SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has reportedly offered to testify about President Trump's campaign and Russia:
President Trump's former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has reportedly told the FBI that he is willing to testify about the Trump campaign's potential ties to Russia, in exchange for immunity from prosecution, the Wall Street Journal reported.
Flynn resigned in February, after it was reported that he misled White House staff on his interactions with Russia and had discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak ahead of President Trump's inauguration. The Journal reported, citing officials familiar with the matter, that the FBI and the House and Senate Intelligence committees that are investigating Russia's attempts to interfere in the U.S. election have not taken his lawyers up on the offer.
Flynn's lawyer said in a statement that "General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should the circumstances permit."
[...] In September, criticizing Hillary Clinton over former aides being given immunity deals as part of an investigation into her private email server, Flynn said, "When you're given immunity that means you've probably committed a crime."
Also at the LA Times, the Washington Post, Bloomberg, NYT, and Politico.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @01:23PM (33 children)
If you go and read the letter from his council [twimg.com], it mentions "assurances against unfair prosecution" and not immunity. Claiming Flynn is seeking immunity is #FakeNews.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @01:42PM (10 children)
What is "unfair prosecution?" What would be fair prosecution?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @01:50PM
Presumably, unfair prosecution in this case would involve prosecution under a strict interpretation of the Logan act when every incoming administration for over a century has established diplomatic contact with representatives from other countries (sanctions or not). What do you think he meant?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Geezer on Friday March 31 2017, @02:33PM (3 children)
Prosecutorial misconduct, including contrived charges, is a thing.
In law, it is axiomatic that the civil and penal codes are so big and vague that everyone everywhere is guilty of something. Selective enforcement is a common political and economic weapon.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @04:38PM (1 child)
In law, it is axiomatic that the civil and penal codes are so big and vague that everyone everywhere is guilty of something. Selective enforcement is a common political and economic weapon.
That's inherently unjust. A just society would hold citizens accountable only to a brief and comprehensible code of laws. In such a society, where a citizen fully understands all the constraints placed upon him, there is no need for lawyers. This was true in ancient Athens, where both sides of a case presented their arguments themselves without legal counsel.
When lawyers have a place in the legal process and "a man who defends himself has a fool for a client," the legal system has become corrupt and unjust. That injustice largely stems from the presence of those same lawyers within the legislative process. Lawyers run the law-making bodies and have a vested interest in multiplying the laws and their complexity in order to keep themselves employed, to the detriment of the citizens.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday March 31 2017, @05:34PM
And what's your point?
True justice exists only in fairy tales. Out here in the real world you get only as much justice as you can pay for - either by bribing corrupt judges, or actively participating in legislative and judicial oversight to deny the rich the opportunity to do the same.
Bribery can only buy justice when the wronged is the wealthier party, and oversight requires that a sizable portion of the population are willing to get, and *stay*, organized in providing oversight (and funding for it). But people are lazy, and are easily lured into complacency so long as they aren't personally forced to face severe corruption. And so we get the current situation.
(Score: 2) by deadstick on Friday March 31 2017, @10:13PM
the civil and penal codes are so big and vague that everyone everywhere is guilty of something
Mais bien sur, Cardinal Richelieu.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday March 31 2017, @05:25PM (4 children)
What would be fair prosecution?
9 separate, multi-million dollar, investigations into the evidence-free Benghazi scandal.
What is "unfair prosecution?"
A single investigation into the evidence-full Russia scandal.
(Score: 3, Informative) by shortscreen on Friday March 31 2017, @07:56PM (3 children)
There is no evidence. There is no scandal. The coordinated Russophobia campaign is just that. And it's coming from the same idiots who insist that anyone disagreeing with them MUST be racist/xenophobic/bigoted/etc.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday March 31 2017, @09:06PM
There Is More Than Circumstantial Evidence Now - Senate Intelligence Committee Member Adam Schiff [theatlantic.com]
"...there is evidence that is “not circumstantial” of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government."
He is privvy to classified information that not even all the other members of the House are allowed to see. Expect it to come out at the trial and not before then.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @10:32PM (1 child)
> There is no evidence. There is no scandal. The coordinated Russophobia campaign is just that.
Dude. Trump himself said Russia interfered with the election.
“As far as hacking, I think it was Russia,” [washingtonpost.com]
And that wasn't just another case of meaningless word salad spilling from his mouth, Rinse Prius confirmed it too:
Trump acknowledges Russia role in U.S. election hacking: aide [reuters.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday March 31 2017, @11:55PM
Do you believe anything people say, including people who love being blatantly sarcastic and offensive? If so, then I have a 10-inch dick I gotta show you sometime.
Does trump's comments, even the ones about "I hope they have Hillary's missing E-mails" constitute a confession or breach of classified information? Does it mean that Trump is going to blow his chances being president and potentially leaking classified information by making an asinine comment even though it's quite possible he had no idea who had the e-mails?
I'm gonna say again what everybody else with half a brain is saying already -- the leftists fifth-columnists are shitting their pants and desperate. They are desperately grasping for diversions. There's something stinky going on and they're scared to death about it being discovered -- though it seems that there are a few Republicans involved in that shady business as well -- and I hope it's big and the lid gets blown off of it. I'm thinking any combination of Hastings, 9/11, Benghazi, MH17, using the refugee crisis to deliberately destabilize Europe to prevent a threat to American hegemony, or far more nefarious plots that were planned or put into motion. Good thing Wikileaks has more leaks coming.
Suppose that the communications did involve offering concessions or improving relations with Russia, is that a bad thing? To prevent conflict? For fuck's sake, it's not like Flynn gave them the self-destruct codes to the nukes. What I think Trump should do is team up with the Russkies and stomp the Islamic savages of the Middle-East, then all White nations work to expel the Islamic filth from within their borders.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @02:04PM (16 children)
Fake news? So who is spreading it? This from POTUS tweet this morning:
Mike Flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch hunt (excuse for big election loss), by media & Dems, of historic proportion!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 31, 2017
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @02:27PM
Mike Flynn should ask.... should ask != asked for.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @02:28PM (5 children)
The 'fake news' media is spreading it. What Flynn's lawyer's statement actually said is:
Counsel to Lt. General Mike Flynn (Retired)
General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should the circumstances permit.
Out of respect for the Committees, we will not comment right now on the details of discussions between counsel for General Flynn and the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, other than to confirm that those discussions have taken place. But it is important to acknowledge the circumstances in which those discussions are occurring.
General Flynn is a highly decorated 33-year veteran of the U.S. Army. He devoted most of his life to serving his country, spending many years away from his family fighting this nation's battles around the world. He was awarded four Bronze Stars for actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the war on terror. He received the Legion of Merit twice, and the Defense Superior Service Medal four times. He is a recipient of the Defense Department's Distinguished Service Award and the Intelligence Community Gold Seal Medallion for Distinguished Service, as well as numerous other decorations.
Notwithstanding his life of national service, the media are awash with unfounded allegations, outrageous claims of treason, and vicious innuendo directed against him. He is now the target of unsubstantiated public demands by Members of Congress and other political critics that he be criminally investigated. 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.
Flynn (or his lawyer) is saying the same thing as Trump. Congress's 'inquiries' are increasingly reminiscent of the red scares where people were prosecuted using extremely broad interpretations of acts that were in no way intended to be used as they were. He can be legally obligated to testify and is essentially saying he's happy to tell his story (as opposed to just invoking the 5th over and over) but only so long as he is granted assurances against unfair prosecution. Though the media is trying to suggest he's ready to drop a bomb shell, his actual quotes make it quite clear he believes the inquiries have no merit and wants to talk - but is nonetheless understandably concerned about the kangaroo court nature of it all.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday March 31 2017, @03:32PM (2 children)
That letter is the DENIAL!
And you'll note, they don't even deny it: we will not comment right now on the details of discussions
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @03:47PM (1 child)
No, it's not. I mean please look at this rationally. Note the ever recurring quote of "General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should the circumstances permit." That quote is from this statement! They're just taking it out of context and spinning into what really has to be called fake news.
You'll also note that more reputable sources are making an effort at providing at least some context. For instance [go.com] :
In an article more accurately titled, "Flynn in talks to testify before Congress, seeking 'assurances against unfair prosecution'", ABC reports:
A spokesman for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., denied that Flynn "offered to testify to HPSCI in exchange for immunity." A Democratic aide on the panel concurred that to date Flynn has not requested immunity from prosecution.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday March 31 2017, @03:59PM
Nunes has lost all credibility on this topic dues to his own actions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @08:15PM (1 child)
"The 'fake news' media is spreading it."
Can you be any more vague?
Well, which one is it? Breitbart or Fox that is spreading fake news headlines this time?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @11:42PM
NPR.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @02:40PM (2 children)
This is not what the letter says and Trumps tweet is a suggestion - *should ask for immunity*. There's never been a single prosecution brought under the Logan Act, there is even some question as to the constitutionality of the Act itself. Desperate, flimsy stuff.
Meanwhile... [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @03:57PM (1 child)
> There's never been a single prosecution brought under the Logan Act,
His legal troubles aren't just limited to Logan Act prosecutions.
Seems like he lied to the FBI the same way he lied to Pence.
That's got nothing to do with the Logan Act.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 01 2017, @12:16AM
Indeed, but while we're on the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law HRC and everybody around her is already going to prison. Silver linings and all that!
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @03:35PM (4 children)
They need to appoint a Special Prosecutor. Hillary Clinton is a lawyer. That would be just perfect.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Nerdfest on Friday March 31 2017, @04:50PM (1 child)
You spelled "liar" wrong.
Oh ... no, I guess you didn't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @08:20PM
There are 3 ways to spell "liar". First is of course "liar". Next is "Trump". The last would be "politician".
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday March 31 2017, @05:02PM (1 child)
That would be funny as hell. Corrupt and wrong, but funny as hell :D
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @05:34PM
Would be having the two parties decide the judicial outcome via trial by combat, winner takes the presidency.
Come at me bro! Or is that ho?
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @03:43PM
They need to appoint a Special Prosecutor. Hillary is a lawyer. That would be just perfect.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday March 31 2017, @03:25PM
"we will not comment right now on the details of the discussions between council for General Flynn and Senate Intelligence Committee other than to confirm those discussions have taken place."
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday March 31 2017, @03:37PM (2 children)
The source of the claim (of seeking immunity) is not that letter. That letter is mere damage control (and doesn't even deny the claim).
From the LA Times article:
President Trump's former national security advisor, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, has been seeking immunity from prosecution in return for testifying to the House and Senate intelligence committees, a congressional official confirmed Thursday.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @03:52PM (1 child)
Ah, so we go from taking things out of context to "anonymous sources"? You'll note that ABC [go.com] has quite a different take on the story:
A spokesman for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., denied that Flynn "offered to testify to HPSCI in exchange for immunity." A Democratic aide on the panel concurred that to date Flynn has not requested immunity from prosecution.
This is somewhere between very dirty media and outright fake news.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @03:59PM
Nunes's credibility is in the shitter. Citing him is like saying, "and here is the official lie."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by vux984 on Friday March 31 2017, @04:39PM
That's a distinction without a difference.
"assurances against unfair prosecution" is "immunity". The prosecution and defense simply aren't going be able to pre-agree on exactly what charges are on or off the table, that never happens. If they prosecution promises not to try him under the logan act, the defense is not going to be ... ok, we're good now. The only practical outcome where he won't just recite his 5th amendment right will be 'immunity' from all prosecution.