Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday March 31 2017, @01:04PM   Printer-friendly
from the trump-card dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @04:07PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @04:07PM (#487134)

    There was nothing to reject, haven't you been paying attention?
    He never asked for immunity, he just asked for a commitment not to be prosecuted for anything he did.
    Its totally different!!

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @04:27PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @04:27PM (#487147)

    Then why is the senate announcing their rejection, if such a request was never brought before them to consider?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @04:38PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @04:38PM (#487153)

    Do you know one of the last times our congress got fired up about trying to 'Find the reds' we ended up prosecuting people literally because of party affiliation?

    A biased government with an agenda is very dangerous. We have so many laws on the books that if a congress really wants to find a reason to prosecute somebody, they're going to be able to do so. In the cases I'm referencing it was the Smith Act. [wikipedia.org] It doesn't sound so bad. It just makes it illegal to actively advocate for the overthrow of the government. Yet that was applied ever more broadly and began to achieve prosecutions for party affiliation. Some of the targets there include Elizabeth Flynn [wikipedia.org] (presumably no relation) who was one of the founding members of the ACLU. Most of the abuse was overturned by the supreme court a decade later. But the point is that, "if you're innocent you have nothing to hide" is never a good argument, and especially not when going before a biased inquiry.

  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday March 31 2017, @05:27PM (1 child)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday March 31 2017, @05:27PM (#487185) Journal

    He never asked for immunity, he just asked for a commitment not to be prosecuted for anything he did.

    Correct, the non-immunity he didn't say he didn't ask for has been rejected.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @06:13PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @06:13PM (#487207)

      I was drunk, and I was driving, but I wasn't drunk-driving.