But he is making a formal public statement of cooperation- Flynn will testify. He just wants assurance of unfair prosecution.
I know you’ve seen how this goes- You testify, then are cross examined until one statement even slightly differs from a previous one. That is then seized upon and you are examined on why they may be different. Highlighting this difference becomes the new focus of the investigation and on down the rabbit hole it goes.
Sure he does - and the currency to purchase protection from an “unfair” prosecution is immunity.
Flynn is in the cross-hairs on some very hairy stuff. If he has damning information - and look at what all he was into, hard to think he doesn’t - why wouldn’t he use it to help himself out? It’s ridiculous to assume he wouldn’t.
Maybe no deal is reached, maybe his information isn’t all that compelling. But to instantly refuse to believe Flynn is offering to deal in light of the report and in light of the public statement is just Trumpkin cognitive dissonance.
He may be. The simple solution to that would be to plead the 5th. You enter no evidence or testimony and you can’t be cross examined or prosecuted for admission of any related crime, nor can you be charged with non compliance or obstruction- and forces the prosecution to actually prove their case.
There is absolutely no benefit what so ever to testifying before congress even if you have nothing to do with anything for the exact reasons stated above. Without some assurance that they aren’t going to run a re-examination rope-a-dope, there is no way anybody in their right mind would.
Yeah, and no doubt he and his very expensive lawyer at Covington know that and probably know that the government has enough facts independent of Flynn’s own testimony to come down on him - hence looking to make a deal. What you suggest isn’t a solution - every prosecutor in the Union builds his or her case around knowing the wrongdoer can’t be compelled to testify against himself. That’s 101.[quote=“SkyzykS, post:264, topic:226860”]
There is absolutely no benefit what so ever to testifying before congress even if you have nothing to do with anything for the exact reasons stated above. Without some assurance that they aren’t going to run a re-examination rope-a-dope
[/quote]
Too bad - Congress can compel testimony. And they wouldn’t restrict questions to only Flynn’s own misdeeds, which he could plead the Fifth on, but everything else he knows with respect to other people.
That’s the leverage. They don’t care about Flynn for his own sake - they probably already have what they need to proceed against him. What they want is what else he knows, and Flynn knows that has value - hence, a deal for immunity.
That might be true if I were ever under the impression that Trump and friends weren’t a bunch of criminals. Unfortunately for your theory, there are numerous posts here, by me stating the exact opposite. I’ve been very clear that he will push boundaries and break laws from the get go based on the operating theory that it is easier to ask forgiveness than permission.
Quite telling that you want to go low that quickly though.
I don’t see that as “going low” - it’s a statement that Trump supporters are inclined to believe what they want to believe even in the face of contradictory information, which I think is accurate, over and over again.
I doubt that. Maybe from agencies under their purview, but not private citizens. Even if they could, no one on earth can actually compel another to talk if they don’t want to.[quote=“thunderbolt23, post:265, topic:226860”]
What you suggest isn’t a solution - every prosecutor in the Union builds his or her case around knowing the wrongdoer can’t be compelled to testify against himself. That’s 101.
[/quote]
Now thats comedy!
If that were true criminal defense would just be a formality.
Well, you’re wrong - Congress has subpoena power to compel testimony and production of documents, and failing to comply is punishable by contempt. While they don’t make a habit of it for private citizens, private citizens are not immune. And yes, they’d be happy to compel testimony in a situation like this.[quote=“SkyzykS, post:268, topic:226860”]
Now thats comedy!
If that were true criminal defense would just be a formality.
[/quote]
Uh, no it wouldn’t - it means both law enforcement and prosecutors must build a case from scratch on credible information independent of the accused’s own self-testimony. They do that as a matter of course, and it wouldn’t be any different in the prosecution of Flynn for any misdeeds.
If the government has enough bad info on Flynn, and they probably do, his Fifth Amendment right won’t save him from anything, and he’s smart to cut a deal.
"Mike Flynn has reportedly sought immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony about the Trump campaign’s potential ties to Russia, but past comments show that Donald Trump’s former national security adviser once associated immunity with guilt.
“I mean, five people around her have had, have been given immunity to include her chief of staff,” Flynn told NBC’s “Meet the Press” in a September 2016 interview, referring to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s email controversy. “When you are given immunity, that means you have probably committed a crime.”
LOL. The wages of sin.
I honestly cannot understand people who can be embroiled in such rank hypocrisy.
Isn’t that part of a politician’s job description? Trump basically ran half his campaign on hypocrisy.
Sure, but they can’t cant compel or force a prosecutor to carry through with the charge. They have bark, but no bite.
Totally, I just marvel at the mind that can wholeheartedly embrace doublethink as a job requirement.
Super off topic question. Do you think people that already have that mindset go into politics, or does politics push that mindset on them?
I’m always torn, because I like to believe people ENTER politics to truly help, and the system corrupts them in a snowball-esque fashion.
I have no doubt that some people go there to help, and to a certain extent, the party politics and doublethink is necessary to achieve the good because one cannot achieve the perfect. I also wonder if ONLY this type of person went into politics, whether the phenomenon would exist at all.
But I have no doubt that there are some reptiles who go in for self-aggrandisement and personal enrichment.
The size of the population of these 2 camps is an utter mystery, however.
And that is exactly where a lot of cases fall apart. You know how many times I’ve seen LE and prosecutors lie, mis-cite, and just plain flub their way through an attempted prosecution?
Every single one. Hell, in my last at bat I didn’t even hire an attorney. I just consulted with him briefly and had charges not just dropped, but removed from the record, because the fact that they were actually trying to prosecute such crap was proof of violation of my civil rights. It could have even been taken a step further and turned into a civil case, but I just didn’t want to bother.
I don’t know if you practice criminal law or not, but it really doesn’t go down the way you are portraying here. That may be the way it was presented in law school, but that is not always the case, or even near, in court.
Maybe in higher courts, but none that I’ve seen.[quote=“thunderbolt23, post:269, topic:226860”]
If the government has enough bad info on Flynn, and they probably do, his Fifth Amendment right won’t save him from anything, and he’s smart to cut a deal.
[/quote]
I agree. It simply has yet to be shown that this is in fact the case.
Yes, it does - you’re at war with common sense here. Everyone knows the accused isn’t going to testify against himself - you can’t build a case on self-incriminatory evidence. You’re not making any sense - I literally have no idea what your point is.
Maybe I’m just cynical, but I think the latter is substantially larger than the former.
I also believe that most of the people who are truly in it “to help” (the true public-servant types) are serving in local offices. If I’m truly devoted to public service and I really think about where I can do the most good (not like anyone would elect me to public office, but humor me) most of the time the answer comes back to doing good in my own community. In our neck of the woods, there’s a gentleman named John Fetterman - born in my hometown of Reading, PA; raised in York, PA; went to Albright College for undergrad, eventually Harvard for graduate school; went to work for AmeriCorps and eventually became Mayor of Braddock, which is the poorest and most run-down section of Pittsburgh (let’s just say the Google and Uber tech influx hasn’t made its way there yet). He has a rough-around-the-edges personality (he was the speaker at my graduate-school graduation and showed up wearing cargo shorts, lol) but he has always struck me as a “right reasons” kind of guy - I mean, who gets a Master’s from Harvard, then moves to the poorest part of town for a job making $30K a year and lives in the basement of an abandoned church while working his fingers to the bone to revitalize the neighborhood? That’s a dude who has gone into politics to help. He’s never going to be a Senator, but he’s done more good where he is than he could ever do in the Senate anyway.
Courts allow for a lot of prosecutorial discretion here, but ultimately, yes, Congress can compel a U.S. Attorney to go through with a contempt charge.
Alternatively, Congress can skip criminal contempt and go the civil route, where they can appear themselves and skip asking the DOJ to enforce.
And? You’re making the point that without self-incriminating testimony, prosecutors have a hard time proving their case. Sure they do. So what? I’m not saying anything different.
I’m saying Flynn won’t benefit from pleading the Fifth if they have a big stack of evidence against him - it won’t save him. And he wouldn’t be talking immunity of they didn’t have damning stuff against him.