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

[Skroe]

We are continuing a new series of threads: "We're Taking Your President From You". Over the next year and a half or so we will be charting the major events that will inevitably and inexorably see Donald J. Trump, the illegitimate 45th President of the United States, take the long walk down loser lane as he resigns, is removed, and/or is indicted. And make no mistake... he's symptomatic. The real target, is the alt-right, the fake-conservatives, the reactionaries that put him there. Taking their President Away from them, is an assault on them. To return America to a more docile, more serious and moderate place, the extremists must be sent back to the political fringe whence they came.

And if they think there is a happy ending for them in this, then they haven't been paying attention.


We're Taking Your President From You
UPDATE 12/1/17. FLYNN PLEADS GUILTY, FLIPS ON TRUMP.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/01/politi...fSrc=permalink


11/23/17 - Episode III: Flynn May Be Selling Trump Out to Save Junior.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/u...sia-trump.html


That crack of thunder you heard as you were cutting into your Thanksgiving Turkey? That was Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller deciding to give the millions of Americans including him in the list of things they're thankful for (I did. Seriously. Did you?) a special Turkey day gift and object of discussion.

A Split From Trump Indicates That Flynn Is Moving to Cooperate With Mueller

WASHINGTON — Lawyers for Michael T. Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser, notified the president’s legal team in recent days that they could no longer discuss the special counsel’s investigation, according to four people involved in the case, an indication that Mr. Flynn is cooperating with prosecutors or negotiating a deal.

Mr. Flynn’s lawyers had been sharing information with Mr. Trump’s lawyers about the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who is examining whether anyone around Mr. Trump was involved in Russian efforts to undermine Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

That agreement has been terminated, the four people said. Defense lawyers frequently share information during investigations, but they must stop when doing so would pose a conflict of interest. It is unethical for lawyers to work together when one client is cooperating with prosecutors and another is still under investigation.

The notification alone does not prove that Mr. Flynn is cooperating with Mr. Mueller. Some lawyers withdraw from information-sharing arrangements as soon as they begin negotiating with prosecutors. And such negotiations sometimes fall apart.

Still, the notification led Mr. Trump’s lawyers to believe that Mr. Flynn — who, along with his son, is seen as having significant criminal exposure — has, at the least, begun discussions with Mr. Mueller about cooperating.

Lawyers for Mr. Flynn and Mr. Trump declined to comment. The four people briefed on the matter spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly.

A deal with Mr. Flynn would give Mr. Mueller a behind-the-scenes look at the Trump campaign and the early tumultuous weeks of the administration. Mr. Flynn was an early and important adviser to Mr. Trump, an architect of Mr. Trump’s populist “America first” platform and an advocate of closer ties with Russia.

His ties to Russia predated the campaign — he sat with President Vladimir V. Putin at a 2015 event in Moscow — and he was a point person on the transition team for dealing with Russia.

The White House had been bracing for charges against Mr. Flynn in recent weeks, particularly after charges were filed against three other former Trump associates: Paul Manafort, his campaign chairman; Rick Gates, a campaign aide; and George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy adviser.

But none of those men match Mr. Flynn in stature, or in his significance to Mr. Trump. A retired three-star general, Mr. Flynn was an early supporter of Mr. Trump’s and a valued surrogate for a candidate who had no foreign policy experience. Mr. Trump named him national security adviser, he said, to help “restore America’s leadership position in the world.”

Among the interactions that Mr. Mueller is investigating is a private meeting that Mr. Flynn had with the Russian ambassador and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, during the presidential transition. In the past year, it has been revealed that people with ties to Russia repeatedly sought to meet with Trump campaign officials, sometimes dangling the promise of compromising information on Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. Flynn is regarded as loyal to Mr. Trump, but he has in recent weeks expressed serious concerns to friends that prosecutors will bring charges against his son, Michael Flynn Jr., who served as his father’s chief of staff and was a part of several financial deals involving the elder Mr. Flynn that Mr. Mueller is scrutinizing.

The White House has said that neither Mr. Flynn nor other former aides have incriminating information to provide about Mr. Trump. “He likes General Flynn personally, but understands that they have their own path with the special counsel,” a White House lawyer, Ty Cobb, said in an interview last month with The New York Times. “I think he would be sad for them, as a friend and a former colleague, if the process results in punishment or indictments. But to the extent that that happens, that’s beyond his control.”

Mr. Flynn was supposed to have been the cornerstone of Mr. Trump’s national security team. Instead, he was forced out after a month in office over his conversations with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak. Mr. Flynn’s handling of those conversations fueled suspicion that people around Mr. Trump had concealed their dealings with Russians, worsening a controversy that has hung over the president’s first year in office.

Four days after Mr. Trump was sworn in, the F.B.I. interviewed Mr. Flynn at the White House about his calls with the ambassador. American intelligence and law enforcement agencies became so concerned about Mr. Flynn’s conversations and false statements about them to Vice President Mike Pence that the acting attorney general, Sally Q. Yates, warned the White House that Mr. Flynn might be compromised.

The conversations with the Russian ambassador that led to Mr. Flynn’s undoing took place during the presidential transition. When questions about them surfaced, Mr. Flynn told Mr. Pence that they had exchanged only holiday greetings — the conversations happened in late December, around the time that the Obama administration was announcing sanctions against Russia.

While Mr. Pence and White House press officers repeated the holiday-greetings claim publicly, Mr. Flynn and the ambassador had in fact discussed the sanctions. That invited the idea that the incoming administration was trying to undermine the departing president and curry favor with Moscow.

Mr. Trump sought Mr. Flynn’s resignation only after news broke that Mr. Flynn had been interviewed by F.B.I. agents and that Ms. Yates had warned the White House that his false statements could make him vulnerable to Russian blackmail.

Since then, Mr. Flynn’s legal problems have grown. It was revealed that he failed to list payments from Russia-linked entities on financial disclosure forms. He did not mention a paid speech he gave in Moscow, as well as other payments from companies linked to Russia.

The former F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, has testified before Congress that Mr. Trump asked him to end the government’s investigation into Mr. Flynn in a one-on-one meeting in the Oval Office the day after Mr. Flynn was fired. Mr. Trump’s request caused great concern for Mr. Comey, who immediately wrote a memo about his meeting with the president.

And investigators working for Mr. Mueller have questioned witnesses about whether Mr. Flynn was secretly paid by the Turkish government during the presidential campaign. Mr. Flynn belatedly disclosed, after leaving the White House, that the Turkish government had paid him more than $500,000.

Mr. Flynn’s firing was, in some ways, the first domino that set off a cascade of problems for Mr. Trump. After the president ousted Mr. Comey, news surfaced that the president had requested an end to the Flynn inquiry, a revelation that led to Mr. Mueller’s appointment. That, in turn, raised the profile of an investigation that the president had tried mightily to contain.

FWIW I was having Thanksgiving with a family member who is a senior EPA prosecutor. She is convinced Mueller is going to take everything down based on her years of experience, and weighing on in this. Of course, that's just her opinion, but one I think is fortuitious and worth sharing.

Trumpkins, we're taking your President away from you. Happy fucking Thanksgiving!



Prior Episodes
Episode I - 9/8/2017 - Mueller gives White House names of 6 aides he expects to question in Russia probe
Epidsode II - 10/29/2017 - What the Obstruction Case looks like

[Kasierith]

There is no point in him staying loyal to Trump. If he's flipping, they have him on something and he has absolutely no vested interest in anything other than full co-operation. Hitting Flynn now would be a great wake up call that America doesn't idolize their leaders like in China.

[Orbitus]

@Skroe, it also doesn't help that Trump set up a somewhat defense fund for people needing lawyers, but made exceptions that makes it impossible for 'people of interest' to get any help. So Flynn, being a person of interest, is going bankrupt with the legal fees that he is accruing.

[Dacien]

As far as the Trump campaign coordinating with Russia in the election, what we have concrete so far is:

- Papadopoulos, which we still don't know if he sought the Hillary dirt offered to him by a Russian contact, and who seemed to be quite a low level character.
- We have Flynn here who might be cooperating with the investigation and we don't know what he has to say, or if it can be proven that he actively sought to influence the election in meetings with Russian contacts.
- We have Trump Jr., willing to hear about oppo research on Hillary from Fusion GPS, delivered by a Russian lawyer, but we don't know if any information was shared, and everyone involved says nothing was. Trump Jr. in the wikileaks tweets also amounts to a very one-sided conversation where nothing illegal was discussed, shared, or coordinated on.

the Manafort indictments are regarding his dealings prior to his work on the Trump campaign, so those are largely irrelevant.

As it stands right now, we're still stuck in the same situation where there's a lot of smoke, but no fire. Have to keep waiting.

[Ripster42]

As far as the Trump campaign coordinating with Russia in the election, what we have concrete so far is:

- Papadopoulos, which we still don't know if he sought the Hillary dirt offered to him by a Russian contact, and who seemed to be quite a low level character.
- We have Flynn here who might be cooperating with the investigation and we don't know what he has to say, or if it can be proven that he actively sought to influence the election in meetings with Russian contacts.
- We have Trump Jr., willing to hear about oppo research on Hillary from Fusion GPS, delivered by a Russian lawyer, but we don't know if any information was shared, and everyone involved says nothing was. Trump Jr. in the wikileaks tweets also amounts to a very one-sided conversation where nothing illegal was discussed, shared, or coordinated on.

the Manafort indictments are regarding his dealings prior to his work on the Trump campaign, so those are largely irrelevant.

As it stands right now, we're still stuck in the same situation where there's a lot of smoke, but no fire. Have to keep waiting.

If this was anything like an unbiased trial, this, taken together with trumps tweets and speeches about emails and wikileaks eventual release of the emails, would be enough to convict. Give me a fucking break with your smoke but no fire garbage. I get it, you're a hack.

[Dacien]

If this was anything like an unbiased trial, this, taken together with trumps tweets and speeches about emails and wikileaks eventual release of the emails, would be enough to convict.

The conversation between Trump Jr. and Wikileaks on Twitter revealed nothing new. We already knew Trump Jr. was warm to the idea of dirt on Hillary from Russian-connected sources. He dumped the emails himself when the New York Times threatened to go to print. Nothing in the wikileaks messages show collusion. I agree with Ben Shapiro, it's a nothingburger.

Give me a fucking break with your smoke but no fire garbage. I get it, you're a hack.

People at large have become intoxicated with the idea of a Trump indictment or proof of criminal wrongdoing, that Trump is on his way out from his illegitimately gained position. There's a sort of fever that has set in among a lot of people, where even the tiniest scrap of information is blown out of proportion, after which it's added to a pile and granted the same weight as information of actual value, and the pile is then referred to as "All the evidence."

In that kind of environment, I think it's beneficial to have a skeptical mind. If it's a done deal as they say, then we don't really need to drink so deeply from the cup of Trump Collusion. We can observe the information as it comes out, point out where information isn't as substantial as it seems, point out where information is lacking, point out where information is damaging.

But this sort of fever that's taken hold, where every scrap of information is obsessed over and played up even when it doesn't really show us anything new or substantial in any way, it's alarming to me. It reminds me of the Hillary email reaction from the right. I still think she did something wrong, but so many people on the right became drunk off Email wine, and every little scrap became damning new evidence, and it was all just so absurdly overboard.

[Kasierith]

If this was anything like an unbiased trial, this, taken together with trumps tweets and speeches about emails and wikileaks eventual release of the emails, would be enough to convict. Give me a fucking break with your smoke but no fire garbage. I get it, you're a hack.

Not enough for Trump himself, though. Just his peripherals. There would have to be something absolutely definitive to turn the Republican congress against Trump, and at this time nothing public is sufficient for lining up a blow like that.

[Ripster42]

Not enough for Trump himself, though. Just his peripherals. There would have to be something absolutely definitive to turn the Republican congress against Trump, and at this time nothing public is sufficient for lining up a blow like that.

Taken together with the fact that he was the person who to try to deflect from the meeting saying it was about adoption, and his speech (june 7) where he talks about having dirt he will release in a couple of days surrounding the time of the meeting suggest trump knew exactly what was going on. It's something you could get a conviction with. The GOP controlled congress and political partisans even willing to excuse child molestation is exactly what I'm talking about "anything like an unbiased trial."

[Kiri]

To be expected, given everything that happened so far.

Though I gotta say Skroe, you need to step up your title game. So many good puns and you go with this one, pfft.

[Dacien]

Taken together with the fact that he was the person who to try to deflect from the meeting saying it was about adoption, and his speech (june 7) where he talks about having dirt he will release in a couple of days surrounding the time of the meeting suggest trump knew exactly what was going on. It's something you could get a conviction with. The GOP controlled congress and political partisans even willing to excuse child molestation is exactly what I'm talking about "anything like an unbiased trial."

Even if Trump did know, you have a couple hurdles in front of you. First, you have to show that information actually changed hands. Second, you need to gain a conviction by interpreting campaign law in such a way that it treats this information as something of tangible value. You may want to be careful about that second one, as it might ensnare people you may like.

[Ripster42]

Even if Trump did know, you have a couple hurdles in front of you. First, you have to show that information actually changed hands. Second, you need to gain a conviction by interpreting campaign law in such a way that it treats this information as something of tangible value. You may want to be careful about that second one, as it might ensnare people you may like.

You don't. The only thing you'd have to show is that they went their with the intent. That's enough for conspiracy. No one with a brain thinks information doesn't have value.

It's funny you think I give a shit about someone who isn't in office. Let's stay on topic.

[Dacien]

You don't. The only thing you'd have to show is that they went their with the intent. That's enough for conspiracy. No one with a brain thinks information doesn't have value.

Well hold on a second, the emails dumped by Trump Jr. show intent very clearly. He "loved" the idea of Russian-provided oppo research on Hillary as "part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump." There we go, that's pretty cut and dry on intent, so why is Trump Jr. not facing charges? Is there some reason why he's not being charged with this conspiracy to break federal campaign law? Because law professors and legal experts on both sides of the aisle are saying he likely didn't break the law. For example, Jonathan Turley, Professor of Law at George Washington University Law School had this to say:


"There is no crime in listening to people who say that they have incriminating information on a political opponent, even a foreigner. … If notice of a possible crime or information is now deemed as thing of tangible value under federal campaign laws, the wide array of exchanges on behalf of campaign would be implicated. Indeed, major free speech and association issues would be raised. Once again, this is a matter that is worthy of investigation. However, these possible criminal charges are radically over-extended on the facts that we currently have."

[Mormolyce]

I've been wondering why it's been so long since Papadopoulos, Manafort and whatshisface and still no indictment of Flynn. If they thought there was a good chance of him flipping that would make sense...

[Cthulhu 2020]

You don't. The only thing you'd have to show is that they went their with the intent. That's enough for conspiracy. No one with a brain thinks information doesn't have value.

It's funny you think I give a shit about someone who isn't in office. Let's stay on topic.

It's funny how those in the Trump camp always try to pull Hillary or single Dems into this.

Mueller's net is catching massive schools of Republicans who are very quickly trying to swim out of this net as fast as they can. A few corrupt Democrats get caught up in it? Good. Unlike the right, we want our corrupt politicians out. If there's proof of corruption, offer it up and throw them out. Unlike Republicans, Democrats aren't going to defend the indefensible losers just because of blind tribalism.

[Mormolyce]

Well hold on a second, the emails dumped by Trump Jr. show intent very clearly. He "loved" the idea of Russian-provided oppo research on Hillary as "part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump." There we go, that's pretty cut and dry on intent, so why is Trump Jr. not facing charges?

The fact that Mueller has not yet recommended charges does not mean that there is no case, it simply means that he is still building his case - either gathering more damning evidence against them or... as this thread suggests... using them as leverage against bigger fish.

He COULD be charged right away and it's possible the court would convict him just with the evidence at hand. But why do that when you have so many avenues to pursue to improve your chances of a conviction? Mueller knows what he is doing.

[Draco-Onis]

Well hold on a second, the emails dumped by Trump Jr. show intent very clearly. He "loved" the idea of Russian-provided oppo research on Hillary as "part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump." There we go, that's pretty cut and dry on intent, so why is Trump Jr. not facing charges? Is there some reason why he's not being charged with this conspiracy to break federal campaign law?

I think the answer is pretty simple Mueller seems to be taking this one step at a time also taking into consideration the fact that Trump can pardon federal crimes so working with state attorneys to press charges as well. It would be rather foolish to go for Kushner or Trump Jr. at this point, their financial ties probably make them dirty enough but it is best to start at the bottom if nothing else to fluster the criminals. You have to keep in mind that investigations of this nature usually take years by most standards he is moving at wrap speed.

[Cthulhu 2020]

The fact that Mueller has not yet recommended charges does not mean that there is no case, it simply means that he is still building his case - either gathering more damning evidence against them or... as this thread suggests... using them as leverage against bigger fish.

He COULD be charged right away and it's possible the court would convict him just with the evidence at hand. But why do that when you have so many avenues to pursue to improve your chances of a conviction? Mueller knows what he is doing.

This exact thing has been repeated hundreds of times on this forum, that to build a solid case against a really big fish, Mueller is spending a lot of time building his case from all angles, and yet they don't seem to be reading these memos. I wonder why?

[Dacien]

I think the answer is pretty simple Mueller seems to be taking this one step at a time also taking into consideration the fact that Trump can pardon federal crimes so working with state attorneys to press charges as well. It would be rather foolish to go for Kushner or Trump Jr. at this point, their financial ties probably make them dirty enough but it is best to start at the bottom if nothing else to fluster the criminals. You have to keep in mind that investigations of this nature usually take years by most standards he is moving at wrap speed.

Well like I said, I think it has much more to do with the vagueries surrounding whether what he did was illegal. Esteemed legal experts are not ready to make the claim that that this kind of information should be treated as tangible value in the context of campaign law. I think Mueller would be setting quite a precedent by going forward with charges on these grounds. And maybe he will. Maybe this investigation will set important precedent for federal campaign law, the beginning of the dramatic shift in policy that Skroe alluded to in one of his posts recently.

[PosPosPos]

Well like I said, I think it has much more to do with the vagueries surrounding whether what he did was illegal. Esteemed legal experts are not ready to make the claim that that this kind of information should be treated as tangible value in the context of campaign law. I think Mueller would be setting quite a precedent by going forward with charges on these grounds. And maybe he will. Maybe this investigation will set important precedent for federal campaign law, the beginning of the dramatic shift in policy that Skroe alluded to in one of his posts recently.

Or that you are just in denial because it upsets you that beloved Trump is in trouble.

If this was anything like an unbiased trial, this, taken together with trumps tweets and speeches about emails and wikileaks eventual release of the emails, would be enough to convict. Give me a fucking break with your smoke but no fire garbage. I get it, you're a hack.

Notice how he runs into every single Trump thread and either sealions or pretends to be "concerned". Or both.

[Ripster42]

Well hold on a second, the emails dumped by Trump Jr. show intent very clearly. He "loved" the idea of Russian-provided oppo research on Hillary as "part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump." There we go, that's pretty cut and dry on intent, so why is Trump Jr. not facing charges? Is there some reason why he's not being charged with this conspiracy to break federal campaign law? Because law professors and legal experts on both sides of the aisle are saying he likely didn't break the law. For example, Jonathan Turley, Professor of Law at George Washington University Law School had this to say:


"There is no crime in listening to people who say that they have incriminating information on a political opponent, even a foreigner. … If notice of a possible crime or information is now deemed as thing of tangible value under federal campaign laws, the wide array of exchanges on behalf of campaign would be implicated. Indeed, major free speech and association issues would be raised. Once again, this is a matter that is worthy of investigation. However, these possible criminal charges are radically over-extended on the facts that we currently have."

What do you think they're still investigating? The only reason manafort & gates were charged already is because the statute of limitations was running out on some of the charges. They're likely going to be charged with additional crimes later. They're not likely to charge trump's son while trump still has the option of pardoning him.

On the free speech issue: we've already decided that political campaigns are held by different standards than citizens. See all campaign finance regulations. They're all restricting free speech.

On the freedom of association issue: the constitution already has restrictions of freedom of association. And again, the campaign laws prohibiting foreign "money" in campaigns are a restriction on freedom of association.

The dude isn't saying what you think he's saying. He's saying he doesn't believe opposition research has value. He's saying that if he's wrong on this issue the campaign is fucked: "the wide array of exchanges on behalf of campaign would be implicated." Since, again, there's clearly value in opposition research, as people pay millions of dollars for it, he's wrong on this issue.