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: 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.