• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Flynn Agrees to Testify.. BUT...

Malintent

Veteran Member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
3,651
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
.. BUT, his lawyers indicate that he will only testify if granted immunity from prosecution. Note, this is the same man that led a "Lock her up" rallying call against Hillary... and the same man that publically stated that if a person seeks immunity, it means they committed a crime. I am not personally subscribed to that claim any more than the idea that exercising your 5th amendment rights means you are guilty... but if he thinks so, then he must be.

Should immunity be granted? Should there be conditions upon his immunity - such as based on the nature of what he intends to share?

Is this the nail in Trump's coffin.. a clear indicator that a crime was certainly committed and it wasn't just Flynn flying solo?

OR, is Flynn still on the Trump team and agreeing to take all blame, and suffer no consequence due to immunity, and provide testimony that clears all other team members?
 

ksen

Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
6,540
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Calvinist
or what if testifies that the idea the trump campaign colluded with russia is bullshit?
 

Jayjay

Contributor
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
6,009
Location
Finland
Basic Beliefs
An accurate worldview or philosophy
or what if testifies that the idea the trump campaign colluded with russia is bullshit?

Then what would his requirement for immunity to prosecution be for? Political Reality TV?
Flynn was in contact with Russia after the election, but before inauguration, which I think is violation of Logan Act, and that's why he's scared shitless. It need not be related to Trump campaign's alleged collusion with Russia before the election at all.
 

Opoponax

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,384
Location
California Central Coast
Basic Beliefs
Apathetic Atheist
I think that immunity isn't actually granted until after he's done testifying. From what I understand, he'll have to disclose to prosecutors what he's going to testify to beforehand. So if he doesn't have anything damning to say that will seriously implicate bigger fish, then no immunity will be granted because the purpose of immunity is to give up one criminal in order to obtain evidence against more important criminals. So what'll likely happen is that there will be negotiations with respect to the testimony he can offer against others. Then the decision will be made to grant immunity if that is what he testifies too. If it's damning, they'll grant it. If it's petty, they won't.

The big daddy in immunity is transactional immunity. That means that he can never be prosecuted for what he admits to no matter what happens. The second type is use/derivative use immunity, meaning that he can be prosecuted for the same criminal acts he testified about, but the testimony from the hearings in which he was granted use/derivative use cannot be introduced into evidence in a subsequent proceeding against him. Independent evidence derived from other sources would have to be used. So he can inoculate himself against that by simply vomiting out every single detail about everything.

If he really does have some serious shit to spill, he'll ask for and get transactional immunity. But in this case, it's Congress that has to grant it, and I don't know the procedure for that, but it sounds like fucking imbroglio that could stall this for months.
 

ksen

Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
6,540
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Calvinist
or what if testifies that the idea the trump campaign colluded with russia is bullshit?

Then what would his requirement for immunity to prosecution be for? Political Reality TV?
Any good lawyer would probably advise to get some sort of immunity deal before talking to someone that has the power to put you in prison.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
Any good lawyer would probably advise to get some sort of immunity deal before talking to someone that has the power to put you in prison.
But aren't most such conversations conditional?
Rather than 'Okay, whatever you say, we'll let you slide on Y.' it's 'IF you can help us with X, we'll let you slide on Y.'
 

Horatio Parker

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
4,325
Location
Bronx, NY
Basic Beliefs
Platonist
Interesting article includes opinions of several defense lawyers:

http://lawnewz.com/legal-analysis/flynn-wants-immunity-so-does-that-mean-president-trump-is-screwed/

I can’t imagine if I were his lawyer that I wouldn’t ask for immunity regardless of whether he did anything illegal or not, even if just a perception. A favorite tactic of the FBI is to accuse someone of a false statement because to many law enforcement officers and prosecutors an inconsistency is interpreted as lying. That is then used as leverage to force an individual to comply in other ways, or to be punished for crimes that perhaps cannot be proven, regardless of the validity.



No sane lawyer lets his client proffer because a proffer can be used against you if you ever choose to testify in your own defense, except in special cases where you have complete confidence your client has little risk. Flynn is actually sending word he is going to take the 5th on everything (a smart decision given the whole town is out to crucify him), and won’t talk without carte blanche immunity, which he and his lawyer know the government is never going to give (because it requires specialized approvals it won’t get). What looks like a hostile signal to Trump is actually a self-defense signal that Flynn won’t be saying anything at all.
 

ksen

Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
6,540
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Calvinist
Any good lawyer would probably advise to get some sort of immunity deal before talking to someone that has the power to put you in prison.
But aren't most such conversations conditional?
Rather than 'Okay, whatever you say, we'll let you slide on Y.' it's 'IF you can help us with X, we'll let you slide on Y.'
I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. I'm just guessing.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Then what would his requirement for immunity to prosecution be for? Political Reality TV?
Any good lawyer would probably advise to get some sort of immunity deal before talking to someone that has the power to put you in prison.
What would be of interest is the idea that he has a story to tell. You ask for immunity when you can give the prosecution someone higher up the chain of command. He was Trump's National Security Advisor... that is already very high on the chain.
 

Malintent

Veteran Member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
3,651
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I think that immunity isn't actually granted until after he's done testifying. From what I understand, he'll have to disclose to prosecutors what he's going to testify to beforehand. So if he doesn't have anything damning to say that will seriously implicate bigger fish, then no immunity will be granted because the purpose of immunity is to give up one criminal in order to obtain evidence against more important criminals. So what'll likely happen is that there will be negotiations with respect to the testimony he can offer against others. Then the decision will be made to grant immunity if that is what he testifies too. If it's damning, they'll grant it. If it's petty, they won't.

The big daddy in immunity is transactional immunity. That means that he can never be prosecuted for what he admits to no matter what happens. The second type is use/derivative use immunity, meaning that he can be prosecuted for the same criminal acts he testified about, but the testimony from the hearings in which he was granted use/derivative use cannot be introduced into evidence in a subsequent proceeding against him. Independent evidence derived from other sources would have to be used. So he can inoculate himself against that by simply vomiting out every single detail about everything.

If he really does have some serious shit to spill, he'll ask for and get transactional immunity. But in this case, it's Congress that has to grant it, and I don't know the procedure for that, but it sounds like fucking imbroglio that could stall this for months.

Very interesting.. didn't know those details about degrees of immunity... Thank you.
 

Malintent

Veteran Member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
3,651
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Interesting article includes opinions of several defense lawyers:

http://lawnewz.com/legal-analysis/flynn-wants-immunity-so-does-that-mean-president-trump-is-screwed/



No sane lawyer lets his client proffer because a proffer can be used against you if you ever choose to testify in your own defense, except in special cases where you have complete confidence your client has little risk. Flynn is actually sending word he is going to take the 5th on everything (a smart decision given the whole town is out to crucify him), and won’t talk without carte blanche immunity, which he and his lawyer know the government is never going to give (because it requires specialized approvals it won’t get). What looks like a hostile signal to Trump is actually a self-defense signal that Flynn won’t be saying anything at all.

Thank you for the article... in the same, it is stated that an indicator that he knows he broke the law and has something to offer on "a bigger fish" is that Flynn approached the committee with the offer to testify under some form of immunity, rather than the committee calling him to testify.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
article said:
“Gen. Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should the circumstances permit. … 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.”
Witch-hunt? Wait, isn't this the guy that resigned indicating he did something wrong, of which we are mostly certain that his resignation came as an ignorant attempt to quell the Russia investigation?
 

J842P

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
4,137
Location
USA, California
Basic Beliefs
godless heathen
Interesting article includes opinions of several defense lawyers:

http://lawnewz.com/legal-analysis/flynn-wants-immunity-so-does-that-mean-president-trump-is-screwed/





No sane lawyer lets his client proffer because a proffer can be used against you if you ever choose to testify in your own defense, except in special cases where you have complete confidence your client has little risk. Flynn is actually sending word he is going to take the 5th on everything (a smart decision given the whole town is out to crucify him), and won’t talk without carte blanche immunity, which he and his lawyer know the government is never going to give (because it requires specialized approvals it won’t get). What looks like a hostile signal to Trump is actually a self-defense signal that Flynn won’t be saying anything at all.

That makes sense.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist

J842P

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
4,137
Location
USA, California
Basic Beliefs
godless heathen
That makes sense.
That link contains a good deal of differing legal opinions. It'd seem quite odd to resign from the NSA position and then play the I'm not guilty of anything card.

They all seemed to generally agree that the offer of testimony in exchange for immunity could very well just be good lawyering and not imply there is actually some juicy, criminally indicting testimony he is ready to give.

As for the resignation, honestly, America doesn't really have a culture of resignation where one does so because one believes one is in the wrong. In America, you resign because you are being pressured to resign. Who knows why he was being pressured. It could be he was being pressured because he was actually involved in shady shit, or maybe it was an attempt to make the problem go away, and he became a sacrificial lamb.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
That link contains a good deal of differing legal opinions. It'd seem quite odd to resign from the NSA position and then play the I'm not guilty of anything card.
They all seemed to generally agree that the offer of testimony in exchange for immunity could very well just be good lawyering and not imply there is actually some juicy, criminally indicting testimony he is ready to give.
Given the context of what has happened and what we know has happened speaks further to him having issues.

As for the resignation, honestly, America doesn't really have a culture of resignation where one does so because one believes one is in the wrong. In America, you resign because you are being pressured to resign.
We generally don't have a history of NSAs who resign less than a month into the job, at the beginning of an Administration.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,884
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
IMO Flynn (or his lawyer) is simply taking advantage of the current climate to dangle the possibility of having a possibly damning "story to tell", and trying to make a deal while that currency still might have some value. There is little doubt that Flynn's conduct could be construed as criminal on several levels (even if none are treason-level serious), and he's seeking immunity from all that. He probably has nothing on Cheato directly, and may have nothing significant at all to contribute to the whole collusion investigation. Then again, he has plenty of reason to feel abandoned, betrayed etc., so if he does have a damning story to tell, the FBI will likely be able to extract it from him - with or without any kind of immunity.
 

Horatio Parker

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
4,325
Location
Bronx, NY
Basic Beliefs
Platonist
I think Flynns lawyer is trying to leverage media demand for the story, in the hope of influencing the committee.

Doesn't appear to be working. There seem to be plenty of angles to pursue without Flynn.

NYC's local NPR station, unimaginativly named wnyc, broke this story about Manafort:

For the Carroll Gardens home, a brownstone on Union Street, Manafort recently borrowed nearly $7 million on a house that was purchased four years ago for just $3 million. The loans – dated January 17, three days before President Trump’s inauguration – were made by a Chicago-based bank run by Steve Calk, a Trump fundraiser and economic advisor.

...

Manafort’s New York City transactions follow a pattern: Using shell companies, he purchased the homes in all-cash deals, then transferred the properties into his own name for no money and then took out hefty mortgages against them, according to property records

http://www.wnyc.org/story/paul-manaforts-puzzling-new-york-real-estate-purchases/
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,712
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist

Second this. Don't talk to the FBI without an immunity deal because they are prone to lying to implicate you in a crime and force you to do what they want.
Immunity? He may be under investigation!

- - - Updated - - -

I think Flynns lawyer is trying to leverage media demand for the story, in the hope of influencing the committee.

Doesn't appear to be working. There seem to be plenty of angles to pursue without Flynn.

NYC's local NPR station, unimaginativly named wnyc, broke this story about Manafort:



...

Manafort’s New York City transactions follow a pattern: Using shell companies, he purchased the homes in all-cash deals, then transferred the properties into his own name for no money and then took out hefty mortgages against them, according to property records

http://www.wnyc.org/story/paul-manaforts-puzzling-new-york-real-estate-purchases/
And this is why people like this stay in the shadows, because if the press is given a little blood, they'll find things and all of a sudden, a lot more people get exposed.
 

Artemus

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2002
Messages
1,161
Location
Bible Belt, USA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist and general cynic
There's an interesting joint editorial in the New York Times by the chief ethics lawyers for both G. W. Bush and Obama arguing that Flynn should be given immunity. Their rational is that learning the truth is far more important to the country than the guilt or innocence of one individual. Do they have a point?
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
8,132
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
Depends on whether me has anything worth it. I doubt he'd spill his guts even with immunity.
 

Artemus

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2002
Messages
1,161
Location
Bible Belt, USA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist and general cynic
Depends on whether me has anything worth it. I doubt he'd spill his guts even with immunity.

A chicken and egg thing. How will they know if he knows anything unless he's given immunity? I lean toward agreeing with the editorial writers. I want to know what really happened and don't give a damn what happens to one of Trump's cronies.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,218
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Immunity isn't given blindly. They do a proffer. But this is all likely a stunt anyway.


Flynn’s Public Offer to Testify for Immunity Suggests He May Have Nothing to Say
Interesting, I've always wondered how that kind of stuff is done technically and what makes people and FBI actually do what they promised to do.
Can FBI offer immunity and then after they get what they want get everything reversed and cleaned as if there was never any immunity?
But I agree it's unlikely that Flynn has anything worth anything. And Logan act is weird because it can be applied to anything. It basically means americans which don't agree with current POTUS can not talk about it to any foreign government officials. If Russia had Logan act too then Putin would have had legal power to throw all Russian opposition to prison.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,366
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
I'm wondering if the refusal to grant immunity is the Republicans way to impede the investigation.
 

Opoponax

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,384
Location
California Central Coast
Basic Beliefs
Apathetic Atheist
I'm wondering if the refusal to grant immunity is the Republicans way to impede the investigation.

It could be any number of things. First, maybe he doesn't have anything worth granting immunity for; whatever he's willing to testify to doesn't get the bigger fish the investigators are after. He could be telling the truth or he could be lying, but either way, granting immunity isn't appropriate. Second, it's possible they have enough without his testimony to proceed, and they think they can get him anyway. Hopefully that's the case, but hope in one hand, etc. Or, like others said, it's a media strategy by Flynn and his lawyers. I have no idea what such a strategy is, but I know exactly dick about media strategies.

Whatever the case, this is disappointing. Or maybe me wanting to see the Orange Buffoon strapped to a rocket and blasted out of office ASAP clouds my judgment.
 

RavenSky

The Doctor's Wife
Staff member
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
10,705
Location
Miami, Florida
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I think that immunity isn't actually granted until after he's done testifying. From what I understand, he'll have to disclose to prosecutors what he's going to testify to beforehand. So if he doesn't have anything damning to say that will seriously implicate bigger fish, then no immunity will be granted because the purpose of immunity is to give up one criminal in order to obtain evidence against more important criminals. So what'll likely happen is that there will be negotiations with respect to the testimony he can offer against others. Then the decision will be made to grant immunity if that is what he testifies too. If it's damning, they'll grant it. If it's petty, they won't.

The big daddy in immunity is transactional immunity. That means that he can never be prosecuted for what he admits to no matter what happens. The second type is use/derivative use immunity, meaning that he can be prosecuted for the same criminal acts he testified about, but the testimony from the hearings in which he was granted use/derivative use cannot be introduced into evidence in a subsequent proceeding against him. Independent evidence derived from other sources would have to be used. So he can inoculate himself against that by simply vomiting out every single detail about everything.

If he really does have some serious shit to spill, he'll ask for and get transactional immunity. But in this case, it's Congress that has to grant it, and I don't know the procedure for that, but it sounds like fucking imbroglio that could stall this for months.

it sounds like fucking imbroglio that could stall this for months

Which is, I suspect, the true purpose
 

whichphilosophy

Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
6,803
Location
Travelling through Europe, Middle East and Asia
Basic Beliefs
Energy is itself a Life form
I'm wondering if the refusal to grant immunity is the Republicans way to impede the investigation.

It could be any number of things. First, maybe he doesn't have anything worth granting immunity for; whatever he's willing to testify to doesn't get the bigger fish the investigators are after. He could be telling the truth or he could be lying, but either way, granting immunity isn't appropriate. Second, it's possible they have enough without his testimony to proceed, and they think they can get him anyway. Hopefully that's the case, but hope in one hand, etc. Or, like others said, it's a media strategy by Flynn and his lawyers. I have no idea what such a strategy is, but I know exactly dick about media strategies.

Whatever the case, this is disappointing. Or maybe me wanting to see the Orange Buffoon strapped to a rocket and blasted out of office ASAP clouds my judgment.

I'm not holding my breath, but I think Trump Media will make an awful lot of revenue.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
It could be any number of things. First, maybe he doesn't have anything worth granting immunity for; whatever he's willing to testify to doesn't get the bigger fish the investigators are after. He could be telling the truth or he could be lying, but either way, granting immunity isn't appropriate. Second, it's possible they have enough without his testimony to proceed, and they think they can get him anyway. Hopefully that's the case, but hope in one hand, etc. Or, like others said, it's a media strategy by Flynn and his lawyers. I have no idea what such a strategy is, but I know exactly dick about media strategies.

Whatever the case, this is disappointing. Or maybe me wanting to see the Orange Buffoon strapped to a rocket and blasted out of office ASAP clouds my judgment.

I'm not holding my breath, but I think Trump Media will make an awful lot of revenue.
Well Mar a Lago sure the heck is, with yet another foreign meeting being held there, this time with the Chinese.
 

Malintent

Veteran Member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
3,651
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
That link contains a good deal of differing legal opinions. It'd seem quite odd to resign from the NSA position and then play the I'm not guilty of anything card.

They all seemed to generally agree that the offer of testimony in exchange for immunity could very well just be good lawyering and not imply there is actually some juicy, criminally indicting testimony he is ready to give.

Trump does not think that is the case, regarding the meaning of someone seeking immunity:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J57heOJ0EFc[/YOUTUBE]
 
Top Bottom