We're Taking Your President From You Episode III: Flynn Likely Flips

[Dacien]

The problem is that Andrew McCarthy doesn't actually believe this, he is playing the party line conservative chant that Mueller's investigation is a partisan witch hunt, which it isn't. Here are some other things McCarthy allegedly believes: Waterboarding is not torture (A bizarre stance that even Trump didn't buy off on) "The issue of Obama's personal radicalism, including*his collaboration with radical, America-hating Leftists" (First line of an Op Ed) Social Security is a Ponsi Scheme and many other inflammatory right wing conspiracy theories. In short, he knows better, he just doesn't care.

I mean, sure, if your position is to attack the character of this person instead of the arguments he makes, that's a perfectly valid tack to take. I don't personally subscribe to it, I prefer to refute the arguments directly, but again, if that's the argument you want to hang your hat on, you're free to do that.

Flynn doesn't need to bargain for light sentencing on this case, he has to bargain to prevent him and his son from both going to jail for the rest of their life.

Going to jail for the rest of their lives on what charge exactly? And why didn't Mueller follow Justice Department guidelines by getting them to plea to these serious charges in exchange for cooperation?

Again, see the first paragraph for my opinion on McCarthy. "Process Crime" is not a legal term in any shape or form. He used it in an inflammatory op ed, that doesn't make it law. Show me something that says it is. Until then it is the definition of a right wing buzzword written by a conservative pundit that is on the payroll of a neo-conservative lobbying organization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_crime

"Examples include obstruction of justice, perjury before a grand jury and misprision of a felony."

How does he come to this conclusion? Does he have inside information or is this a baseless claim?

Oh, apparently I missed this bombshell that explains why there is no collusion case:

The entire article is him explaining his rationale for this conclusion.

[Bdatik]

The entire article is him explaining his rationale for this conclusion.

It appears his rationale that there is no collusion case is because the plea deals have nothing to do with collusion. Sorry if I don't take that seriously.

[Poopymonster]

Trump has daddy issues, and might actually budge for Donald Jr. in the crosshairs. Trump really has narcisistic pride in the family name and business, and Don Jr. has both. Protecting his legacy and his money might be something he'd budge for, sociopath or not.

Kushner...um...that's a tougher call.

Kushner would depend on how much Ivanka is Daddy's Little Girl. She might be able to bat her eyes and promise to wear that schoolgirl outfit again, Dolan might go to bat for Kushner. Then again, Dolan might think that he's getting rid of the competition.

[Thekri]

I mean, sure, if your position is to attack the character of this person instead of the arguments he makes, that's a perfectly valid tack to take. I don't personally subscribe to it, I prefer to refute the arguments directly, but again, if that's the argument you want to hang your hat on, you're free to do that.

Way to take the high road /sarcasm. That was responding to your direct claim that his credibility made mine invalid. The person's agenda and character absolutely play into this, you took it from an Op ed, not a court decision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_crime

"Examples include obstruction of justice, perjury before a grand jury and misprision of a felony."

Well played, I am wrong and apologize. I had never heard the term before and assumed it was bogus, that was partisan thinking on my part. I still would argue the "minor" part, but at least process crime is a real thing.

[Dacien]

Way to take the high road /sarcasm. That was responding to your direct claim that his credibility made mine invalid.

I'm open to hearing about it if you have qualified experience or can cite qualified experts who refute the arguments made by McCarthy. It's not my intention to impugn anyone's credibility, only to point out that my source has the extensive qualifications to speak on the issue and I am not aware of any such qualifications on your part, and so in that circumstance I'm going to side with McCarthy.

The person's agenda and character absolutely play into this, you took it from an Op ed, not a court decision.

I don't think simply because it's an Op-ed that it's not worthwhile or substantive. If I read an Op-ed from a former member of the United Nations explaining why a particular foreign policy decision was bad, and explained with detail how the United Nations would treat situations in the past, I would consider that substantive.

[Sormine]

Additionally, getting a co-conspirator to plead to false statement charges damages the credibility of the prosecutor's own witness - "We nailed this guy for lying and making false statements, but trust his testimony anyway."

Holy shit I haven't laughed like that in a long time. Thank you.

If you ever wanna get out of jury duty (Or damage your career as a lawyer) just repeat exactly what you said here.

[Dacien]

Holy shit I haven't laughed like that in a long time. Thank you.

If you ever wanna get out of jury duty (Or damage your career as a lawyer) just repeat exactly what you said here.

As I said earlier, I'm only repeating the opinion of Andrew McCarthy, a former prosecutor for the United States:

"It is even worse to plead accomplices out on false-statements counts. This establishes that the main thing the jury should know about the accomplice is that he is not to be trusted. That is not how you make someone a strong witness."

I'm going with McCarthy on this one, Sormine.

[Breccia]

If you ever wanna get out of jury duty (Or damage your career as a lawyer) just repeat exactly what you said here.

It actually gets funnier.

A) If Flynn is caught lying on the stand, that's perjury. A plea deal for other crimes won't save him from perjury on the stand.

B) And even if it did, the plea deal is a legal contract that, oh I don't know, that what Flynn testifies to is the truth. Being caught in a lie would violate the plea deal, the other charges come crashing down, he spends 60 years in a cell with his son.

C) The argument you laughed at so hard is easy to counter in a case as massive as this one.
"Why should the jury believe you?"
"Because Mueller seized a bunch of my emails and documents that prove what I'm saying is the truth. They're on that table." (points)
"...oh."

[Shadowmelded]

I'm going with McCarthy on this one, Sormine.

In that case, you might find this interesting. Article contrasting the different interpretations of the plea deal that includes McCarthy's (and gives him a fair shake).

Personally, Theory 3 does seem the most likely given the analysis of Section 3 of the plea deal.

[Dacien]

In that case, you might find this interesting. Article contrasting the different interpretations of the plea deal that includes McCarthy's (and gives him a fair shake).

Personally, Theory 3 does seem the most likely given the analysis of Section 3 of the plea deal.

That was a good read, thanks for that.

[Sormine]

As I said earlier, I'm only repeating the opinion of Andrew McCarthy, a former prosecutor for the United States:

"It is even worse to plead accomplices out on false-statements counts. This establishes that the main thing the jury should know about the accomplice is that he is not to be trusted. That is not how you make someone a strong witness."

I'm going with McCarthy on this one, Sormine.

You're quoting a new wave conservative who would sell out his own mother if it meant disproving Obama's birth certificate. This is one of the guys that thinks the Mueller investigation is a witch hunt.

Pick your sources better next time.

[Mormolyce]

In that case, you might find this interesting. Article contrasting the different interpretations of the plea deal that includes McCarthy's (and gives him a fair shake).

Personally, Theory 3 does seem the most likely given the analysis of Section 3 of the plea deal.

I think that either way, we don't presently have full possession of the facts since they aren't all in the public sphere. I'd say it's a safe bet that this case has a lot more yet to come forward.

[Dacien]

You're quoting a new wave conservative who would sell out his own mother if it meant disproving Obama's birth certificate. This is one of the guys that thinks the Mueller investigation is a witch hunt.

Pick your sources better next time.

He was incredulous that it took a Herculean effort to get Obama to present such a simple document that would put the conspiracies to rest:

"If George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, or even a Republican the media likes (say, John McCain) had taken purposeful steps to block examination of so basic a document, the media would surely have turned such obstinacy into a scandal. It is flat out bizarre that one should have to be sued to compel conformance with a routine that millions of Americans comply with every day. Many of these court cases, if not all, could have been short-circuited (indeed, many of the later ones would not have been filed at all) if Obama had just produced the birth certificate. Instead, he not only refused to produce it; he and his campaign paid thousands of dollars in legal fees (in some places it is reported to be well over a million dollars) to fight the lawsuits..."

Interpreting his position to mean he wants Obama's birth certificate to be false is not accurate.

[NYC17]

He was incredulous that it took a Herculean effort to get Obama to present such a simple document that would put the conspiracies to rest:

"If George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, or even a Republican the media likes (say, John McCain) had taken purposeful steps to block examination of so basic a document, the media would surely have turned such obstinacy into a scandal. It is flat out bizarre that one should have to be sued to compel conformance with a routine that millions of Americans comply with every day. Many of these court cases, if not all, could have been short-circuited (indeed, many of the later ones would not have been filed at all) if Obama had just produced the birth certificate. Instead, he not only refused to produce it; he and his campaign paid thousands of dollars in legal fees (in some places it is reported to be well over a million dollars) to fight the lawsuits..."

Interpreting his position to mean he wants Obama's birth certificate to be false is not accurate.

Obama shouldn't have had to. The matter was settled. McCarthy's incredulity belies his objectivity. He started from a position of stupidity and partisanship and pretended like it was reasonable.

It wasn't.

[Stormspark]

I think that either way, we don't presently have full possession of the facts since they aren't all in the public sphere. I'd say it's a safe bet that this case has a lot more yet to come forward.

I'm of the opinion that Mueller has something big, that he isn't ready to have come out yet. The man isn't stupid. "Theory 2" especially makes it sound like Mueller is an idiot.

[lockedout]

Obama shouldn't have had to.

I don't think HE should of had to, I think every president should have to.

[Mormolyce]

He was incredulous that it took a Herculean effort to get Obama to present such a simple document that would put the conspiracies to rest:

Trump is still pushing the birther conspiracy, so clearly you can't put conspiracy theories to rest with facts. The kind of people who believe in them are immune to facts.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8083566.html

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think HE should of had to, I think every president should have to.

How do you feel about them releasing their taxes? Kek.

[lockedout]

How do you feel about them releasing their taxes? Kek.

Well you have to be an American citizen to be president, I didn't see anything about taxes.

[Mormolyce]

Well you have to be an American citizen to be president, I didn't see anything about taxes.

Oh suddenly you don't have an opinion on it, how convenient.

[lockedout]

Oh suddenly you don't have an opinion on it, how convenient.

An opinion on what?