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

Flynn Agrees to Testify.. BUT...

M

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?
 
or what if testifies that the idea the trump campaign colluded with russia is bullshit?
 
Malintent said:
ksen said:
or what if testifies that the idea the trump campaign colluded with russia is bullshit?
Click to expand...

Then what would his requirement for immunity to prosecution be for? Political Reality TV?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Malintent said:
ksen said:
or what if testifies that the idea the trump campaign colluded with russia is bullshit?
Click to expand...

Then what would his requirement for immunity to prosecution be for? Political Reality TV?
Click to expand...
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.
 
ksen said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.'
 
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.
Click to expand...

…

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.
Click to expand...
 
Keith&Co. said:
ksen said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.'
Click to expand...
I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. I'm just guessing.
 
ksen said:
Malintent said:
Then what would his requirement for immunity to prosecution be for? Political Reality TV?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Opoponax said:
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.
Click to expand...

Very interesting.. didn't know those details about degrees of immunity... Thank you.
 
Horatio Parker said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.”
Click to expand...
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?
 
Horatio Parker said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That makes sense.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
J842P said:
That makes sense.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom