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: 4, Interesting) by WizardFusion on Friday March 31 2017, @01:07PM (38 children)
He'll be dead within a week due to an "accident".
(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.
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by Fishscene on Friday March 31 2017, @01:30PM (1 child)
No that's Clinton - the other candidate hell-bent on removing freedoms.
I know I am not God, because every time I pray to Him, it's because I'm not perfect and thankful for what He's done.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @08:22PM
Some fuck face needs to get over it.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Friday March 31 2017, @06:43PM
Trump, not Clinton.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @06:44PM
You Sir are mistaken, he worked for Trump not Killary.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by wisnoskij on Friday March 31 2017, @01:45PM (25 children)
That is a very creative way to frame the statement made. The entire statement was made in the context of The 5th. He will not volunteer to talk people who are trying to build a criminal case against him and who he claims have been spreading lies and rumors about him. He wants to tell him side of the story, with respect to the "claims of treason" against himself but will not do so in front of a combative congress whose only goal would be to build a case against HIM.
Quoting the entirely of the meat of the statement:
Notwithstanding his life of national service, the media are awash with unfounded allegations,
outrageous claims of treason, and vicious innuendo directed against him [Flynn]. 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.
March 30, 2017
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @02:07PM (12 children)
It's so sad that one needs to turn to "alternative media" to actually start getting access to even the simple and complete facts behind these stories. And yeah, what you said is correct - though incomplete. Here is the entire release from his lawyer:
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.
Sourced from zerohedge [zerohedge.com]. Not a fan of the source, but they're obviously not fabricating this and they were one of the only sources reporting the actual text of Flynn's "offer." The other being the Boston Globe but they were behind some sort of a registration wall. The way I sought out the entire report was by googling for the first statement of the quote, "Notwithstanding his life of national service, the media are awash with unfounded allegations." Searching for that and seeing how the so called mainstream media is in no way reporting what was actually said is eye opening.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Friday March 31 2017, @03:03PM (9 children)
I actually got the full statement from CNN, since that is the first result Google returned. CNN just assumed that few would read the entire statement and 99% would just believe anything they told them even with the evidence against their statements just 1 inch down the screen. A very ballsy move, but it always works well for them.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @04:04PM (3 children)
What did you search for? Searching for what I mentioned (logged out - clean cache) I get bostonglobe, zerohedge, abcnews.go.com, talkingpointsmemo, businessinsider.de, bustle.com, etc. The ABC article ( http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/flynn-talks-testify-congress-seeking-assurances-unfair-prosecution/story?id=46478140 [go.com] ) had the quote embedded in parts, but was refreshingly impartial otherwise. Zerohedge was the only site that had the quote readily and directly available.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Friday March 31 2017, @04:12PM (1 child)
"flynn lawyer statement"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @04:18PM
Thanks, yeah I also get cnn's link there with zerohedge in second. I do quite like CNN says, literally and verbatim, "This is the statement released by Michael Flynn's lawyer, which says the former National Security Adviser will testify before federal and congressional investigators in their ongoing probe into Russian meddling in the US elections, but only if he's granted immunity." above it. Geeze. I remember in college watching CNN and feeling like I'd grown up in a way and was starting to become in tune with matters of the world. Hahahah. In my defense, I don't think they'd jumped the shark quite so bad back then!
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday April 02 2017, @02:30AM
The Boston Globe did carry the full statement:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/03/30/read-statement-mike-flynn-lawyer/6L09AKaYKmihEgHlXxTWUM/story.html [bostonglobe.com]
Apart from white space and "U.S." vs. "US" it is identical to what was quoted from Zero Hedge in comment #487083.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday April 02 2017, @02:47AM (4 children)
The CNN links, in case anyone else is trying to follow along:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/31/politics/michael-flynn-lawyer-statement/ [cnn.com]
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politics/michael-flynn-immunity-testimony/index.html [cnn.com]
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/3533241/Statement-of-Counsel-to-Mike-Flynn.txt [amazonaws.com]
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/3533241/Statement-of-Counsel-to-Mike-Flynn.pdf [amazonaws.com]
The .txt version is identical to what's posted in comment #487083.
> [...] the evidence against their statements [...]
What do you mean by that?
Are you, as the AC who made comment #487139 perceived, making some distinction between "immunity" (CNN's word) and "assurances against unfair prosecution" (from the statement)? Forgive me for repeating what someone else wrote, but I notice that you didn't answer that commenter. "Immunity" seems to me an accurate paraphrase.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Sunday April 02 2017, @03:34AM (3 children)
On the off chance you are not trolling.
The article states, like so many others, Flynn is looking for immunity to testify against Trump.
While the statement is clear that Flynn is very interested in refuting allegations of treason and misconduct by himself, but not front of a media or congress who are only interested in a witch hunt.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday April 02 2017, @07:39AM (2 children)
So you interpret the statement not as a request for "assurances against unfair prosecution" but rather as asking for an end to the "highly politicized, witch hunt environment" in which Mr. Flynn finds himself?
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Sunday April 02 2017, @11:48AM (1 child)
Somewhat, but I was mainly focusing on his stated goal of refuting allegations about himself, while the articles all state or imply his goal is to spill the beans on presidential misconduct.
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Sunday April 02 2017, @03:02PM
Ah, thanks for explaining.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @08:32PM (1 child)
Your zerohedge site is a nazi fake news site. What the fuck is wrong with you?
If you want unbiased new feed, leave amerikan soil. BBC and Al Jazerra are but a couple good choices for unbiased journalism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @09:56PM
Best troll ever!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by wisnoskij on Friday March 31 2017, @02:23PM (1 child)
It really is a perfect example. Flynn worries that anything he says will be used against him, since he believes that the media and congress are on a witch hunt with him at the center. The media deceitfully quotes an excerpt from this statement to make it seem like he is trying to get a deal so that he can rat out the Trump administration.
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Friday March 31 2017, @07:17PM
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Friday March 31 2017, @02:29PM (5 children)
Then Mr. Flynn can be subpoenaed, brought to testify, take the 5'th, and let the public and Congress make what they will of it. Otherwise, he's just another Washington pussy - always ready to ask for special privileges when it suits them.
That is all.
(Score: 1) by Zipf on Friday March 31 2017, @02:54PM (3 children)
Can you plead the 5th if you have immunity?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fadrian on Friday March 31 2017, @03:42PM (2 children)
No. But again, that's sort of beside the point, which is that Mr. Flynn's fear of prosecution based on his testimony is groundless - he can always take the 5'th if he really fears that, and if he's innocent, the FBI investigation should find that out. Now if he does have stuff to hide or has actually violated the law, I'm sure the FBI investigation already has enough evidence to hang him. But that just makes the plea for immunity savvy - not particularly praiseworthy. In any case, I'm glad that pussy isn't anywhere near the hands of policy anymore - if he can't stand a few hours questioning from Congress, what else could he have caved on... What a Washington pussy.
That is all.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday March 31 2017, @05:56PM
Yeah, didn't these people ever watch Dave Chappelle [youtube.com]?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @07:10PM
No. But again, that's sort of beside the point, which is that Mr. Flynn's fear of prosecution based on his testimony is groundless - he can always take the 5'th if he really fears that, and if he's innocent, the FBI investigation should find that out. Now if he does have stuff to hide or has actually violated the law, I'm sure the FBI investigation already has enough evidence to hang him. But that just makes the plea for immunity savvy - not particularly praiseworthy. In any case, I'm glad that pussy isn't anywhere near the hands of policy anymore - if he can't stand a few hours questioning from Congress, what else could he have caved on... What a Washington pussy.
Because we all know if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. I mean, if you aren't a member of the Communist Party, you have nothing to worry about from McCarthy's innocent questions, right?
Personally I think Flynn is guilty of all sorts of things, potentially including treason ("adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"). That being said, I have no concrete evidence of it, and that whole "presumption of innocence" thing applies so I'll need to side with him.
I could see a kangaroo-court inquiry, trying to railroad a completely innocent man, undergoing proceedings superficially similar to this one. If we condemn Flynn's actions here as "obvious evidence of guilt," then we ourselves will have no defense if the Trump Administration starts attacking each and every one of us.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @06:47PM
Of course, when Hillary staffer plead the 5th on email it was no big deal. If he does it that means that Trump is a Russian Plant!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @04:15PM (3 children)
> assurances against unfair prosecution.
You seem really hung up on the fact that the letter didn't literally use the word "immunity."
The law makes no distinction between "fair" and "unfair" prosecution.
That's just PR spin so hyper-partisans who are motivated to deny the obvious will have something to give them succor.
"Immunity" isn't a word that appears in the legal code.
What his lawyers are requesting is what is colloquially known as immunity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @04:56PM (2 children)
Dragging up a law that is literally more than 200 years old and under which again literally not a single person has ever been prosecuted to try to possibly convict somebody of doing something which is more or less standard practice is generally what most would call unfair prosecution. A similar thing happened during the Occupy Wallstreet protests. New York City had a law on the books, again more than 150 years old, on the books about it being illegal to wear a mask in the city going back to some tenant farmer uprising they were having. After its passage it went through about a century of completely disuse since it was just about the one specific issue which resolved a few years later. Nonetheless it was brought back up to give the city an excuse to go start arresting otherwise law abiding and peaceful Occupy Wallstreet protesters - they were wearing Guy Fawkes masks.
If you think these sort of things are about upholding the law and not political retribution, then I would say you might want to look in the mirror before calling others "hyper-partisans." One of the big failings of our system is that laws never expire allowing them to be exploited to malicious ends many decades after they should have been retired. So for instance simply requiring that any offense he be charged with be a law that has been 'regularly invoked' and is not for behavior generally seen as otherwise lawful would be a means of protecting himself against unfair prosecution without seeking outright immunity.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday March 31 2017, @06:10PM
The law against murder is also more than 200 years old. That doesn't make it not a good law to go after somebody about.
There was 1 indictment under the Logan Act, so it's not like the law has never ever been used. However, there's a good argument that the reason that it tends not to come up is that the people known to have broken that law end up being the very same people in charge of enforcing it and thus escaped prosecution due to corruption. A couple of major examples of this phenomenon:
- Richard Nixon and his staff sabotage LBJ's attempts to end the Vietnam War in 1968 [nytimes.com]
- Ronald Reagan and his staff sabotage Jimmy Carter's negotiations to try to get the Iranian hostages back in 1980 [washingtonreport.me]
What you are calling "standard practice" is that once a presidential election is over, the outgoing administration is supposed to hand off their foreign policy knowledge and duties to the incoming administration. Since both of those cases occurred before the election, and the accusations in this case also occurred before the election, that doesn't put it in the same category.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @06:17PM
> Dragging up a law that is literally more than 200 years old
So, you accept that he was asking for immunity. Good. Glad we cleared that up.
Now... Why do you hyper-partisans insist on making this about the logan act?
The guy lied to the FBI exactly the way he lied to Pence.
The logan act has nothing to do with that.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @01:55PM (2 children)
1. Ask for immunity
2. Testify and take all the blame
3. No one goes to jail
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @02:31PM (1 child)
Then, a few years later you get to get your own shows on the Fox network a la Ollie.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @03:29PM
Semper Lie.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @02:37PM (13 children)
I don't really understand what this is all about, I mean, yes I understand what people are trying to claim, but I just can't see the error in it.
Unless Russia directly tampered with votes, everything else is fair game right? I've heard and seen many European ministers and heads of state openly support Hilary on European national television/radio. So what if they talked to some Russian diplomats, Hilary was the minister of foreign affairs, so she should've not talked to anyone as soon as she made her intentions for presidency clear??
P.S.: I'm from Europe, may be missing some background...
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @02:47PM (9 children)
The background you're missing was the ENTIRE ELECTION. Trump lost the popular vote but won the electoral college via Russian inference in flyover states by pushing fake news against Clinton and Democrats in general. Had fake news narratives not been pushed so hard, like the insanely stupid "pizzagate" nonsense, these poor rural folks would have not had their consciences swayed and Clinton would have rightfully won.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @03:05PM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @04:39PM (1 child)
Loli haet pizza. :(
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @07:05PM
Sometimes you need the classics. Like the free candy van.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @03:16PM
What has been shown without a doubt is that Podesta was "hacked" by clicking on a password reset phishing email that sent him to some dodgy .tk site where he then had enter his credentials. This phishing scheme was also endorsed as genuine by their utterly incompetent "tech team." Later revealed is that they were using credentials, even if only temporarily, such as jpodesta:p@ssw0rd. With this sort of technical knowledge, they were likely hacked by every single intelligence agency in the world, and a good chunk of enthusiasts. Attributing everything to Russia reeks of politicking. Also the evidence for such claims is self contradictory. They're supposed to be primo-ultra-elite hackers yet the way they were outed was by leaving giant packages that lead right back to them along with using domains that also led right back to them. That doesn't really make any sense at all.
There was and continues to be enormous amounts of "fake news" on both sides of the aisle. As has been pointed out, this very thread is an example of such. It's obviously trying to imply that Flynn is ready to drop bombshells. Here's what Flynn's statement actually says:
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.
(Score: 2) by n1 on Friday March 31 2017, @04:49PM (1 child)
It looks like Joe Biden has been infiltrated by the Russians too...
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politics/joe-biden-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/index.html [cnn.com]
People had a choice between more of the same and something audibly different... Two very unpopular candidates faced off in an election where the end result was not going to please the majority of people.
Russia almost certainly did interfere with the election, spreading propaganda, the same way that various US and other international government institutions spread propaganda covertly and overtly to influence public opinion around the world. There were vast PR machines at work for either side.... One of the biggest successes was having places like CNN and other 'MSM' continually give a platform to Trump every time he said anything, which would resonate with an notable percentage of society who has felt alienated by the last 8 years of federal government rhetoric.
Foreign policy, which is my primary concern being not in the US... I see basically no difference between Trump so far and what I would have expected from Clinton... In actions taken not words uttered.
We continue on the same path, but with suitable branding that placates a section of the political spectrum that has felt unrepresented for the majority of the last decade.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @06:19PM
You've got some weird logic going on there.
Nobody loses a campaign because they did everything wrong.
Nor does anyone win a campaign because they did everything right.
Whatever mistakes clinton made, russia compounded her problems.
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Friday March 31 2017, @08:47PM (2 children)
For me and a lot of people I know, Hillary's own words denegrating 50% of Americans as irredemable is what lost her votes. I do not know anyone swayed by pizzagate, and I know a lot of rednecks. Her attitude about deserving the office instead of earning the office turned a lot of people off, they didn't vote for Trump they voted for Jill, Gary, or stayed home.
But I could be wrong in assuming that 70 thousand people in PA voted against her because "pizzagate is real" .
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @10:43PM
For me and a lot of people I know, Hillary's own words denegrating 50% of Americans as irredemable is what lost her votes.
So, the entire country is now trump voters?
Because her own words were actually, "you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables."
The fact that you literally just said that you voted against clinton based on a lie really does not help your argument that people were not swayed by lies.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday March 31 2017, @11:53PM
She said "half of trump's supporters," meaning at most a smidge under 25% of the adult population. And if anything, this election and its aftermath have proven that her estimate is probably too low, not too high. Now getcher ass back in th' basket.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @04:20PM (2 children)
Unless Russia directly tampered with votes, everything else is fair game right? I've heard and seen many European ministers and heads of state openly support Hilary on European national television/radio.
Making a public statement of support where everybody knows who is speaking and exactly what they said is entirely different. Russia has been working a massive disinformation campaign, spreading lies to gullible people. And it isn't just the US, they've done it in Ukraine and are currently doing it in Germany. Probably doing it in other baltic states to. Putin has a whole bunch of motives, from fracturing NATO to convincing Russian citizens that rule by autocrat isn't any worse than rule by democracy.
(Score: 2) by n1 on Friday March 31 2017, @05:34PM (1 child)
Much of the report on the Russian propaganda/election interference focused on RT, which is exactly what you want... People knowing where it's coming from... Obviously it doesn't end there for Russian propaganda... But then from the NATO side there are hundreds if not thousands of think-tanks, lobbyists and corporate interest who do make propaganda to deceive and lie by omission which supports their ongoing business relationships with governments and policy making groups around the world, especially in the US and UK... These are often directly funded by the government, and staffed by people who have been in government and or military positions, but are promoted as academic/research groups, which just happen to continually support government policy with very few or no caveats... The worst they will ask is for the government or sponsors to spend more time and money doing what they're already doing. Manufacturing consent and consensus.
There's been enough disinformation in Ukraine from every possible angle for decades... Much like the Kurds in the middle east, Ukrainians and residents of Crimea especially are just pawns in other people's geopolitical games...
But if fracturing NATO was the plan, it's been a massive backfire since the key NATO players are not pushing for an end to NATO, they want more of it. More military spending from all NATO members. Trump administration can only praise the alliance now, just wishing it had more money and equipment.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-us-nato-idUKKBN1721DJ [reuters.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @06:11PM
> But if fracturing NATO was the plan, it's been a massive backfire
Don't confuse results with intentions.
Only omnipotence can guarantee results and if you are omnipotent, you don't have to dick around with secret machinations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @02:49PM (3 children)
Will Trump finish out his term?
As always, it's not the crime, but the coverup that brings about downfall.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @04:13PM
You forget he as powerful friends https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_908w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/05/13/Foreign/Images/AFP_AK8RE.jpg&w=1000 [washingtonpost.com]
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Friday March 31 2017, @08:43PM (1 child)
In this case it is the non-crime and the constant demand that something legal was a crime.
Note: Flynn is guilty as sin of taking money from enemy states. Flynn is guilty of doing stuff and lying to his bosses about it. Flynn is not guilty of this Russian stuff.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @08:52PM
Why the coverup if it's "non-crime"?
What the FUCK?! English, do you speak it, motherfucker?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday March 31 2017, @03:57PM (5 children)
Request Rejected! [cnbc.com]
The Senate Intelligence Committee has rejected Michael Flynn's request for immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election, congressional sources told NBC News.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @04:07PM (4 children)
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
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
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)
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
I was drunk, and I was driving, but I wasn't drunk-driving.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Friday March 31 2017, @06:50PM (10 children)
Hillary could be President today, but refused to run with the momentum of Bernie Sanders by making him the VP candidate. All she had to do was build off his enthusiastic support, but instead she chose the bland, uncharismatic Tim Kaine. What did he provide her? A few thousand votes at best? Even old Joe Biden would have been a better option than the imminently forgettable Tim Kaine.
So when the Democrats complain that "Russia stole the election" what they mean is that white middle-America voted "the wrong way". As urban elites, they look down on those same voters, who they view as gullible idiots. Their line of thinking is basically that "Russian (maybe) hackers stole our emails (true) and the release of this information influenced the election (unprovable)." Never do they positively consider these middle-American voters in their planks or messaging.
What they never utter is Hillary's hawkish stances and proven ineptitude in handling the American response to the Arab Spring showed she was both a threat to Russian interests both at Russia's border and beyond. Hillary is such a non-Democrat in that regard that for the first time in decades the Republican candidate was seen by the Russians as a friendlier option. So every time they mention with hysteria how the Russians influenced this election, are just upset they didn't have Russian help this round?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @07:09PM (7 children)
This is not about Hillary, this is about Trump. Hillary is history; Trump is working hard to make history, the second president to get kicked out of the office.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @07:49PM (6 children)
There was another? Nixon resigned, which is close but different. I'm drawing a blank otherwise.
I think Trump is going for a frist here.
Please enlighten me if I am ignorant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @07:56PM (5 children)
Nixon DEFINITELY got kicked out of the office. He pulled all kinds of bullshit to cover up and drag out the drama, but in the end, it became pretty damn apparent that the Senate was gonna kick him out of the office, so he resigned pretty much at the last minute.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday March 31 2017, @08:23PM (4 children)
And Andrew Johnson avoided a similar fate by the skin of his teeth. The vote to impeach him failed by a single vote in Congress in the aftermath of the Civil War.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @08:31PM
The difference is, Nixon was actually impeached, and was about to be removed from the office.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @08:36PM (2 children)
You cannot compare Civil War era politics with the Nixon era, completely different beasts.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday March 31 2017, @09:19PM (1 child)
Well sure. Just pointing out Nixon wasn't really the first one either.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 01 2017, @09:33PM
You are right, actually, and I was wrong. Johnson actually was impeached, but the impeachment was overturned by the Senate with the margin of one vote.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @07:15PM
> Hillary could be President today, but refused to run with the momentum of Bernie Sanders by making him the VP candidate.
Nah, that's just wishful thinking on your part based on your like for Sanders.
The primary motivator for Trump voters was authoritarianism, of which racism is a subset.
Sanders couldn't do anything to mute Trump's ability to activate their latent racism.
And his own politics could easily have pushed away reagan democrats.
So maybe your idealized version of the race would have been true, but there is good reason to think you are completely wrong.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tangomargarine on Friday March 31 2017, @08:21PM
Even old Joe Biden would have been a better option than the imminently forgettable Tim Kaine.
I think you mean "eminently." This is one of those areas where English gets really stupid.
em·i·nent·ly
ˈemənəntlē/Submit
adverb
to a notable degree; very.
"an eminently readable textbook"
im·mi·nent
ˈimənənt/Submit
adjective
1.
about to happen.
"they were in imminent danger of being swept away"
im·ma·nent
ˈimənənt/Submit
adjective
existing or operating within; inherent.
"the protection of liberties is immanent in constitutional arrangements"
(of God) permanently pervading and sustaining the universe.
But as for the actual topic, the entire thing is too funny. Both Dems and Reps (well, Trump, anyway) are whining that the election wasn't fair. Wouldn't surprise me if Russia was attempting to meddle in the election somewhat, but the Dems were probably more than capable of screwing the pooch on their own anyway so whatever. And Hillary is a flashback to that meme from the previous election, of Romney sitting in his campaign trailer looking stunned, "What do you mean, I didn't win?" :)
And other days it just rains. Such do many things come to pass.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"