What if it was not the Russians?

The only one of these that I'm familiar with is Cheryl Mills, and it's quite probable that she committed a crime.

I'm not a Scooter Libby defender. The fact that a investigation is political is not an excuse to break the law. If it was, then pretty much nobody would cooperate with any ethics investigation.

Investigators clearly think he knows something beyond the registration screw-up. Otherwise, they wouldn't even be discussing immunity. That doesn't mean he actually does, but I'm not sure why you or anyone else should just assume that he doesn't.

 

Clearly?
This is political theatre.

 

Then why even consider an immunity deal?

 

Scooter Libby may be the perfect corollary to Mike Flynn. Libby was convicted of 4 of 5 counts (one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury, and one count of making false statements). We know Flynn lied to Pence. We know he was an unregistered lobbyist. Is Flynn worried that other statements he's also made (maybe during the security review?) are also untrue?

 

Dude, step back from the pipe. Strange things are afoot at the Circle K. Let it play out. Flynn is simply going to go down for mistruths. His immunity language from his lawyer is strange.... "he certainly has a story to tell". I really think that Page, Manafort and Stone are the ones that are going to be the undoing of this "thing of ours".

 

I too think there is a good chance some conviction(s) come out of all of this. But maintain you are looking at this from the wrong perspective. The crimes were committed in the leaks of classified material.

Go back and watch the Farkas interview I posted. She was not even in the Govt in 2016, yet admits she was in the middle of the leaking. That interview laid the grounds for multiple felonies. Someone leaked to her. Then she leaked. There was unmasking too. I think each instance of leaking of classified material can get 5 years. Each one.

 

Because Flynn's atty is insisting on it.

 

I watched that interview. To me she was talking about general intelligence that she may or may not have known the details of. The talking point was that they needed to secure it before the crooked people that it damaged got into power. That said, to quote General Flynn: "Lock her up!"

"I love wikileaks!"

 

She openly described multiple felonies
I think she went to law school too -- just amazing

 

I watched it again. Describe said felonies. To me, other than "that's why you have the leaking" (which implicates unknown people), she's only talking in generalities about things that we all know and that Comey said on the Hill. There is an ongoing investigation into Russia and their actions with regard to interfering in our elections.

That said, I have no doubt that Jefferey Beauregard Sessions will charge her with crimes if she's guilty, assuming he's not locked up himself. I'm no Pruitt fan but he would have been a better choice for AG instead of EPA.

 

-- Classified material was leaked to her, a third party private citizen -- she was out of Govt in 2015 and working for Clinton in 2016 -- Each instance is its own count.
How did this happen? Who approved it?

-- She then published that same material herself (her "colleagues on the Hill") -- Each instance is its own count

-- She admitted other former Obama Admin people were leaking classified info -- Each instance is its own count.

-- Names of US citizens were unmasked

-- She also admitted to the surveillance itself, which may or may not have been done pursuant to warrant. And even if pursuant to warrant, the required affidavits may have been used to mislead the judge(s) -- which would be contempt. In other words, they went in, swore under oath, "we want to wiretap this Russian Bank" (or whomever), while what they were really doing was seeking a backdoor way to surveil Team Trump (without the paper trail leading back to them)

 

Doesn't sound like The Don is worried a bit and he's backing Flynn's request...

"President Trump said Friday that his former national security adviser is right to seek immunity in exchange for answering questions on Russia, tweeting that Mike Flynn is caught up in a “witch hunt” of “historic proportion.”

Flynn’s attorney said Thursday that the retired general is in discussions with the House and Senate intelligence committees, indicating he wants immunity from "unfair prosecution" in exchange for answering questions on potential ties between Russia and Trump campaign associates.

Attorney Robert Kelner said Flynn “certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should the circumstances permit,” but claimed he’s operating in a “highly politicized, witch hunt environment” and wants assurances.

Trump echoed that sentiment Friday.

“Mike Flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch hunt (excuse for big election loss), by media & Dems, of historic proportion!” he tweeted."

 

How would we know if he was worried? Could the continued twitter slams of those investigating be a sign?

Keep in mind, the supposed "witch-hunt" resulted in the Justice Department exposing that he'd lied to Pence and likely prompted Flynn to register as a lobbyist months after actually lobbied. Those are facts, not fake news.

 

Senator Chuck Grassley claims HRC and 6 aides retained security clearance after leaving her State Dept. position in 2013 and may still have it now.

 

The Rightwing media must be working overtime to come up with a distraction technique for the Russia-Trump controversy. That's twice the this has been posted on this thread. A thread that has nothing to do with HRC or her role as Sec. of State.

 

How long until the Reichstag fire?

 

Senate Intel Committee turns down Flynn's request for immunity.

"Two sources within the committee confirmed the rejection of Flynn’s offer to MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt. The sources explained that Flynn’s request is “wildly preliminary” and that the committee is not yet at the point in the investigation where it is looking for additional witnesses."

Sure doesn't sound like they believe Flynn has a bombshell to drop. If so Dems would be chomping at the bit to deal for that golden ticket.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/card/obama-o...ents-protect-them-n741116?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma Seems like a reasonable description of what your "felon" described.

 

Sounds more to me like implicating themselves of committing felonies if any of those stored and shared "secret documents" unmasked the names of American citizens.

 

This is consistent with what I argued above.
Proof DJT is a poster here?

 

I was thinking about these two potential crimes while eating pizza at the Mellow Mushroom. I think that, besides the crimes committed, it might also be possible for the victims to sue the perpetrators in civil court as well.

Let's say that some of this information came via FISA surveillance (as some in the press have alleged). And let us also assume for the moment that the affadavits/declarations used to obtain the FISA warrants were false. That the real target of the wiretap was not some foreign actos, as you must allege for a FISA warrant but rather someone(s) in the Trump campaign.

First of all we have perjury (declarations are under oath) + likely loss of job and possible contempt for the persons who signed the declarations. But on top of that, I think a civil Bivens action might also be stated. How? The entire FISA process and the reason for "masking" are both grounded in US citizens' 4th Amendment rights. So, these people associated with Obama who either obtained the FISA warrant(s) under false pretenses (if true) or did the unmasking, under color of federal authority, knowingly and intentionally violated the Constitutional rights of the people tapped and/or unmasked. These are the basics of a Bivens suit.

I am not saying this would be easy, but it is possible. What you would do is let the criminal case(s) play out first (as you basically must). Then take whatever admissions or findings that were made in the criminal case, and use them in your civil case.

 

Again, this was Flynn's attorney's proscriptive attempt to protect his client

 

Scooter Libby did not break the law Fitzgerald was charged with investigating.

 

Then by Flynn's own standard then, he had probably committed a crime. If investigators grant it or seriously consider it, then they think he has something for them.

 

The jury that heard the evidence seemed to think that he did.

 

That is incorrect
His conviction was Martha-Stewart-like

 

I think some are overlooking what "story" Flynn is so eager to tell. It likely has some bearing on why Dems are reluctant to grant his immunity.

- On April 17, 2012, President Barack Obama nominated Flynn to be the 18th director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Flynn took command of the DIA in July 2012.

- On April 30, 2014, Flynn announced his retirement effective later that year, about a year earlier than he had been scheduled to leave his position.

It was heavily reported Flynn's 'retirement' was forced due to his resistance and speaking out against Obama's spin narrative pertaining to AQ, ISIS, and Syria.

This guy knows where the bodies are buried while serving as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency from 2012-14 under Obama. He also has an ax to grind for getting shoved out for speaking the truth on the Islamist threat. Dems might want to reconsider opening Pandora's Box with Flynn...

"According to what Flynn had told in one final interview as DIA director, he felt like a lone voice in thinking that the United States was less safe from the threat of Islamic terrorism in 2014 than it was prior to the 9/11 attacks; he went on to believe that he was pressed into retirement for questioning the Obama administration's public narrative that Al Qaeda was close to defeat.

Journalist Seymour Hersh wrote that "Flynn confirmed [to Hersh] that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings ... about the dire consequences of toppling [Syrian President] Assad." Flynn recounted that his agency was producing intelligence reports indicating that radical Islamists were the main force in the Syrian insurgency and "that Turkey was looking the other way when it came to the growth of the Islamic State inside Syria".

According to Flynn, these reports "got enormous pushback from the Obama administration," who he felt "did not want to hear the truth". According to former DIA official W. Patrick Lang: "Flynn incurred the wrath of the White House by insisting on telling the truth about Syria ... they shoved him out. He wouldn't shut up."

 

You are conflating and confusing ideas here
No one is offering Flynn immunity.
The idea came from the Flynn side.

But I do hope they make the offer. Because I think Flynn is anxious to go off on Dems and the media. Would make for some great TV. Shades of Ollie North.

 

At least one person gets it.

I think Flynn is trying to rope-a-dope the Dems. Make them think he is ready to unload some dirt. It seems to have worked on the media. But I suspect the Dems on the two relevant committees know the score here and will not fall for it. The will avoid him in the same fashion they are now avoiding looking at the Nunes info at the OEOB.