Its not misunderstood - its misinformation. They know very well what they are asking for, and know very well the public does not. Why else go public, but to make it look like Flynns a cooperative good guy. But really he’s asking to be let off in exchange for nothing.
1 Like
Request denied!
2 Likes
6 Likes
So he’s asking for immunity in public before saying anything. And what he’s then going to say is “Trump hasn’t done anything.” And in exchange he gets to know how solid the case is.
Because if they take his offer it’s because they need something, he’s in the position of power.
If they don’t take it, it’s because they don’t need him and they’re all well and truly fucked. But at least he can get pardoned by the sitting President along the way.
1 Like
This was my thinking. On ‘Law & Order’, the DA tells the perp to tell him what he knows, and he will decide if it’s worth immunity.
1 Like
I wonder what odds bookies are offering that the west is suddenly embroiled in another war?
I’m going with a North Korean ‘incident’ in the wake of the discombobulation of S Korea’s current situation, that is exacerbated to war.
Iran? Yemen?
Pretty well actually.
“Shortly after Watergate, Dean became an investment banker, author, and lecturer.”
Dean is first in line these days to talk about how important ethics are to politics, so that’s probably worth a bundle to have a guy like that around who’s all hat no cattle but makes everyone feel like they’ve done something.
1 Like
This is interesting:
"Congressional committees have the power to grant “testimonial” immunity, or what is said before a committee could not be used against an individual in court, but not blanket immunity for underlying behavior. "
2 Likes
You know that you are a quality person, in a quality situation, when commentary includes the phrase “Remember Oliver North?” and strongly suggests that the only sane explanation for your actions is that you are doing your best to learn from his example.
I am not a lawyer, your lawyer, or otherwise suitably qualfied; but my layman’s understanding is that Flynn’s hope is that if he says enough stuff under testimonial immunity, it’ll create serious(and by no means entirely implausible) doubts about whether material that comes up in any criminal case is actually original, or people restating his own(protected) testimony.
Flynn is high enough on the food chain that he has very good odds of actually enjoying procedural protections when they are to his advantage, so getting tainted evidence thrown out is hardly outside the realm of possibility(Though he might have a harder time than Mr. North in the article @daneel linked to; since the march of technology since the good old days increases the odds that a lot of really damning evidence is nice timestamped records generated while surveilling Russian diplomats and people-considered-influential, rather than just personal testimony; and it’s a lot easier to suggest that a testifying human was influenced by what they saw on the news prior to the testimony than it is to say that of a recording or document.)
2 Likes
If I understand you correctly, that’s not the way it works. If given “testimonial immunity” he would be required to tell the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and he would not be able to plead the 5th because he cannot self-incriminate if he has immunity. Anything he said could still be used as part of an investigation, and there would be no “fruit of a poisonous tree” argument to be made (if that’s what you’re suggesting). If he were not to tell the truth, he could lose his immunity.
As for the immunity he might seek from the FBI/DOJ, that would not be granted just because he says he has “juicy stuff” - it would generally be done under a “queen for a day” arrangement where he effectively gets testimonial immunity where he lays out everything he knows, and then the Feds get to decide whether to grant him actual immunity for any crimes he may have been involved in based on the value of his information. If there isn’t a deal for actual immunity, the information he revealed could not be used against him, but other evidence could, provided the sole source for that evidence was not his own testimony.
Disclaimer: IAALBNYL
6 Likes
Meh. Given the type of people he’d be talking about, immunity is nothing. Get back to us when he’s asking for witness protection (which probably wouldn’t be a public statement).
Not that I don’t think Flynn has done tonnes of prosecutable shit, but in general, asking for immunity doesn’t mean that you’ve already committed a crime – it may also mean that the act of talking will be the crime itself (breach of secrecy for example) and you don’t want to be prosecuted for that.
Unfortunately, it sounds like Flynn got himself a semi-decent lawyer. 'cause otherwise --as others have said – he’s dumb enough to flip without even knowing he’s done it.
4 Likes
I’m still amazed he doesn’t have a job in this administration.
8 Likes
When I post on pro-Trump Forums, I get cursing, stupid statements and ignorance. Some of them can’t even read for content. When I post here, I almost always get good information, intelligently presented. I’m so happy to have found boing boing.
14 Likes
Just watch where you leave your drink.
6 Likes
Could this administration be any more of a shit show? I can’t fathom 4 more years of this crazy.
9 Likes
Welcome!
1 Like
I know, right? Every day I think “it can’t get any worse” and somehow it does.
2 Likes
Without addressing whether currently available evidence indicates he is guilty of something horrible or not (just haven’t paid attention to him since he was dropped as a nominee), I think this is untrue and harmful to justice in the same way as “why are you asking for a lawyer, do you have something to hide?”
Once you know you’re in their crosshairs, they will find something to hang the most innocent man with. I certainly don’t blame him for asking and consider it to be totally 100% non-evidence of his guilt.
I dunno. I feel like asking for immunity is different than asking for an attorney.
2 Likes
