Ah! The House Bolton “Kibbles and Bits” approach! Perhaps a bit extreme, but what the heck!
If you’re too busy with your job to pay attention to what you’re reading or posting, then it would be better that you not post altogether, rather than waste your own time and that of other people with drivel.
As previous, McCarthy (former Assistant US Attorney) and Bharara (former US Attorney) said the same thing as to what the procedure is for charging in plea deals. I’ve quoted all the relevant sections. Those who are too busy to even read this should spare the world their wisdom.
There’s no assurance that Mueller is following “normal procedure”, is there? I remember someone pointing out (no cite at hand; I’ll see if I can find where I read it) that the charges were carefully constructed to avoid trampling on any state-level double jeopardy concerns, particularly in Pennsylvania, where Flynn may be facing conspiracy charges for the plot to kidnap Fethullah Gülen and return him to Turkey. There may be other state prosecutions to consider, as well.
If true, this would constrain what charges Mueller would bring, would it not? His choice looks like “pardon protection” to me, but IANAL.
Says the guy who is too busy to actually listen to the words of the person he purports to be quoting.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Casabianca by Felicia Dorothea Hemans
For some reason, this poem keeps leaping to mind as I read this thread, amongst others. Can’t imagine why, only read it on assignment and regretted the lost time instantly. And yet something keeps bringing it to mind…
No, there isn’t. I’ve noted this earlier. Also, that the practice seems to vary by office, and that it’s possible that what was SOP for McCarthy and Bharara was not SOP wherever Mueller cut his teeth.
My only point is that McCarthy was not coming out of left-field with some partisan tripe, having been backed on this exact point by Bharara. As to the implications, that’s far less certain, as you note.
So you’ve actually heard Bharara’s point now?
I see from reading the thread that the summary I promised of Preet Bharara’s podcast is probably not needed. I will add a couple of things, one hinted at in the Vox summary and one not mentioned.
Bharara listed three possibilities about what the Flynn deal means. He stated pretty strongly that he does not believe the “sweetheart deal” option. Based on the words he used and how many words he used, I think he believes that the “there’s more coming” option is more likely than the “that’s all there is” option. He spent a fair amount of time explaining why Mueller would not want a guilty plea made public that implicates other people who can’t be charged now and who may never be charged. He mentioned that the pleas to additional charges could have be made “under seal” as a way of protecting the ongoing development of the cases against others, but repeated that Mueller could well be planning for Flynn to plead guilty to additional charges as the other cases can be made.
He also addressed the speculation about the Logan Act, which forbids unauthorized people from negotiating with foreign governments with which the US has disputes. Bharara doesn’t expect this law to be used because there is almost no case law regarding it, and prosecutors would generally prefer to charge under laws that have a history of successful prosecution.
I don’t really see this as really any sort of groundbreaking revelation. To begin with, there’s no such thing as a “sweetheart deal” when you’re already facing a felony conviction – there’s nothing sweet about that.
What people have been suggesting is the possibility reduced charges and sentences in exchange for Flynn’s cooperation, which is classic prosecutorial strategy. I emphasize possibility because, if my understanding is correct, judges don’t have to accept the recommendations of prosecutors. They can give the accused lesser sentences, or harsher ones.
There’s a risk for the defense in accepting a plea, but competent counsel (these days going so far as to use sophisticated software that can predict legal outcomes) will hedge their bets accordingly. In this case, they obviously believe that their client, Flynn, stands a lot more to lose by not cooperating, with more serious charges hanging over him if he doesn’t play ball.
To Bharara’s point, I doubt there was a final iron-clad deal in which Flynn’s lawyers and Mueller’s prosecutors cut a final agreement that spells out a long bullet-point list of what Flynn and Mueller will and won’t work on together. It would be absurd for a prosecutor, particularly one with Mueller’s skill and resources and in the middle of conducting an ongoing investigation, to set up these hard parameters when they’re not even sure if they have a complete picture of Flynn’s conduct in total.
Generally, it’s pretty widely known that prosecutors don’t use up all their ammunition at once. Things can happen in a trial. The jurors might be prejudiced against the prosecution or sympathetic to the defendant. They might not understand the evidence presented. Judges can allow some forms of evidence and toss out others. Prosecutors use the charge as leverage. Lying to a federal investigator is potentially strong leverage, especially when it’s the least serious of multiple possible charges.
The Logan Act could be applied but not in this context. I would agree that several members of the Trump transition team most likely violated the letter of the Logan Act, but they didn’t necessarily violate its spirit, and that’s probably why there wouldn’t be any serious consideration of bringing charges. Trump’s transition team has every reason to be reaching out to Russian counterparts if they believe it’s in the national interest to have better relations with Russia. They’re not obligated by any law that I know of to accept the assessments of intelligence and foreign affairs analysts. I absolutely agree that it constitutes gross negligence not to, but again, Trump’s administration were brought to power by the people and to some extent, these are outcomes we have to accept.
I think Meuller can, and possibly WILL share information with state agencies.
NBC news is reporting that they found something odd in Mueller’s plea agreement with Michael Flynn. Not only will Flynn cooperate with the federal investigators, and testify in federal court if necessary, but he also agreed to cooperate with applicable state and local authorities, as well as testifying in state court cases if necessary.
What state Attorney General wouldn’t love to have the entire investigative efforts of the FBI to use in a state court case, including a star witness?
Especially in the area of banking, personal finance, connections to gangsers, etc, there would be plenty of state laws and regulations to hang Trump, his family, and his buddies - if done right.
So maybe Trump fires Meuller -an admission of guilt and an act of outright obstruction. He can’t fire every attorney general in every state. He can’t pardon his way out either.
Deputy AG Rosenstein Says He’s Satisfied With Special Counsel Mueller’s Work
Makes me think somebody has been asked to make a case to fire Bob Mueller… and isn’t complying with that request.
Thank you. Your summary is accurate, clear and easily grasped.
I’ve never thought the single count that Flynn pleaded to was the only charge that Mueller had available to him for this defendant. How he has chosen to handle other offenses, whether by conditional pleas, leaving certain offenses uncharged or held in abeyance for pursuit by various states, is entirely unknown at this point. But Mueller does have a lot of options. And I’m positive about one thing: This will be a very strategic prosecution for all defendants involved. It has to be.
One of the options available to Mueller is the one we were originally discussing: He has allowed Flynn to plead to the single felony count and then based on Flynn’s role in assisting to convict other defendants, those other charges may be dismissed or reduced to lesser offenses. I still see nothing offered by Bharara or McCarthey that eliminates that possibility – only that Bharara cautions us to withhold unbridled exuberance at the idea that this is the only possibility. I’ve never disputed that.
Interesting to see how Bharara clarified the Logan Act issue. I finally understood the obstacles in the same way, as I outlined in my post #1046. It took awhile for me to parse that, because anytime someone pooh-poohed the Logan Act, the only explanation I ever heard was that the law is old and has never been tested. Those things are not a bar to utilizing it. But I understand now what was meant: It’s a cumbersome, unnecessary avenue, and better options are available.
Thank you again for your summary, Crotalus.
I’ll just put this here. From CNN,
The article contains details from Elijah Cummings’ summary of the whistle-blowers testimony before the House Oversight Committee.
I am really looking forward to learning more about this.
Man I have been cackling like a madwoman for the last three days. I’m going to have to take up witchcraft, so people will stop looking at me funny.
As we’ve all been speculating, the feds are onto the money trial and they’ve found something. I’m guessing Schneiderman already has some thick files and even though the possibility is probably remote, perhaps AGs in nearby states like Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia could get involved as well. Maryland and Virginia for the obvious reasons that some of these transactions, phone conversations, etc could have been conducted in these states. Pennsylvania’s AG might be interested in knowing why Flynn conspired to have one of his state’s residents abducted.
Was there ever any real doubt about that?
Putin and Exxon had a huge deal going for Russia’s Arctic oil reserves, going to put billions in Putin’s coffers, and the only thing holding that back was the sanctions. Trump names the CEO of Exxon to be SecState. Perhaps I am blind to the obvious value of an oil company executive when it comes to international diplomacy, but I looked at that with dark suspicion. Add to that Trump’s public bromance with Putin…yeah, I was kinda thinking that those sanctions were not long for this world.
You are not the only one who had those thoughts and worries.
By the way, not sure if you’re aware, but one add to that abortion of a tax bill the Republicans are trying to ram through before the end of the year is lifting protections against oil and gas drilling for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Fuckers.
Trump Jr.threw Hope Hicks under the bus.
"Donald Trump Jr. told House investigators that did not communicate directly with his father when confronted with news reports about his June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, according to multiple sources with knowledge of his testimony.
Instead, Trump Jr. said he was speaking to White House aide Hope Hicks about how to respond to the reports. He said President Donald Trump, according to the sources, was debating between a longer and a shorter statement while President Trump and Hicks were aboard Air Force One."
Junior is in it deep if he’s causing trouble for Mrs. Trump #4.