Flynn pleads guilty to lying to the FBI

[Cow Poke]

We will see.

Flynn undoubtedly broke the law in other places, and in serious ways that investigators know of, so him pleading guilty to a lesser charge is no surprise if he's cooperating. FARA will certainly come up as his offense is identical to Manafort there.

If no more comes of this investigation, then I'll be perfectly happy. They got Manafort and they got Flynn. Those are two of the most corrupt guys in Trumps circle, so it's given me great joy seeing them fall.

Your claim that you'll be perfectly happy if no more comes from this investigation is, to say the least, difficult to believe.

[Cow Poke]

Sorry, but like OBP and MM, you don't understand how this process works CP.

Jimmy, you don't exactly have a stellar record with knowing how anything legal works.

Flynn was allowed this plea deal for his cooperation concerning the illegal actions of more senior players in the administration.

No, that's not how it works. The WORST thing a prosecutor can do is to establish that his potential witness is a liar.

[Mountain Man]

Flynn being guilty, and being found guilty, doesn't in itself implicate anyone else, but his testimony against them does, and thats why he got a sweet deal from Mueller.

You obviously didn't read the article written by an actual attorney who clearly explains all of this: you get him to plead guilty to a criminal conspiracy, then use his guilty plea and testimony as evidence against the rest of the gang. Otherwise, you have no solid proof that the conspiracy even exists. Letting him off on a relatively minor charge takes away all of your leverage as a prosecutor. So either lying was the worst thing Mueller could charge him with, or he just made a major tactical error.

Liberals are saying, "This is just the first of many charges against Flynn!" but if Mueller could have charged him with a bigger crime then he would have never bothered with the small time stuff.

[Sea of red]

Your claim that you'll be perfectly happy if no more comes from this investigation is, to say the least, difficult to believe.

Your belief that this investigation is not going to involve the president at some point, is to the say the least, living in denial.

[Cow Poke]

Your belief that this investigation is not going to involve the president at some point, is to the say the least, living in denial.

You're kinda stretching it, Sea - I never claimed it wouldn't involve the president at some point.

[Mountain Man]

Your belief that this investigation is not going to involve the president at some point, is to the say the least, living in denial.

Liberals have been actively and fervently investigating this thing for around two-years now, starting while Obama was still in office and now with Mueller being given virtually unlimited power, not to mention the liberal media furiously using their collective resources to dig up anything and everything they can, and despite the scope and depth of the investigation, there is not even a hint of a hint that Trump could be guilty of anything that could compel his removal from office. The two worst charges are for crimes committed by people before Trump was even a candidate, and the other two are for the relatively minor crime of lying to federal investigators. This is not the sort thing that will take down a president, and your unshakable belief that it's going to happen any day now -- a song you've been singing for moths -- is rather precious.

In short, unless Mueller can come up with something more damning, Trump is going to finish his current term and will likely win a second.

[Sea of red]

Liberals have been actively and fervently investigating this thing for around two-years now, starting while Obama was still in office and now with Mueller being given virtually unlimited power, not to mention the liberal media furiously using their collective resources to dig up anything and everything they can, and despite the scope and depth of the investigation, there is not even a hint of a hint that Trump could be guilty of anything that could compel his removal from office. The two worst charges are for crimes committed by people before Trump was even a candidate, and the other two are for the relatively minor crime of lying to federal investigators. This is not the sort thing that will take down a president, and your unshakable belief that it's going to happen any day now -- a song you've been singing for moths -- is rather precious.

In short, unless Mueller can come up with something more damning, Trump is going to finish his current term and will likely win a second.

Sure, sure.

The investigation into Russia by the FBI only began the summer of 2016 when Page and Manafort were being monitored, but it only became an actual investigation into possible conspiring between election meddlers and the Trump gang began in April of this year. Then Trump fired the FBI director, literally admitting the motivation was to cease the investigating into his campaign, and that's when Rosenstein (after being thrown under the bus) appointed Mueller to continue the investigation.

It looks like Mueller's probe has been granted expansions by the DOJ, just as Starr did during Whitewater, and it's more of a general corruption investigation at this point.

Whether there was actual collusion (there was) is irrelevant as to whether Trump was trying to prevent the investigation from moving forward into areas that would reveal facts he wished to conceal from the public and Congress, which is the kind of tacit that opened the door for Clinton to be impeached in the Lewinsky scandal.

[Mountain Man]

Like I said, unless Mueller can come up with something more damning than what we've seen, then Trump is home free.

[Charles]

Like I said, unless Mueller can come up with something more damning than what we've seen, then Trump is home free.

So your best answer to the arguments given is "Like I said"?

[Mountain Man]

Looks like the mainstream media is starting to realize there may be nothing to this:

----------

MSNBC legal analyst Danny Cevallos argued that former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has a “massive” incentive to lie to the FBI — to implicate others.

Cevallos was asked Saturday in an appearance on MSNBC what the “incentive” was for Flynn to lie.

“In a word, massive,” Cevallos replied. “I have seen this. I dealt with this personally. Mike Flynn is not only somebody who has been threatened by the government with up to five years in prison for one false statement or several false statements, there’s also been intimations that his son could be charged, too.”

He continued, “You think about your own family members. Think about if your own child or your sibling or your parents were threatened with prosecution, what incentive you would have to come up with some kind of story? Now, the government already knows that they’re getting hand in hand with a convicted criminal to testify against other potential persons. They do that all the time. They’re used to it. The reality is that these cooperating witness agreements, heavily incentivized, exaggerating the story to impress the government and ultimately implicate others.”

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/...licate-others/

----------

And now to throw more cold water on the excitement of liberals...

----------

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz argued that former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s guilty plea is a “show of weakness” for Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Dershowitz said, “Well, the last thing any prosecutor wants to do is to have to indict his primary witness for lying. Because if you indict your witness for lying, it really means he’s not useful as a witness, he has no credibility. I’m sure the prosecutor was trying to indict him for some scheme or conspiracy that involved other people in the White House, but there is nothing there, and he had to, finally come down and indict him for lying, which makes him a useless witness. So, this is not a show of strength by the prosecutor. It’s a show of weakness. It’s a show that they really have nothing on anybody above of Flynn and that Flynn made the terrible mistake about lying about something he could have told truth about. Because the two things he lied about were perfectly lawful and perfectly proper for somebody to do during the transition. And so, I think it really reflects a weakness, not a strength in Mueller’s prosecution.”

He added, “Now, they still may be able to use him to lead to other witnesses or to get documentary evidence or to give them leads, but he’s no good as witness. Because he’s obviously sold himself to protect his own son, and he’s prepared not only to sing, but perhaps even to compose and [unintelligible] to exaggerate if he thinks that will get him a better deal from the prosecutor. So, if I’m a defense lawyer, I have no trouble destroying his credibility on the witness stand.”

Dershowitz concluded Mueller is “going on the domino theory, one domino at the time. You go for the lowest-hanging fruit. You indict people for lying to the FBI, failing to fill out the proper forms. These are forms of essentially political jaywalking, then you squeeze them and you hope that maybe they’ll give you information that would lead to somebody higher up. But in the end, it’s hope over reality. So, I would not say this is a day for celebrating for the prosecution in the Mueller office.”

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/...s-for-mueller/

[Charles]

Looks like the mainstream media is starting to realize there may be nothing to this:

----------

MSNBC legal analyst Danny Cevallos argued that former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has a “massive” incentive to lie to the FBI — to implicate others.

Cevallos was asked Saturday in an appearance on MSNBC what the “incentive” was for Flynn to lie.

“In a word, massive,” Cevallos replied. “I have seen this. I dealt with this personally. Mike Flynn is not only somebody who has been threatened by the government with up to five years in prison for one false statement or several false statements, there’s also been intimations that his son could be charged, too.”

He continued, “You think about your own family members. Think about if your own child or your sibling or your parents were threatened with prosecution, what incentive you would have to come up with some kind of story? Now, the government already knows that they’re getting hand in hand with a convicted criminal to testify against other potential persons. They do that all the time. They’re used to it. The reality is that these cooperating witness agreements, heavily incentivized, exaggerating the story to impress the government and ultimately implicate others.”

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/...licate-others/

----------

And now to throw more cold water on the excitement of liberals...

----------

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz argued that former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s guilty plea is a “show of weakness” for Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Dershowitz said, “Well, the last thing any prosecutor wants to do is to have to indict his primary witness for lying. Because if you indict your witness for lying, it really means he’s not useful as a witness, he has no credibility. I’m sure the prosecutor was trying to indict him for some scheme or conspiracy that involved other people in the White House, but there is nothing there, and he had to, finally come down and indict him for lying, which makes him a useless witness. So, this is not a show of strength by the prosecutor. It’s a show of weakness. It’s a show that they really have nothing on anybody above of Flynn and that Flynn made the terrible mistake about lying about something he could have told truth about. Because the two things he lied about were perfectly lawful and perfectly proper for somebody to do during the transition. And so, I think it really reflects a weakness, not a strength in Mueller’s prosecution.”

He added, “Now, they still may be able to use him to lead to other witnesses or to get documentary evidence or to give them leads, but he’s no good as witness. Because he’s obviously sold himself to protect his own son, and he’s prepared not only to sing, but perhaps even to compose and [unintelligible] to exaggerate if he thinks that will get him a better deal from the prosecutor. So, if I’m a defense lawyer, I have no trouble destroying his credibility on the witness stand.”

Dershowitz concluded Mueller is “going on the domino theory, one domino at the time. You go for the lowest-hanging fruit. You indict people for lying to the FBI, failing to fill out the proper forms. These are forms of essentially political jaywalking, then you squeeze them and you hope that maybe they’ll give you information that would lead to somebody higher up. But in the end, it’s hope over reality. So, I would not say this is a day for celebrating for the prosecution in the Mueller office.”

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/...s-for-mueller/

Mainstream...? You only link to Breitbart which is not mainstream. They would know that Dershowitz is a good source to go to since he has often supported Trump. That in and of itself of course proves none of it wrong. It's just that calling it mainstream is perhaps taking it a bit too far. So while what you point to is interesting and worth mentioning it proves nothing to be mainstream.

Try this one: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...n-team-members

Does not look like they are starting to think that there "may be nothing to this".

[Mountain Man]

Mainstream...? You only link to Breitbart which is not mainstream. They would know that Dershowitz is a good source to go to since he has often supported Trump. That in and of itself of course proves none of it wrong. It's just that calling it mainstream is perhaps taking it a bit too far. So while what you point to is interesting and worth mentioning it proves nothing to be mainstream.

Try this one: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...n-team-members

Does not look like they are starting to think that there "may be nothing to this".

The first story I quoted is about an MSNBC legal analyst, you dope. That's the "mainstream media" I was referring to.

Oh, and pay close attention to your Guardian story, because they're pulling a fairly blatant bait and switch. I'll see if you can figure it out.

[Cow Poke]

Your belief that this investigation is not going to involve the president at some point, is to the say the least, living in denial.

This guy wrote this article just for you, Sea.

Trump is out of excuses — but not necessarily out of office — as Flynn cooperates

[Sea of red]

This guy wrote this article just for you, Sea.

Trump is out of excuses — but not necessarily out of office — as Flynn cooperates

These articles are just for you.

'I got recruited to collude with the Russians': An unexpected player has added a new layer to the Trump campaign's Russia ties

Trump Campaign Adviser Met With Russian to Discuss 'Dirt' on Clinton

They knew what the Russians were doing, and they've been lying about it for over a year.

[Sea of red]

Judge Napolitano: Mueller Could Potentially Indict Trump After Flynn Plea Deal

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/judge-na...ynn-plea-deal/

arlier today, following the blockbuster news that former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI over his Russian contacts and would be testifying against President Donald Trump, Fox News’ Judge Andrew Napolitano said this was a “nightmare for Donald Trump.”

Judge Nap has now expanded on his remarks, and in his opinion, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe could very well lead to Trump’s exit from office.

Calling into Shepard Smith Reporting, Napolitano told anchor Shepard Smith noted that if Mueller has enough evidence to charge Trump with a crime, a “constitutional crisis will come.” The Fox News analyst then explained that if the special counsel doesn’t indict the president, he could send that evidence over the House of Representatives.

“He could be indicted?” Smith asked.

“Yes, he could, Shep,” Napolitano responded. “Again, this has not happened and we don’t know where it would go if a sitting president is indicted.”

The judge went on to state that it was possible all the evidence won’t come from Flynn, adding that Flynn could lead investigators to others who may have further evidence, such as emails, notes and memos. This led to Smith to ask whether or not Trump may have committed an impeachable offense.

“It would depend on when this occurred,” Napolitano answered. “If it occurred while he was a candidate and the purpose of communicating with the Russians was to facilitate and encourage or justify their interference with the American political process, you have a very serious criminal offense, which would probably constitute an impeachable offense.”

He added that there were other possibilities that could range from serious offenses that may not be impeachable to categories that were.

“The President of the United States has steadfastly repeatedly and consistently denied that he had any knowledge of any involvement with the Russians,” the judge stated. “If General Flynn contradicts that in a credible way under oath, we have a serious problem on our hands.”

When a rabid conservative FOX host says Trump is in serious jeopardy, you know things are bad.