jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (18 posts)

Michael Flynn offered to testify in exchange for immunity

  1. Don W profile image83
    Don Wposted 9 months ago

    Is this just "good lawyering"? Or does it mean Flynn has something incriminating to say about himself and his former boss?(1)

    Apparently Flynn's request has been rejected by the Senate Intelligence Committee "at this time"(2)

    Trump has tweeted about the request:

    "Mike Flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch hunt (excuse for big election loss), by media & Dems, of historic proportion!"(3)

    Flynn's own view on immunity? On Meet the Press in 2016, he said:

    "when you are given immunity, that means you probably committed a crime."(4)

    Whatever way you look at it, the fact that the former National Security Adviser to the President has just asked for immunity from prosecution is remarkable.

    (1) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/us/p … ussia.html
    (2)(3) http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sen … nn-n741061
    (4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLJ_zmTuSQ8

    1. promisem profile image99
      promisemposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Trump and Flynn said previously that anyone who wants immunity from prosecution is guilty. The shoe is now on the other foot.

      "The reason they get immunity is because they did something wrong, if they didn’t do anything wrong, they don’t think in terms of immunity," Trump said at a rally in Wisconsin last September.

      At another rally in Florida the day before, Trump asked, "If you are not guilty of a crime, what do you need immunity for? Right."

    2. GA Anderson profile image82
      GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Here is an opinion, (mine), unencumbered by the chaff of the involved earlier comments or speculations, (as in your links).

      A common-sense gut reaction would ask what do you need immunity for it you didn't do anything wrong, but my reality-based reaction, understanding how a most innocent action or statement can easily become legally liable nowadays, says if I were Flynn I wouldn't volunteer anything without immunity.

      Back to that first gut reaction... I think Flynn has some legal concerns that warrant an immunity request, I just don't know if those concerns are the ones the media are painting, ie. collusion and Russian influence. I would guess that he might have other legal issues, like; inaccurate, (a charitable description), financial disclosures or other Trump administration related undisclosed communications or connections.

      But that is just guessing. The answer as to why his immunity requests haven't been accepted might be just as revealing.


      1. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Now that's an interesting thought - who else might he be incriminating in illegal or even quasi-illegal activities?

      2. promisem profile image99
        promisemposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        If he doesn't get immunity, he can go the usual route and claim the Fifth Amendment plus the usual "I don't recall". He can use both tactics to avoid giving them anything to use against him.

        I wouldn't be surprised if he knows they have something on him, or they are getting close, so he's trying to squirm out of it by offering to throw someone else under the bus.

        1. GA Anderson profile image82
          GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, he could do that, (fifth, don't recall), but then he also would not be able to answer any other questions, or volunteer any information.

          This current "immunity request" story seems to give the impression that he has something he is willing to say. I didn't get the impression he said it because he expected to be called before the panel again.

          1. colorfulone profile image86
            colorfuloneposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            General Flynn was the top military spy, DIA.  He outed the Obama Adm's confusing policies in the Middle East concerning terrorist groups and I don't think some people want that on the official record.  Thus, the opposition wants to do to the maximum damage.  I'm sure he could say plenty.   

            1. GA Anderson profile image82
              GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              Cororfulone, your point, and General Flynn's is valid. But, it must also be considered that in the time frame he discusses, it was a crapshoot as to who was a legitimate opposition force, and who was just another radical Islamic force.

              How could you expect the administration to know? Splinter factions were changing and realigning almost weekly. The good guys today joined the worst guys tomorrow.

              I think Gen. Flynn's criticisms amount to nothing more than Monday morning quarterbacking. What would he be saying if we had sent tons of war equipment supplies to the Free Syrian Army, only to see them absorbed, (or overtaken), by the Islamic Front, which morphed into today's ISIS?.


              1. colorfulone profile image86
                colorfuloneposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                Gen. Flynn argued about the administration's polices, as intelligent as he was as the DIA even he couldn't understand just what those policies were.  Not only our top brass but also our troops as well came home and don't even know why they were assigned to active duty where they were, according to military psychiatrist, Dr. Steve Pieczenik.

        2. ptosis profile image75
          ptosisposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Can't use the fifth in front of a Congressional inquiry, that's why they always say "I do not recall" or I don't know"

          One key distinction is that a witness may not refuse to give testimony in front of Congress, but a defendant in a criminal trial may decline to take the stand. Specific questions posed by Congress may be avoided, but the right not to testify belongs solely to criminal defendants on trial. If a defendant testifies and is then asked questions that could be incriminating, he is given a "lose-lose" choice, which is no choice at all: either the defendant refuses to answer the particular question, pleading the Fifth Amendment (which may prejudice the jury) or he responds and self-incriminates. As there is no "defendant" on trial during a congressional investigation, there is no need to permit a witness the option to refuse to testify. Furthermore, Congress may grant immunity to a witness such that information gleaned in a congressional investigation may not be used in a subsequent criminal trial against that witness. Thus the congressional demand for information outweighs any potential right the witness may assert.   - http://federaltaxcrimes.blogspot.com/20 … ty-in.html

    3. colorfulone profile image86
      colorfuloneposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Tony Shaffer is a friend of mine and he knows Mike Flynn and talks with the family.  He expressed his opinion on Fox and Friends if you care to listen. 

      I'm sure Flynn's attorney is calling the shots and wants to make sure Flynn is protected, that's what he hired her to do.  Its only smart in the present climate, its a witch hunt.

      If there was something bad that Flynn was scared of being exposed, we'd already know what that was...it would have been leaked.  Spying and leaking is tending in Washington DC. 

      Here's a video of  Evelyn Farkas saying Obama was Spying on Trump - MSNBC 3/27 3/28
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gapRNpE … e=youtu.be

      Tony said, "It's not everyday you see someone admit on TV they have committed a felony & have given classified info to media." ... referring to Farkas, who said there was very good intelligence on Russia...what nothing bad?

      I think maybe the Intelligence Committee and the media are being played and this house of cards is going to fall or we may see the revolution begin, American Spring.  That, the Soros type Globalists want to destroy America one way or another.

      1. ptosis profile image75
        ptosisposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Farkas left the Obama administration in October 2015, when Trump was only months into his presidential candidacy.

        "Farkas told "Morning Joe" co-host Mika Brzezinski that it would not surprise her if that were the case. She said she had been "urging" her former colleagues "to get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration."

        "I had a fear that the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about ... the Trump staff’s dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence," Farkas said." - https://gma.yahoo.com/white-house-tryin … 15253.html

        1. colorfulone profile image86
          colorfuloneposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Thanks for sharing that.  I almost feel sorry for her for being so stupid, having a big mouth, and wanting 15 minutes of fame.  Farkas is going to be trying to get her story straight and wiggle her way out of this, because she does not want to go to jail.   She is under the microscope now, I bet she'd like to hide under a rock...anything to get out from having the light shined on her now.     

          Body Language: Evelyn Farkas
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZTKfIv … e=youtu.be

          Good thing we paid attention that day in class, huh? wink

          I must say that I love people like her for the entertainment value.

        2. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Please point out exactly where Farkas said President Obama spied on Donald Trump or his staff. None of the links you have provided indicate that.

    4. Ewent profile image88
      Ewentposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      We all heard and SAW Michael Flynn standing at a podium saying that Hillary and five of her aides asked for "immunity" and then he said, "She must be guilty." Trump also repeated this in one of his campaign speeches..."Why ask for immunity if you are not guilty?"

      Some men never learn to shut their big bazoos. They will anything to make sure the Man's World profits keep rolling in at the expense of American women and children.

      The Republicans' hold on their majority right now is tenuous at best. There are only 435 seats in the House and 100 in the Senate, with the GOP having only a 2 seat majority in the Senate.

      Thanks to their childish, petty little boy tantrums and attempts to flush their bank accounts with our tax dollars, not only have they lost their chance to repeal and replace healtcare but now, their Supreme Court nominee's position is insecure as well.

  2. colorfulone profile image86
    colorfuloneposted 9 months ago

    115th Congress (2017-2019)
    Majority Party: Republican (52 seats)
    Minority Party: Democrat (46 seats)
    Other Parties: 2 Independents (both caucus with the Democrats)
    Total Seats: 100


    1. Ewent profile image88
      Ewentposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      As you can see, Come 2019 ...two years from now, that majority will not be in favor of Republicans. Americans are not going to allow a right wing Koch Brothers Tea Party any more of their McCarthy style "witch hunts."

      No one was fooled as to "why" the Republicans obstructed Obama for 8 years and why now their thug president pretender is so hot to get him behind bars. It's that white male attitude that a black man is always a criminal and always belongs behind bars. All anyone has to do to prove that is check out the number of black males executed in TX on a regular basis.

      1. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        And Trump will never be President.  Didn't we hear that stuff just a few months ago?