Hello All! This is my first thread so figured I’d just throw it in here. Just seen a BBC article on this. Interesting. I’m throwing this in Great Debates cause this is my first thread and I have a feeling this will turn into a debate.
My question is this. Is Flynn asking for immunity to testify against Trump and the campaign, or do you think Flynn is asking for immunity simply because he knows he messed up and would like to clear the air without the chance of criminalizing himself because according to the article " The lawyer said the media was awash with “unfounded allegations, outrageous claims of treason, and vicious innuendo”.
Mind you Flynn himself made the statement
“When you get given immunity that means you’ve probably committed a crime,” he told NBC News."
My guess would be they want bigger fish to fry than Flynn? Maybe some Russian diplomats or bankers that have avoided the sanctions and the scrutiny of our intelligence agencies? Flynn isn’t exactly new to the game, I’m sure he has some juicy details to give up. I’m just unsure if he’s giving details about the Trump campaign or other people of interest.
I suppose I didn’t pose that question in the best manner.
I think the only thing that is conclusively indicated by this action is that Flynn knows that there are things that could put him in danger. He may not have any useful information at all with regard to anyone else, but is hoping to bluff prosecutors into thinking he knows more than he does.
I thought immunity agreements usually stipulated that you had to help progress the bigger case against someone else. Otherwise people would get an immunity agreement and then just say they got nuthin but thanks for the get out of jail free card.
If you don’t come up with the goods immunity is revoked.
The attorney representing Flynn has no way to predict where this investigation will go or how long it will last. He’s not representing his client in something specific but is acting as a buffer between Flynn and whatever Congress or the FBI may come up with. It makes sense to get whatever protections may be needed before testifying considering the level of uncertainty. I don’t read into the request any more than that.
There’s no indication so far that Flynn has the goods on anyone else. They are fools if they give him immunity and he can’t lead them to convictions of someone else. But they’ve done it before, they gave Ollie North immunity and he stonewalled and lied to them. They prosecuted him anyway but the convictions were overturned. They don’t need Flynn to tell them anything about the Russians, he can’t be trusted anyway. Unless he’s going to finger other Americans in this mess his testimony is worthless.
Well here’s a question for the legal eagles: What does Flynn have to reveal before the government has to decide whether to give it to him or not? I assume it’s not a game of poker, and that the govt will only go in it to get something they need from him, or else turn it down. If they go for it then they are looking to prosecute donald, or his other immediate circle like Bannon or Kushner. There are no bigger fish out there are there?
Asking for immunity doesn’t cost you anything and could get you off the hook, so, hell, why not? Until we know what Flynn knows, this doesn’t really tell us much. He could know little, or he could be holding a smoking gun of treason, or somewhere in between, or nothing of interest whatsoever, or something totally unrelated to Russia.
Before an immunity deal the lawyers get to talk about the content of the hypothetical testimony. He doesn’t have to reveal anything but outside of the House there are skilled prosecutors who won’t approve this deal unless he spells out what he’s going to reveal. He’s asking for immunity from the House, the Senate, and the Justice Dept., and all three have to approve, so he’s not getting it unless he has something good. They already have the goods on him so he has to deliver something they don’t already know about Russia, or finger someone else for committing crimes so they can put the pressure on that guy.
I’m not saying he’s guilty, just that he is scared. If he thought he wasn’t in any danger he would just go ahead and testify without the need to ask for immunity.
Much of the legal advice followed by Clinton and her associates was politicized. It’s normal for such a thing to happen, and it’s normal to throw the accusations of an accuser back in their face in politics. Frankly, I enjoy it. I think it is a bad idea for this particular topic.
I am very concerned about the exact parameters and goals of Russia’s involvement in our election. The first conclusion that concern leads me to is that politicizing things like this is at best unhelpful and at worst corrosive. After watching the Senate hearing on Russia’s involvement in ours and others’ elections this type of political stuff doesn’t seem like a good idea at all in this context.
Technically, he said when you’re given immunity it means you’ve probably committed a crime. Merely desperately seeking immunity means you’re probably as innocent as a lamb.
When I worked drug cases with the Feds I (a local investigator) often sat in on what were called proffer sessions. IIRC, it basically involved the arrested suspect and his attorney saying what he could do in the way of cooperation. Obviously, this was tantamount to an admission of guilt but none of it was useable in court. It was more of “What do you have?” and “This is what we can offer in return”. More formal than the lawyers talking hypotheticals over drinks but nothing was tape recorded. The AUSA and investigators (and defendant) would then decide if the cooperation was worth it. If so, a formal deal was worked out. If not, we went with the evidence we had. It could get a little tricky because if information was gleaned in the proffer that we would never have obtained otherwise and it lead somewhere productive, the defendant could demand consideration even if a deal wasn’t reached. Never was immunity part of any deal I was part of. Not that it couldn’t have been in the right case. My understanding was that, once immunity was granted the guy could confess to almost anything related to his charges without repercussions. Perhaps some of our legal eagles could explain whether or not a proffer is something that could take place with Flynn. If given immunity from the start, Flynn could throw himself on his sword, taking all the blame and saying no one else knew anything. Not likely but possible.