or co-operation with the other guy, and not just writing an op-ed, that is what got him in trouble, but I suppose I could be wrong.


    It was my understanding (none / 0) (#168)
    by CST on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 09:42:44 AM EST
    That this violated the gag order that the judge placed on the case.

    I'm not sure how that relates to bail or house arrest but it may show an unwillingness to comply with court orders.


    Yeah, well, I guess that's the problem (none / 0) (#169)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 06, 2017 at 12:34:45 PM EST
    I'm having. "Gag order," meet First Amendment. Related Supreme Court case from 1991, but involving a lawyer not the defendant himself.