What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn (6 Viewers)

McGarnicle said:
But isn't Trump asking Comey to lay off Flynn (which Trump denies) a key component of the obstruction charge? 

It's hard to get too excited about this stuff knowing the POS tea party types in congress will find any shred of BS to vote no on impeachment.
Click to expand...
Congressional Republican can't actually allow this to ever get to hearings 

  • June 15, 2016: “There’s two people I think Putin pays:"
Like all good jokes it was funny amongst them because it was ....

 
Can somebody give me a brief summary of The View and D batteries? Very intriguing.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It’s gotta really get under Rubio and Cruz’s skin that they lost to this guy.

Every night they brutally beat pillows on their beds in between sips of whiskey diluted by their tears as they yell “trump! Trump! ####### Trump!”

 
Rirruto said:
It depends what you mean. The feds technically have no power over how the state charges are handled. But that's not how it works in real life. There's generally some level of cooperation or at least communication between the two. While you can be charged for the exact same crime in federal and state courts, you won't be.

This is not a typical investigation. It's already leaked that Mueller's team has worked with the AG in NY. Flynn's plea, which requires him to cooperate with state and local authorities, also points to that cooperation.

So the answer is no, but yes.
Click to expand...
In lawyer speak, "maybe."  The answer is almost always "maybe."

 
In this whole thing, Russia has come across like these genius spy lords that don't make mistakes. Easy to do relative to the Donnie Two Scoops All Stars I realize. But when do we get to hating on Russia for messing with our biz? 

 
adonis said:
It’s gotta really get under Rubio and Cruz’s skin that they lost to this guy.

Every night they brutally beat pillows on their beds in between sips of whiskey diluted by their tears as they yell “trump! Trump! ####### Trump!”
Click to expand...
It's because the two little latin guys sucked worse than Trump

 
Brony said:
In this whole thing, Russia has come across like these genius spy lords that don't make mistakes. Easy to do relative to the Donnie Two Scoops All Stars I realize. But when do we get to hating on Russia for messing with our biz? 
Click to expand...
Never would have imagined we would be cuckholded by Russia.  40% of the country stands by and watches like the pawn shop owner in Pulp Fiction.  Vile lot.

 
My Evidence professor used to talk about priapism. 

"Does anyone know what priapism is?"

(Girl raises hand)

"I'll bet you do"

This actually happened in a classroom.  

He then wrote our final exam about crack.  

 
Seems we are going back to the defense that the President cannot obstruct justice:

John Dowd, President Trump's outside lawyer, outlined to me a new and highly controversial defense/theory in the Russia probe: A president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice.

The "President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution's Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case," Dowd claims.

Dowd says he drafted this weekend's Trump tweet that many thought strengthened the case for obstruction: The tweet suggested Trump knew Flynn had lied to the FBI when he was fired, raising new questions about the later firing of FBI Director James Comey.

Dowd: "The tweet did not admit obstruction. That is an ignorant and arrogant assertion."

Why it matters: Trump's legal team is clearly setting the stage to say the president cannot be charged with any of the core crimes discussed in the Russia probe: collusion and obstruction. Presumably, you wouldn't preemptively make these arguments unless you felt there was a chance charges are coming.

One top D.C. lawyer told me that obstruction is usually an ancillary charge rather than a principal one, such as aquid pro quo between the Trump campaign and Russians.

But Dems will fight the Dowd theory. Bob Bauer, an NYU law professor and former White House counsel to President Obama, told me: "It is certainly possible for a president to obstruct justice. The case for immunity has its adherents, but they based their position largely on the consideration that a president subject to prosecution would be unable to perform the duties of the office, a result that they see as constitutionally intolerable."

Remember: The Articles of Impeachment against Nixon began by saying he "obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice."

Bob Woodward tells me this "is a legal thicket and really has not been settled":

"I think a president can only be reached through impeachment and removal. But the House and Senate could conclude a president had obstructed, and conclude that was a 'high crime.'"

"In Watergate there was political exhaustion — plus, as Barry Goldwater said, 'too many lies and too many crimes.' These questions are now, in the end, probably up to the Republicans. The evidence was in Nixon's secret tapes. Is there such a path to proof now is one way or the other? We don't know."

Be smart: The one thing everyone agrees on is that the House of Representatives, with its impeachment power, alone decides what is cause for removal from office. For now, at least, the House is run by Republicans.
Click to expand...

 
Sinn Fein said:
Seems we are going back to the defense that the President cannot obstruct justice:
Click to expand...
I think there's a pretty good argument that that is true. At least as far as the law goes. Which means he couldn't be charged criminally for obstruction. But Mueller could still refer the case to Congress and recommend that Congress impeach Trump for obstruction. And Congress could certainly do that under "high crimes and misdemeanors".

This article is a little disappointing in that it deflates the whole thing a bit, but it seems pretty reasonable and ultimately essentially points out that this is going to fall on Congress to handle: http://amp.nationalreview.com/article/454311/mueller-strategy-obstruction-justice-investigation-leading-impeachment

 
GroveDiesel said:
I think there's a pretty good argument that that is true. At least as far as the law goes. Which means he couldn't be charged criminally for obstruction. But Mueller could still refer the case to Congress and recommend that Congress impeach Trump for obstruction. And Congress could certainly do that under "high crimes and misdemeanors".

This article is a little disappointing in that it deflates the whole thing a bit, but it seems pretty reasonable and ultimately essentially points out that this is going to fall on Congress to handle: http://amp.nationalreview.com/article/454311/mueller-strategy-obstruction-justice-investigation-leading-impeachment
Click to expand...
Arguably the president can't be charged with anything, at all, unless he is impeached. So it's redundant. The obstruction charge is a legal issue, which is Mueller's purview, but the act of charging is Congress' purview, which is a political issue.

 
The quick summary of the article above is: 

-Collusion is almost certainly off the table as Mueller would have charged Flynn or Manafort with collusion under the recommended guidelines of the Justice Department and under best practices. That he didn't, reveals that there is either no, or not enough, evidence of collusion

-The case is now an obstruction case which makes it a process case. That is evidenced by what Flynn and Manafort were charged with

-The President, as the head of the Executive branch has wide latitude in his actions and essentially can not obstruct himself criminally. 

-Congress is ultimately the one the only one that can really do anything. And if there is wide proof that Trump did attempt to interfere with the investigation, they definitely have the ability to remove him.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Dowd says he drafted this weekend's Trump tweet that many thought strengthened the case for obstruction: The tweet suggested Trump knew Flynn had lied to the FBI when he was fired, raising new questions about the later firing of FBI Director James Comey.

Dowd: "The tweet did not admit obstruction. That is an ignorant and arrogant assertion."
Click to expand...
Dowd's getting into pretty deep doo-doo all on his own. Either he's lying for Trump, which is bad for him, or he's just crafted a public admission implying guilt for his client, which is also bad. There's also a pretty decent chance he gets questioned by Mueller himself now.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Arguably the president can't be charged with anything, at all, unless he is impeached. So it's redundant. The obstruction charge is a legal issue, which is Mueller's purview, but the act of charging is Congress' purview, which is a political issue.
Click to expand...
Wait...whose is that...it's NYAG Eric Schneiderman

 
GroveDiesel said:
-Collusion is almost certainly off the table as Mueller would have charged Flynn or Manafort with collusion under the recommended guidelines of the Justice Department and under best practices. That he didn't, reveals that there is either no, or not enough, evidence of collusion
Click to expand...
I think you're presuming too much here. There will never be a charge for literally "collusion", it will be money laundering, foreign election assistance, FARA, or espionage, or something similar, and possibly expressed as a quid pro quo for policy influence, likely sanctions. "Coordination" may likely appear in the fact pattern. - Also as to Flynn especially what is not charged is key, that doesn't mean that Flynn won't testify to such things as to others, and in fact right now that's very possible to likely.

 
"So, #realDonaldTrump isn't the real Donald Trump." Advanced 3d chess?

The Republican Congress isn't going to impeach Donald, which is why we have to get rid of the GOP majority by 2020 latest. We'll all be old men if we wait for a Republican congress to do the right thing.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I think you're presuming too much here. There will never be a charge for literally "collusion", it will be money laundering, foreign election assistance, FARA, or espionage, or something similar, and possibly expressed as a quid pro quo for policy influence, likely sanctions. "Coordination" may likely appear in the fact pattern. - Also as to Flynn especially what is not charged is key, that doesn't mean that Flynn won't testify to such things as to others, and in fact right now that's very possible to likely.
Click to expand...
That's just the point. Read the article. It's actually not very likely at all.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I think you're presuming too much here. There will never be a charge for literally "collusion", it will be money laundering, foreign election assistance, FARA, or espionage, or something similar, and possibly expressed as a quid pro quo for policy influence, likely sanctions. "Coordination" may likely appear in the fact pattern. - Also as to Flynn especially what is not charged is key, that doesn't mean that Flynn won't testify to such things as to others, and in fact right now that's very possible to likely.
Click to expand...
Yeah I'd urge people to read Flynn's Statement of Offense (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4319066-Flynn-Statement-of-Offense.html).  It clearly states Mueller is looking into coordination between the Campaign and Russia (Point 2) and that these statements impeded that investigation.  For these false statements to have a material effect on Mueller's ability to investigate that offense would mean those calls to Kislyak matter to the coordination investigation.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
GroveDiesel said:
That's just the point. Read the article. It's actually not very likely at all.
Click to expand...
McCarthy is assuming that the Logan Act is the sole source of the charge to prove his point, and also because that is the only fact pattern in the statement. But aside from being a false assumption, that the facts (basically two) in the filing are the only facts which could be testified to (they're not), it proves too much because if the Logan Act was the only possible underlying charge then Flynn's legal team could have challenged that rather than take the hit. That makes zero sense on its face.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
McCarthy is assuming that the Logan Act is the source of the charge to prove his point, and also because that is the only fact pattern in the statement. But aside from being a false assumption, that the facts (basically two) in the filing are the only facts which could be testified to (they're not), it proves too much because of the Logan Act was the only possible underlying charge then Flynn's legal team could have challenged that rather than take the hit. That makes zero sense on its face.
Click to expand...
Yeah...Flynn agreed that the false statements impeded the coordination investigation, not Logan Act violations.

BTW, Flynn also agreed to FARA act violations vis a vis Turkey (and I won't be shocked if we find out Turkey and Russia are linked closer than they appear...much like Ukraine and Russia with Manafort).

 
so basically according to Trump's lawyers we live in a dictatorship...the President can order someone to commit a crime, pardon that individual, when someone is investigating that individual you can order them to stop the investigation and then when they don't stop that investigation they can fire those individuals.  Can you believe this is where we've gotten to?  Is this the country we want to live in?

  The republican's heads were on fire for Bill Clinton meeting with the AG on a plane and here we are months later with real crimes being committed and we're talking about the PRESIDENT essentially being able to do whatever he wants with no impunity....it's mind boggling...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, reading through the article, McCarthy seems to make a bunch of assumptions and then uses them to come to his conclusion.

Reading his bio... he's a legit person though.  Not your typical FOX News "expert".  Former SDNY prosecutor who's handled big cases.

 
Sammy3469 said:
Yeah...Flynn agreed that the false statements impeded the coordination investigation, not Logan Act violations.

BTW, Flynn also agreed to FARA act violations vis a vis Turkey (and I won't be shocked if we find out Turkey and Russia are linked closer than they appear...much like Ukraine and Russia with Manafort).
Click to expand...
:shrug:   I think they appear to be bosom buddies...

They are strategic allies in Russia's bid to corner the market on natural gas supplies to Europe.  It was not that long ago that Russia seemingly overlooked the assassination of it's ambassador to Turkey...

From an uneducated outsider - it looks to me like in the past few years, Russia has made a play for Ukraine (Crimea) - to gain/keep a port in the Black Sea; they have allied with Turkey and Syria to give them land access for a pipeline, and also access to the Mediterranean Sea - and also a route for Iran's oil to the Mediterranean Sea. 

The US role was to eliminate sanctions and allow for the development of the Northern Oil fields - giving Russia a much stronger position in the oil/gas market - particularly with Europe - thus any discord within Europe itself would give Russia a better chance to divide an conquer that market.

 
GroveDiesel said:
The quick summary of the article above is: 

-Collusion is almost certainly off the table as Mueller would have charged Flynn or Manafort with collusion under the recommended guidelines of the Justice Department and under best practices. That he didn't, reveals that there is either no, or not enough, evidence of collusion
Click to expand...
While some of the foundational statements about federal prosecutors in the article are generally true, the conclusion that collusion is off the table most certainly does not follow.

Things about federal prosecution that are generally true:

-Prosecutors are instructed generally to charge most readily provable offense

-Prosecutors want cooperating co-conspirators to plead guilty to the conspiracy

-Prosecutors would rather their cooperators not be convicted of lying offenses

There are many exceptions to these practices, and the Trump investigation is nothing if not YUUGELY exceptional.

-Prosecutors often charge lesser offenses than the most readily provable one for cooperators, in order to get their maximum sentence down.  For example, participants in murder schemes get non-murder deals all the time in exchange for testimony.  If Flynn only ends up convicted of lying to the FBI, he got a great deal.  However, if he is giving up the goods on the POTUS, he is undisputedly the most valuable cooperator in the history of the American legal system.  The GOAT cooperator deserves a potentially GOAT deal. 

-Prosecutors charge the most readily provable offenses AFTER the investigation is complete.  This investigation is clearly far from over.  We know this because they are still investigating, scheduling witnesses, etc.  And because Flynn's deal requires him to continue helping with investigations.  Sometimes a case starts with a charge or indictment while the investigation continues, and it is very common for a superseding (replacement) indictment to come down, charging the same or additional defendants with the same or greater offenses.  It is also common in large conspiracy investigations for related indictments to come down, charging the same or related defendants with same or related or more serious crimes.  Flynn pleading guilty to lying to an FBI agent in no way means he can never be charged with other offenses.  And Flynn not being charged with Obstruction, or Treason, or Fraud, in no way means Trump can't be charged with those offenses.  Think of public corruption cases in your own state.  They ordinarily start with one guy being indicted, and then the rest of the politicians ####ting their pants worried that the first guy has been wearing a wire.  That first indictment doesn't mean the investigation is over - sometimes it means the investigation is just beginning.

The article's conclusion that Flynn's lying charge means the collusion investigation is over is wrong, because it requires you to first assume the investigation is over.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
roadkill1292 said:
"So, #realDonaldTrump isn't the real Donald Trump." Advanced 3d chess?

The Republican Congress isn't going to impeach Donald, which is why we have to get rid of the GOP majority by 2020 latest. We'll all be old men if we wait for a Republican congress to do the right thing.
Click to expand...
We need to get rid of the GOP because they pose a clear and present danger to the United States.  Their policies alone are going to set us back decades, let alone continuing to allow that #### gibbon to remain in office where he does immeasurable damage to our reputation, and our ability to lead within the world.  Right now - it is completely lost.  I don't think even England would follow us at this stage.  We are moving frighteningly fast towards obsolescence within the world.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
McCarthy is assuming that the Logan Act is the sole source of the charge to prove his point, and also because that is the only fact pattern in the statement. But aside from being a false assumption, that the facts (basically two) in the filing are the only facts which could be testified to (they're not), it proves too much because if the Logan Act was the only possible underlying charge then Flynn's legal team could have challenged that rather than take the hit. That makes zero sense on its face.
Click to expand...
McCarthy is actually saying that the source of the charge doesn't matter, only what the charge is. And that the fact that he wasn't charged with any of the underlying crimes that are much more serious matters and has meaning.

McCarthy is a former well-respected federal prosecutor. If he's wrong, it would likely be because Mueller is not prosecuting the case in a typical way within normal Justice Department guidelines. That could be somewhat understandable considering the circumstances. But I think it would also be somewhat of a concern.

In the meantime, it seems wise for people to temper their expectations given what little we know and given that we have a formal federal prosecutor telling us what the current situation would typically mean.

 
roadkill1292 said:
"So, #realDonaldTrump isn't the real Donald Trump." Advanced 3d chess?

The Republican Congress isn't going to impeach Donald, which is why we have to get rid of the GOP majority by 2020 latest. We'll all be old men if we wait for a Republican congress to do the right thing.
Click to expand...
My internet law professor* taught me that putting #real before a username anything said under that username is legally attributable to the real live person.  It's an offshoot of sovereign citizen theory.

*The internet didn't really exist when I went to law school, other than painfully slow loading galleries of Pamela Anderson playboy pics

 
GroveDiesel said:
McCarthy is actually saying that the source of the charge doesn't matter, only what the charge is. And that the fact that he wasn't charged with any of the underlying crimes that are much more serious matters and has meaning.

McCarthy is a former well-respected federal prosecutor. If he's wrong, it would likely be because Mueller is not prosecuting the case in a typical way within normal Justice Department guidelines. That could be somewhat understandable considering the circumstances. But I think it would also be somewhat of a concern.

In the meantime, it seems wise for people to temper their expectations given what little we know and given that we have a formal federal prosecutor telling us what the current situation would typically mean.
Click to expand...
He was charged with making misleading statements to the FBI to impede the their investigation into the possible coordination between Trump's campaign and Russia.  Ergo, he was charge with an offense related to covering-up that possible coordination.  We know that from the Statement of the Offense.  That is fact, not supposition.  This is point 2:

FLYNN's false statements and omissions impeded and otherwise has a material impact on the FBI's ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals associated with the Campaign and Russia's efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election
Click to expand...

 
GroveDiesel said:
McCarthy is actually saying that the source of the charge doesn't matter, only what the charge is. And that the fact that he wasn't charged with any of the underlying crimes that are much more serious matters and has meaning.

McCarthy is a former well-respected federal prosecutor. If he's wrong, it would likely be because Mueller is not prosecuting the case in a typical way within normal Justice Department guidelines. That could be somewhat understandable considering the circumstances. But I think it would also be somewhat of a concern.

In the meantime, it seems wise for people to temper their expectations given what little we know and given that we have a formal federal prosecutor telling us what the current situation would typically mean.
Click to expand...
I know who McCarthy is, he makes terrific legal arguments and well written ones. But he has been wrong before. One thing I think that he's failing to note is that Flynn did intervene for the sake of sanctions, which is in fact a part of the alleged "collusion" case. 

Consequently, Mueller would theorize, Flynn had a motive, for legal and political reasons, to lie about his contacts with the Russian ambassador. And because Flynn was taking direction from Trump-transition officials in connection with those contacts, President Trump had a motive to make the FBI’s Flynn investigation disappear. This motive, the theory goes, explains why Trump pressured Comey to drop the Flynn investigation, and why he ultimately fired Comey — a move that, the very next day, he told Russian diplomats was related to the pressure Trump had been facing “because of Russia.”
Click to expand...
- And the legal reasons were.... what? Fear of the Logan Act? 

McCarthy then leaps to arguing that an American President is above the law.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
dozer
Ret. Lt. Gen Mike Flynn
2 3
Replies
104
Views
3K
Genxersrule
G
G
Mueller Investigation - Common Misconceptions (1-10)
Replies
0
Views
196
Guest
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)
Top