Flynn Agrees to Testify.. BUT...

[Jimmy Higgins]

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]

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]

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]

Interesting article includes opinions of several defense lawyers:

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

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.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Interesting article includes opinions of several defense lawyers:

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

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]

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]

Depends on whether me has anything worth it. I doubt he'd spill his guts even with immunity.

 

[Artemus]

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.

 

[blastula]

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

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

He needs to have his lawyer say he'll rat on someone else's illegal activities.

 

[barbos]

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]

I'm wondering if the refusal to grant immunity is the Republicans way to impede the investigation.

 

[Opoponax]

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]

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]

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.

 

[fromderinside]

I don't want this SOB to get away with anything so take all the time necessary to establish there is probable cause to provide immunity to get important information.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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]

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]