Are we sure of this? Trump's been incredibly loyal to Flynn, it seems, even going so far as to say he'd like to have him back on his team once this all calms over.
I think that's more because Trump is incapable of admitting fault of any kind. If he wanted Flynn then it must be because Flynn is the best.
Congress should not give him immunity, because that screws with the criminal investigation
As someone whose legal knowledge stems from John Grisham novels and law and order like a real American, how would it work if they offered flynn immunity for his testimony again Trump et al, then once he is secure he turns around and says it was all him and no one else was involved?
Because I'm pretty sure I saw that in a movie once, and maybe trump saw the same movie comes up with the idea completely on his own.
Congress should not give him immunity, because that screws with the criminal investigation
As someone whose legal knowledge stems from John Grisham novels and law and order like a real American, how would it work if they offered flynn immunity for his testimony again Trump et al, then once he is secure he turns around and says it was all him and no one else was involved?
Because I'm pretty sure I saw that in a movie once, and maybe trump saw the same movie comes up with the idea completely on his own.
Immunity negotiations usually spell out exactly what you can provide, and if you fail to do so, immunity goes bye-bye. So Flynn would have to say he can give X written records, Y documents, and testify to the contents of Z conversations, and that all those things would help in charging somebody specific, and big enough to make it worth letting him go free. If he then fails to delivery X, Y, and Z, or X, Y, and Z don't do what he says they do, then he gets to rot in jail.
And if he tries to play clever and not name who his evidence could convict or what evidence he can give so he can then weasel out, then he'll never even get an offer of immunity.
He needs to negotiate the price for the car, and then the check needs to clear before he drives it off the lot.
There's also a bit of an open secret somebody linked to some examples of the last time Flynn was talking about immunity: Defendants have basically no recourse except getting their own testimony excluded under the 5th if prosecutors stab them in the back and charge them anyway. So you *really* need to have the goods if you think you're going to get immunity.
Congress should not give him immunity, because that screws with the criminal investigation
As someone whose legal knowledge stems from John Grisham novels and law and order like a real American, how would it work if they offered flynn immunity for his testimony again Trump et al, then once he is secure he turns around and says it was all him and no one else was involved?
Because I'm pretty sure I saw that in a movie once, and maybe trump saw the same movie comes up with the idea completely on his own.
He'd have to be very, very confident that there was no evidence otherwise and that everyone involved would stick to the story.
I'm fairly certain evidence already exists and has been found by the various ongoing investigations to prove otherwise. If it doesn't then there's at least enough to make the investigators think more exists.
If Flynn gets up and gives testimony under oath saying "It was all me. But I have immunity now so neener neener neener" and that's followed by proof it wasn't all him then he's got no immunity from the perjury charges which will quickly follow.
Immunity is at prosecutorial discretion, you can totally revoke it if the person was bullshitting or changes testimony.
The problem is if you are compelling testimony, you can not compel testimony against oneself but ypu can absolutely compel testimony under penalty of perjury against someone else. The usual process then is to compel lower level schmucks with a cover of immunity (as you can not possibly incriminate yourself if you arent being charged with anything). To make them testift against high ups, and bust them on perjury if they lie. This permanently renders any testimony so received inadmissible for any trial involving that person. The other loophole though is that you can still try them for something if you have evidence from other sources or the like not involving the testimony through parallel construction, especially if it is unrelated. So you couldnt get immunity for a racketeering charge and get on the stand and say "oh and by the way I have 25 dead bodies in my basement" though they couldnt use that specific statement in your trial.
Jealous Deva on
+2
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
Considering the other, multiply-sourced stories about Israeli intelligence officials literally screaming at their US counterparts I'm assuming he is going with the original definition of "terrific" - "causing terror".
People literally pull this defence. I expect Trump to go for it.
He already has. Repeatedly. The Muslim Ban springs to mind, for example.
I'm not sure anyone has actually held up a video screen with him saying whatever it was he said but quoting him back, verbatim, does nothing to penetrate Trump's "Nuh-uh" Defense.
People literally pull this defence. I expect Trump to go for it.
He already has. Repeatedly. The Muslim Ban springs to mind, for example.
I'm not sure anyone has actually held up a video screen with him saying whatever it was he said but quoting him back, verbatim, does nothing to penetrate Trump's "Nuh-uh" Defense.
That needs to be a demand for debate participation for whoever the Democrat is in 2020. Live fact-checker who can put quotes/tweets/video from either candidate up on screen on demand.
I think we all have this fantasy that, once confronted with incontrovertible evidence of hypocrisy, that people will be like "oh shit, I'm a hypocrite"
I think he's trying to force that deal.
"I plead the Fifth; you want me to say anything, you have to give me immunity."
There is a fairly strong legal argument that if he is compelled to say anything in front of Congress then he gets a de facto grant of immunity. If you want Flynn in prison then you probably do not want his testimony compelled.
If you want Trump in prison on the other hand...
Importantly a grant of immunity on the testimony. This only means that when he goes to court the jury cannot hear that the confessed to congress. It does not mean that they cannot be taken to court.
The 5th provides that you cannot be forced to testify against yourself. The implication(and case law I want to say but ianal) here is that you can be forced to testify but if you are forced to testify that testimony cannot be used against you in a court of law.
Now Flynn wants an actual immunity deal for the crimes he has committed. I am not actually sure that congress can grant that. A prosecutor could but if congress wrote it it would have to be a bill and would therefor be a bill of attainder. Prosecutors(and the executive) have the authority (I believe) as a result of prosecutorial discretion. Because congress cannot prosecute it doesn't have the authority to take away that power from prosecutors.
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Yeah, if he testified before congress, it's only the testimony that is made verboten. He doesn't have immunity.
Flynn to me seems like someone who was not too bright, got caught and now he's trying to work a deal when they don't need him for a deal at all. Like he thinks he's got more cards to play when they've seen his hand.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I think he's trying to force that deal.
"I plead the Fifth; you want me to say anything, you have to give me immunity."
There is a fairly strong legal argument that if he is compelled to say anything in front of Congress then he gets a de facto grant of immunity. If you want Flynn in prison then you probably do not want his testimony compelled.
If you want Trump in prison on the other hand...
Importantly a grant of immunity on the testimony. This only means that when he goes to court the jury cannot hear that the confessed to congress. It does not mean that they cannot be taken to court.
The 5th provides that you cannot be forced to testify against yourself. The implication(and case law I want to say but ianal) here is that you can be forced to testify but if you are forced to testify that testimony cannot be used against you in a court of law.
Now Flynn wants an actual immunity deal for the crimes he has committed. I am not actually sure that congress can grant that. A prosecutor could but if congress wrote it it would have to be a bill and would therefor be a bill of attainder. Prosecutors(and the executive) have the authority (I believe) as a result of prosecutorial discretion. Because congress cannot prosecute it doesn't have the authority to take away that power from prosecutors.
Fine, went and looked it up. It's referred to as Kastigar Immunity. That page has nice links to other relevant info about immunity deals and the relevant US Code sections.
If compelled to testify then the potential criminal prosecution has to prove they have that information from source that is unrelated to his testimony. So unless they already have it then it becomes really hard to say you didn't learn about it from the nationally broadcast hearing.
Have you considered tossing that collection of links in the politics sticky since you've got it anyways? That might be handy for everyone and removes the excuse of the links being buried in the middle of threads.
Though I guess that is another thing for you to have to pay attention to and update along with all the cat herding you've been doing.
Edit: Whelp, that was gonna be a PM but I am clearly awesome and it's way too late now.
Contempt of Congress isn't as big a thing as Contempt of Court. Contempt of Court you can potentially spend forever in jail (and since you hold your own key this is legal), but the worst I've heard of from Contempt of Congress is a fine that nobody involved here would think twice of.
Congress can imprison people for contempt.
It doesn't happen often - the last one I remember was in 1983, where someone got six months, several years of probation, and a fine that might have actually stung a bit in the early eighties for the target - but it happens. There've been a lot of cases where they were obviously preparing to do that at which point the target suddenly started getting cooperative.
0
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
ABC ostensibly reports the news, depending on the day
The screen cap in this is hilarious.
Bored child forced to sit through adult things.
The pointless lumbering wander around at the beginning of the video is mind blowing for an adult.
If you were to be a generous person, and I'm not saying you or I am such a person, but if you were you could say the wandering around wasn't pointless. It was about getting into the right position to make the "go in for the power handshake" shot look better. You aren't supposed to see the first bit, because it's normally removed in post-production.
Weird, apparently the 5th applies to documents as well?
Meanwhile, Flynn can make an argument that his right against self-incrimination extends even to the production of documents that could hurt him, Senate aides said
I read that criminal law comic a while back, and it seemed pretty adamant that you could be compelled to produce stuff that already exists like documents regardless of the fifth amendment
The fifth amendment says you can't be "held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury".
Generally if you are at a trial the only fifth amendment recourse you have is to choose not to testify. Being subpoeaned following an indictment means you have no 5th amendment protection.
This isn't a criminal trial and Flynn isn't being charged (yet) with anything, so certainly hasn't had a grand jury idictment. He's probably making the argument that providing evidence or testimony which reveals the comission of a crime is in violation of that.
Posts
I think that's more because Trump is incapable of admitting fault of any kind. If he wanted Flynn then it must be because Flynn is the best.
As someone whose legal knowledge stems from John Grisham novels and law and order like a real American, how would it work if they offered flynn immunity for his testimony again Trump et al, then once he is secure he turns around and says it was all him and no one else was involved?
Because I'm pretty sure I saw that in a movie once, and maybe trump saw the same movie comes up with the idea completely on his own.
Immunity negotiations usually spell out exactly what you can provide, and if you fail to do so, immunity goes bye-bye. So Flynn would have to say he can give X written records, Y documents, and testify to the contents of Z conversations, and that all those things would help in charging somebody specific, and big enough to make it worth letting him go free. If he then fails to delivery X, Y, and Z, or X, Y, and Z don't do what he says they do, then he gets to rot in jail.
And if he tries to play clever and not name who his evidence could convict or what evidence he can give so he can then weasel out, then he'll never even get an offer of immunity.
He needs to negotiate the price for the car, and then the check needs to clear before he drives it off the lot.
There's also a bit of an open secret somebody linked to some examples of the last time Flynn was talking about immunity: Defendants have basically no recourse except getting their own testimony excluded under the 5th if prosecutors stab them in the back and charge them anyway. So you *really* need to have the goods if you think you're going to get immunity.
He'd have to be very, very confident that there was no evidence otherwise and that everyone involved would stick to the story.
I'm fairly certain evidence already exists and has been found by the various ongoing investigations to prove otherwise. If it doesn't then there's at least enough to make the investigators think more exists.
If Flynn gets up and gives testimony under oath saying "It was all me. But I have immunity now so neener neener neener" and that's followed by proof it wasn't all him then he's got no immunity from the perjury charges which will quickly follow.
The problem is if you are compelling testimony, you can not compel testimony against oneself but ypu can absolutely compel testimony under penalty of perjury against someone else. The usual process then is to compel lower level schmucks with a cover of immunity (as you can not possibly incriminate yourself if you arent being charged with anything). To make them testift against high ups, and bust them on perjury if they lie. This permanently renders any testimony so received inadmissible for any trial involving that person. The other loophole though is that you can still try them for something if you have evidence from other sources or the like not involving the testimony through parallel construction, especially if it is unrelated. So you couldnt get immunity for a racketeering charge and get on the stand and say "oh and by the way I have 25 dead bodies in my basement" though they couldnt use that specific statement in your trial.
Welp. This happened.
Right next to Bibi
ABC ostensibly reports the news, depending on the day
Well, no one ever said he mentioned Israel. That information was backward engineered from what he did mention, which was WHY it was such a big deal.
People literally pull this defence. I expect Trump to go for it.
He already has. Repeatedly. The Muslim Ban springs to mind, for example.
I'm not sure anyone has actually held up a video screen with him saying whatever it was he said but quoting him back, verbatim, does nothing to penetrate Trump's "Nuh-uh" Defense.
That needs to be a demand for debate participation for whoever the Democrat is in 2020. Live fact-checker who can put quotes/tweets/video from either candidate up on screen on demand.
I think we all have this fantasy that, once confronted with incontrovertible evidence of hypocrisy, that people will be like "oh shit, I'm a hypocrite"
people don't work like that
Trump's foreign trip and other foreign policy issues: Foreign Policy Thread
Trump admin/family corruption and grift not related to Russia: Corruption/Grift/Ethics Violations in the Trump Administration
General Middle East goings on: The Middle East Thread
Trump admin/government's treatment of the press: Freedom of the Press Thread
Trump immigration policy, Muslim ban and beyond: Immigration Policy Thread
Reminder: Watergate comparison/discussion is on topic here, but don't get too into the weeds on it.
/straps in for another week
Importantly a grant of immunity on the testimony. This only means that when he goes to court the jury cannot hear that the confessed to congress. It does not mean that they cannot be taken to court.
The 5th provides that you cannot be forced to testify against yourself. The implication(and case law I want to say but ianal) here is that you can be forced to testify but if you are forced to testify that testimony cannot be used against you in a court of law.
Now Flynn wants an actual immunity deal for the crimes he has committed. I am not actually sure that congress can grant that. A prosecutor could but if congress wrote it it would have to be a bill and would therefor be a bill of attainder. Prosecutors(and the executive) have the authority (I believe) as a result of prosecutorial discretion. Because congress cannot prosecute it doesn't have the authority to take away that power from prosecutors.
pleasepaypreacher.net
You did now, you stupid chucklefuck.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Haha
"The lying media says I exposed the identity of this spy, but I would never do such a terrible thing to Sam Stevenson!"
This thread is closed, btw.
Fine, went and looked it up. It's referred to as Kastigar Immunity. That page has nice links to other relevant info about immunity deals and the relevant US Code sections.
If compelled to testify then the potential criminal prosecution has to prove they have that information from source that is unrelated to his testimony. So unless they already have it then it becomes really hard to say you didn't learn about it from the nationally broadcast hearing.
Link fixed. here's the right one. https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/210718/conflicts-of-what-trist-non-russian-trump-corruption
Have you considered tossing that collection of links in the politics sticky since you've got it anyways? That might be handy for everyone and removes the excuse of the links being buried in the middle of threads.
Though I guess that is another thing for you to have to pay attention to and update along with all the cat herding you've been doing.
Edit: Whelp, that was gonna be a PM but I am clearly awesome and it's way too late now.
Congress can imprison people for contempt.
It doesn't happen often - the last one I remember was in 1983, where someone got six months, several years of probation, and a fine that might have actually stung a bit in the early eighties for the target - but it happens. There've been a lot of cases where they were obviously preparing to do that at which point the target suddenly started getting cooperative.
Your work managing all.... this, is beyond amazing. Thank you.
What was that Onion headline from the 1930s? "Japan Forms Alliance With White Supremacists in Well-Thought-Out Scheme"?
Replace "Japan" with "Israel" and it's current news.
The screen cap in this is hilarious.
Bored child forced to sit through adult things.
He's like a second-rate Columbo villain. Except it doesn't take Peter Falk's disarming questioning to make him self-incriminate.
The pointless lumbering wander around at the beginning of the video is mind blowing for an adult.
If you were to be a generous person, and I'm not saying you or I am such a person, but if you were you could say the wandering around wasn't pointless. It was about getting into the right position to make the "go in for the power handshake" shot look better. You aren't supposed to see the first bit, because it's normally removed in post-production.
(edit rando on twitter, just there for the video)
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/manafort-stone-turn-over-russia-documents-senate-intel-committee-n763141
it would just be a get out of jail card if it did
What even is the point of a subpoena then
NNID: Hakkekage
Maybe because this is a Congressional one and not a criminal one?
Generally if you are at a trial the only fifth amendment recourse you have is to choose not to testify. Being subpoeaned following an indictment means you have no 5th amendment protection.
This isn't a criminal trial and Flynn isn't being charged (yet) with anything, so certainly hasn't had a grand jury idictment. He's probably making the argument that providing evidence or testimony which reveals the comission of a crime is in violation of that.