In that case, cant he pardon Flynn as well?
Trump/Russia/SDNY investigation
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Fox News
Yeah he can pardon anyone he wants at a Federal level.
There are some problems with pardoning anyone - as you're basically admitting they are guilty and you are therefore in a way attempting to obstruct justice by removing their legal exposure.
As for state level - it means Trump can only pardon people at the Federal level, so Mueller can work with a cooperative Attorney General like Schneidermann in NY, to mirror the charges at the state level so that Trump's pardon would be more or less rendered impotent.
I mean I understand the charges and sentences are significantly higher at the federal level than at the state level but why waste time prosecuting these feckers are the federal level when there is a guarantee they can get them at the state level?
Fox are generally more reasonable in their news division than in their advocacy division (Hannity, Carlson etc), so they do at times go out with stuff like this. They also have a few decent journos who haven't completely sold out yet - Shep Smith, Wallace, et al.
In and of itself, it probably wouldn't be criminal to direct him to do that. I think it's accepted behavior for an incoming administration to be reaching out other countries. But if, during those conversations, they discussed a quid pro quo (e.g. we won't enforce the sanctions as thanks for the election help), then it becomes something prosecutable. Also, if it can be proven Trump/transition team ordered him to lie to the FBI about having that conversation, that would obviously be trouble for those individuals.
I think the question of quid pro quo is the biggest election trouble facing Trump. If he encouraged his team to interface with Russia, knowing they were stealing emails/info to harm his opponent, then he's screwed. That would explain his behavior w/r/t Russia and Putin. And I'm sure that leads down the path to his finances and business dealings. It's a house of cards waiting to topple.
I think the answer is in your question the but I'll wait for someone else to answer who can give you a definite answer.
Ol' Tucker may turn on Trump if he brings back the old claim he made a while back. He made a claim that Trump once left a voicemail "I get more pussy than you do!"
Surely, Tucker would have saved that voicemail.
Among the things that come into play are jurisdiction. what laws are broken (state or federal).
This is wrong as no civilian have the right or authority to act on the behalf of the government until they are actually in office and have the approval of the U.S.A government to do so. Flynn have broken the law on this issue and that is the Logan Act that strictly underlines this, and feel free to look up the Logan Act so you can see this. It is no way or shape accepted behaviour for an incoming administration to start their work before they are in office as that would be interference with a current administration.
Last edited:
Ah you're right, I forgot about that. That was what Sally Yates was saying right, that Flynn had violated the Logan Act? I guess the issue is whether that in and of itself is something the government would look to prosecute (not taking into account the contents of the conversations). Lying to the FBI, though, obviously would be something they'd go after.
One issue is just that no one has ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act, so its not as straight-forward as if there were precedent (arguably Nixon & Kissinger should have been, for communicating with North Vietnam before the election v Johnson)
Shep is very good
The Donald is gold tonight, it’s like putting Buchan in a room with 10 other Buchans.
A few commentators have mentioned this, but at the end of the day its a law on the books. If Mueller wants to prosecute using it, what are the defence going to say? "Well other people did it!"?
I do seem to recall her mentioning this. Whether or not a government would prosecute someone for this is properly subject to many factors like the context of the discussion or why the contact has been made. Flynn might have been caught red handed trying to get Russian help against Hillary and this is properly the red line that has been crossed. It is one thing to actually talk to a foreign government in a normal setting but to make contact solely with the intention of getting direct aide against a fellow citizen of the U.S.A and a candidate for presidency is no laughing matter. This is likely what separates what Flynn and Donald Trump Associates has done compared to earlier administrations and their contact with foreign officials before they tok office officially.
Absolutely. But it creates more uncertainty in the outcome, and also imagine it leaves an avenue for appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, who would then end up establishing the precedent.
I'd imagine Mueller & team are looking for charges that are more established as the preferred option.
This has been a pretty good Friday so far. What else can drop today?
Cracking post from Reddit:
He's lovin' this.
Jared is a liability.
Quite outstanding he's still on the job.
Quite outstanding he's still on the job.
This man knows pays great attention to the finer details. It’s no accident he chose a Churchill quote.
@Raoul when can we expect something from the White House on this?
Bit of a let down
Flipping more fringe players to build a case around the kingpin I guess.
Trump's lawyers have already put out a statement - the one that tried to downplay Flynn as an "Obama Administration Official".
Cant read the tweet. What does it say?Bit of a let down
Flipping more fringe players to build a case around the kingpin I guess.
Obama did it.
KT Macfarland is the senior official Flynn spoke to.
There’s definitely more to it. Mueller didn’t do a deal with Flynn and Flynn Jnr for evidence against KT Macfarland.
Deliberately playing it down to cool the White House imo.
Ah I see. Thanks.
They say, almost anyone can be convicted under a selected set of laws that are on the books.
Can Trump pardon Flynn?
It’s been mentioned in this and the Trump thread a number of times. Yes he can but he’s mirroring charges at state level which can’t be pardoned. Accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt so the state level charges would be an open goal.
What’s the significance of quoting Chruchill?
The story goes that Obama had his bust removed from the White House as Churchill has a very questionable history with Africa. Obama’s official line is that he wanted to have MLK’s bust in there as it was fitting.
Of course Trump decided to undo it and bring Churchill’s bust back.
Then there’s the official White House Trump photo where he looks like a miserable cnut. He modelled the pose on Churchill, trying to have a stern, authoritative appearance.