President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Peregrinus

Count Dooku wrote: »

Can you point out exactly where that says he is looking for immunity

It doesn't say he's looking for immunity. The WSJ said that. The letter from his attorneys neither confirms nor denies that he is lookign for immunity, but tries to explain why he is looking for something.

If he hasn't looked for immunity and doesn't intend to, this might have been a timely moment for his lawyers to point that out. They didn't. You can draw from that what conclusions you want.

Count Dooku wrote: »

Fair investigation without prejudice must be out question in first place, but democrats want hide own failures behind blaming Russia in hope that their yelling will distract attention from fact that Hillary was the worst candidate DNC ever had

Oh, c'mon, Count Dooku; think before you type. People who keep interjecting "OMG Hillary worst DNC candidate ever!!!" into discussions about Donald Trump and his fitness for office are not going to have much credibility when they accuse others of trying to distract from the issue at hand.

listermint

Count Dooku wrote: »

Can you point out exactly where that says he is looking for immunity
Fair investigation without prejudice must be out question in first place, but democrats want hide own failures behind blaming Russia in hope that their yelling will distract attention from fact that Hillary was the worst candidate DNC ever had

This is embarrassing stuff. You've construed a public statement as vindication, when all it says it's he wants to talk to people but wants guarantees.

If you can't make out what that means then i don't know how i can assist

Calina

Quoting a prisonplanet tweet in support of an argument demonstrates partisanship rather than anything vaguely approaching critical thinking.

BabyCheeses

Count Dooku wrote: »

I afraid to disappoint you, but
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/847609406774591488

It looks like USA is back to good old times of mccarthyism, where systematic failures were hiding behind russophobia and witch hunting

May be wrong but that looks like the guy the_donald love. I think I'll wait for someone normal to come out with information.

Christy42

Count Dooku wrote: »

Can you point out exactly where that says he is looking for immunity
Fair investigation without prejudice must be out question in first place, but democrats want hide own failures behind blaming Russia in hope that their yelling will distract attention from fact that Hillary was the worst candidate DNC ever had

Errr. Wsj quoted an official saying he was looking for immunity. No one ever said that letter said he was looking for immunity in that particular letter. Looks like more fake news from Trump supporters here people.

Also it is a Donald Trump thread. Why would we deflect from Hillary. That is like saying we are trying to deflect from Enda Kenny with this news. Neither tend to be overly relevant to thread anyway so no need to deflect.

seamus

Peregrinus wrote: »

They don't say whether the particular assurance he is seeking is a grant of immunity (though that is I think the only meaningful assurance that the Committees could offer; that's certainly the view I would take if I were Flynn).

I expect that while "immunity" is a word so glibly used everywhere, in the actual legal documents that go flying around the word will probably never appear because it implies that a person will be placed outside the reach of the law, which cannot be permitted in any fair legal system.

Instead they most likely use phrases like, "assurances against unfair prosecution" which are legal code words for "immunity" and security forces agreeing to plea bargain on small charges in exchange for ignoring the big ones.

Peregrinus

No, they will talk about immunity, using that word.

In the US system (as indeed in Ireland) there's a constitutional provision against self-incrimination. You can't be compelled to give evidence which might expose you to the risk of prosecution.

Immunity is often conferred aggressively, as it were, without beings sought. You refuse to answer, on the grounds that the answer may incriminate you? Right, we are granting you immunity in relation to the matters you're being questioned about. You are now at no risk of prosecution in relation to those matters, and therefore you must answer the questions we are putting to you. If you refuse, that's contempt, and you can be imprisoned.

But they are quite explicit that you are being granted immunity. If there's any havering or mealy-mouthedness or attempt to conceal, if it's not abundantly clear that you cannot be prosucuted, you still have your constitutional privilege and you can refuse to answer questions.

If it's correct that Flynn is seeking immunity, it suggests two things. One, he thinks he's at risk of prosecution - i.e. he thinks he has done something which is at least possibly illegal. Two, he thinks his evidence will incriminate not only him, but someone higher than him. Or, at any rate, he thinks the Committee will think that. If the buck stopped with Flynn, you wouldn't give Flynn immunity. What would be the point? You give Flynn immunity so that you can get his evidence to use in a prosecution (or impeachment) of someone bigger than Flynn.

Billy86

seamus wrote: »

I expect that while "immunity" is a word so glibly used everywhere, in the actual legal documents that go flying around the word will probably never appear because it implies that a person will be placed outside the reach of the law, which cannot be permitted in any fair legal system.

Instead they most likely use phrases like, "assurances against unfair prosecution" which are legal code words for "immunity" and security forces agreeing to plea bargain on small charges in exchange for ignoring the big ones.

It amazes me how Trump fans can quote a letter with that exact phrase as some kind of 'proof' Flynn isn't looking for immunity officials have reported him to be looking for.

Actually no it doesn't amaze me, they've been desperately clutching at straws for months. More to the point, it amuses me.

Professor Moriarty

Maybe he's just looking for a flu shot.

Billy86

InTheTrees wrote: »

There's more scandal evolving about who the house intelligence committee chairman nunes went to see last week at the whitehouse.

It seems he was shown classified material and it was shown to him by whitehouse staff that should not have had such material because it concerned the FBI investigation.

Strange times indeed.

It seems like Nunes' attempts to block any investigation continue to only bring us closer and closer to the top...

http://uk.businessinsider.com/devin-nunes-cohen-watnick-trump-wiretap-2017-3?r=US&IR=T

One of the two White House aides who helped provide classified intelligence reports to the House Intelligence Committee chairman, according to a Thursday New York Times report, was told days earlier by National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster that he would be removed from his job on the National Security Council.

But President Donald Trump intervened to keep the aide, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, in place, according to a March 14 Politico report. Cohen-Watnick is the senior director for intelligence at the NSC.

McMaster decided after weeks of pressure from CIA officials who were unsure of the operative to move Cohen-Watnick to another job, according to Politico. Cohen-Watnick appealed the decision to White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon and senior adviser Jared Kushner, two men he became close with during the transition.
Bannon and Kushner then presented his case to Trump, who overruled McMaster, Politico reported.

Cohen-Watnick had worked for Michael Flynn, the ousted national security adviser whom McMaster replaced, when Flynn was in charge of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

According to The Times, Cohen-Watnick began reviewing the highly classified reports shortly after Trump made his unfounded claim on Twitter in early March that President Barack Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower.

Billy86

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Maybe he's just looking for a flu shot.

Well hey, people who talk out against Russia do have a funny tendency of falling ill under mysterious circumstances.

swampgas

Billy86 wrote: »

Well hey, people who talk out against Russia do have a funny tendency of falling ill under mysterious circumstances.

You might be joking, but these are strange times indeed. I wonder what sort of personal security precautions Flynn is taking right now. There are plenty of people inside the WH with motive, and potentially the means, to eliminate Flynn if he is threatening to bring them down with him.

However I doubt whether Putin would risk making such a move though, that would be a very serious escalation, and what he really wants is sanctions lifted - being seen to have been involved in a political assassination in the US wouldn't help that.

Billy86

swampgas wrote: »

You might be joking, but these are strange times indeed. I wonder what sort of personal security precautions Flynn is taking right now. There are plenty of people inside the WH with motive, and potentially the means, to eliminate Flynn if he is threatening to bring them down with him.

However I doubt whether Putin would risk making such a move though, that would be a very serious escalation, and what he really wants is sanctions lifted - being seen to have been involved in a political assassination in the US wouldn't help that.

Half joking, though Clinton Watts himself yesterday said to follow the trail of dead Russians. I would agree that Putin being an extremely smooth and savvy operator would at the very least be extremely cautious about it, though making a point by being extremely brazen in his actions has also played a big role in him becoming the richest and arguably most powerful* man in the world.

Which also makes me laugh, imagining him facepalming and mumbling "this f***ing idiot!" to himself at times like when Trump declared "Russia, if you're listening please hack Clinton!" (paraphrasing there).



*I say most powerful because unlike others such as the POTUS, he doesn't have to answer to a voting public.

Billy86

Oh Jesus lads, it's another Saipan incident!!! :eek:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-11-13/obscure-casino-run-by-a-trump-protege-is-raising-big-questions

On a tiny island in the western Pacific, at the end of a duty-free mall wedged between a one-story laundromat and a cell-phone shop, you’ll find what may be the most successful casino of all time.

The awkwardly named Best Sunshine Live hardly looks like a high-roller hub. Construction workers bet $5 or $10 at a time on roulette and baccarat in a fug of nicotine. Clustered in a far corner are a handful of tables for so-called VIP gamblers, which at 8:30 p.m. on a September Saturday are almost empty. A nearby bar has just a couple of patrons.

Nothing about the facility, which opened last year on the U.S. island of Saipan, hints at the money flowing through it—table for table, far more than at the biggest casinos in Macau, the world’s number-one gambling capital. Nor is there any sign of the connections of its owner, Hong Kong-listed Imperial Pacific International Holdings Ltd., which has a market value of $2.4 billion.

Zubeneschamali

seamus wrote: »

I expect that while "immunity" is a word so glibly used everywhere, in the actual legal documents that go flying around the word will probably never appear because it implies that a person will be placed outside the reach of the law, which cannot be permitted in any fair legal system.

Instead they most likely use phrases like, "assurances against unfair prosecution" which are legal code words for "immunity" and security forces agreeing to plea bargain on small charges in exchange for ignoring the big ones.

No, as Peregrinus says, if Flynn gets immunity it will be called immunity.

The letter does not say "Flynn and others broke the law, and Flynn will testify against more important people if he gets immunity" because that would be admitting Flynn committed a crime. You don't do that until after you get immunity.

Instead the letter hedges, and says he "has a story to tell", and wants "assurances against unfair prosecution". It's obvious what it means, though.

Water John

Well the term 'unfair prosecution' means what?
If there is some evidence I did something and I'm prosecuted but am found not guilty. Is that unfair prosecution? Wouldn't say so.

In reality, it's verbal skirting around, immunity. That's my reading of it. Unless Flynn doesn't trust the law of the USA.

seamus

Water John wrote: »

Well the term 'unfair prosecution' means what?
If there is some evidence I did something and I'm prosecuted but am found not guilty. Is that unfair prosecution? Wouldn't say so.

In reality, it's verbal skirting around, immunity. That's my reading of it. Unless Flynn doesn't trust the law of the USA.

Well, exactly. It's very specific. It's not "unlawful" or "wrongful" prosecution, but "unfair" prosecution, i.e. prosecution which targets Flynn alone and not others who may be equally indicted in the same activities or who may have directed him in those activities.

Flynn himself remarked previously that you don't ask for immunity unless you've done something illegal.

Therefore by the same logic you don't look for "assurances against unfair prosecution" unless you've done something that you can be prosecuted for.

MightyMandarin

Don't forget folks this is the same Michael Flynn who in Sept. 2016 said “When you are given immunity, that means you probably committed a crime".

Still, I hope he squeals and dishes the dirt on Manafort, Page, Trump and the Russians.

Zubeneschamali

The other interesting thing about Flynn looking for immunity is that usually law enforcement will only give you immunity if you can implicate someone more important. There is no point in granting immunity to the head of a gang to catch less important members.

Who is more important than the National Security Adviser?

demfad

Calina wrote: »

Quoting a prisonplanet tweet in support of an argument demonstrates partisanship rather than anything vaguely approaching critical thinking.

Prisonplanet's site infowars are a huge amplifier of conservative, conspiracy theory pro Trump news (as I'm sure you know).
Sites like these are also under investigation by the FBI:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article139695453.html

This would include twitter accounts being subpoenad

Twitter is openly cooperating with the FBI on this.

Have a look at this tweet (shared by L.Mensch on twitter).



At the next rally Trump did just that.

The other accounts there are Dan Scavino, social media manager for Trump then, now controls @POTUS account. And Trumps lawyer Michael Cohen.
All these accounts will be examined plus the likes of Mike Cernovic.

demfad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The other interesting thing about Flynn looking for immunity is that usually law enforcement will only give you immunity if you can implicate someone more important. There is no point in granting immunity to the head of a gang to catch less important members.

Who is more important than the National Security Adviser?

Steve Bannon and/or Donald Trump.

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

Wow, it was doing the rounds a lot over the weekend but as unconfirmed... this is going to be very, very interesting - especially with such a promising start to proceedings from the Senate today, an actual bipartisan effort to investigate.

Odds on us waking up to a Wikileaks 'big reveal' of some sort?

Oh hey, look everybody - a Vikileaks dump emerged today!!

What an absolute shambles they have made of themselves in this affair. :pac:

MightyMandarin

Billy86 wrote: »

Oh hey, look everybody - a Vikileaks dump emerged today!!

What an absolute shambles they have made of themselves in this affair. :pac:

Whatever sort of credibility they had in the beginning has surely been vanquished at this stage. Nothing more than a Russian mouthpiece.

Christy42

Billy86 wrote: »

Oh hey, look everybody - a Vikileaks dump emerged today!!

What an absolute shambles they have made of themselves in this affair. :pac:

Ridiculous. I had some sympathy for them in the beginning of all this as I thought they were releasing what they had. As it became clear that the drops were specifically timed they lost all serious credibility.

I know they have released a few things on Russia but not much serious. They are just an online wing of RT at this stage.

Whst in the world happened to Assange turning himself in if Obama released Manning? Added to that the fact that he has been actively helping the man who called for Manning's execution at the time of the Manning leaks and you start to see Assange does not care a jolt about whistleblowers.

PopePalpatine

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Whatever sort of credibility they had in the beginning has surely been vanquished at this stage. Nothing more than a Russian mouthpiece.

I wonder when was the last time Wikileaks dumped anything which would embarrass the Putin regime? I'd hazard a guess it was sometime before Assange hid in the Ecuadorian Embassy.

Billy86

Christy42 wrote: »

Ridiculous. I had some sympathy for them in the beginning of all this as I thought they were releasing what they had. As it became clear that the drops were specifically timed they lost all serious credibility.

I know they have released a few things on Russia but not much serious. They are just an online wing of RT at this stage.

Whst in the world happened to Assange turning himself in if Obama released Manning? Added to that the fact that he has been actively helping the man who called for Manning's execution at the time of the Manning leaks and you start to see Assange does not care a jolt about whistleblowers.

He lied. Because he has as much (maybe even less?) credibility as the Russian mouthpiece his creation has become - ironically Assange put himself and his own personal gain above all else, just as Vikileaks completely changed their agenda from "open government" to "shady, secretive connections with certain politicians and governments".

aloyisious

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I wonder when was the last time Wikileaks dumped anything which would embarrass the Putin regime? I'd hazard a guess it was sometime before Assange hid in the Ecuadorian Embassy.

I was channel-hopping last night between CNN and Fox News channels. CNN covered what it said is present day Russia, with a short interview of the St Petersburg deputy who is far to the right of Putin (handy tool for Vlad) and coverage of how Russian youth is not too happy with The Kremlin, street-protesting against Vlad and his Govt on social issues.

Don's budget came out today, Environment, Health, HUD, Education and the Elderly got cuts and the military got an increase.

InTheTrees

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Whatever sort of credibility they had in the beginning has surely been vanquished at this stage. Nothing more than a Russian mouthpiece.

I have no doubt "wikileaks" was a russian invention from the start.

Billy86

InTheTrees wrote: »

I have no doubt "wikileaks" was a russian invention from the start.

I actually had not considered that.

Inquitus

President Trump forgets to sign EO's as he exits stage left under media questions. Looks like he's either being petulant or wasn't quite sure what he was there to do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgsJ4y9vWXg