Does anyone have any investigative/legal experience that they could use to give a likely timeline on this like:
1-2 weeks: Hammering out deal
1-2 days: Full debrief
1-2 weeks: Receipt of documents, emails, etc. from Flynn’s legal team. Simultaneously, working out leads to follow and things to verify.
2 months: Tracking things down, double-checking them, talking to people, etc.
1-2 weeks: Assembling and hammering out documentation for submission to court.
1 day: Jared Kushner becomes a very unhappy man.
?
(If my own guestimates are right, then we would be looking at late February.)
It should be noted that the fact that someone is negotiating a plea deal is not necessarily an indication that he’s implicating anyone else, let alone criminally implicating them. People work out plea deals all the time, and frequently there’s nothing in it for the prosecutors beyond a guaranteed guilty plea.
I imagine that Mueller would insist on Flynn cooperating with his investigation as the price of a plea deal. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that he would insist that he implicate someone. That’s not the same thing at all.
The notion that the above is incorrect would presumably have to rest on one of two grounds. Either that there’s definitely some guilt on the part of high-ranking Trump people which Flynn is aware of and can implicate, or that Mueller is not looking for the truth but only looking to come up with convictions by whatever means available. I don’t see any basis for either of these assumptions.
Which isn’t to say that either or both of the above may not turn out to be true. But I don’t see the fact of Flynn negotiating a deal as being indicative of either.
Seriously. I suggest you ask yourself why Donald was so protective of Flynn before- shrugging off warnings of his compromised position and trying to pressure Comey to lay off of Flynn. My guess is that Flynn knows way too much and Donald wanted to make sure that knowledge never came out. Flynn was one of the most inner of the inner circle- he knows a lot. And for a family as crooked as this one, that has to have the Alt-White House in a terrible tizzy.
In general, before ascribing any sort of strategic motivation to Donald Trump - on any issue - the first question you need to ask yourself is: “are his actions consistent with those of an immature and spoiled 5 year old?” If the answer is yes, then you don’t need to look any further.
In this case, Trump liked Flynn and resented being pressured to sack him by the more responsible people. That in itself would completely account for his attitude and actions.
Well to be to the point, a prosecutor can twist a witness all they want, but either that witness has incriminating evidence or he doesn’t. Either Flynn has incriminating evidence and testimony that no other witness can provide, or he doesn’t.
As you say, many times, a plea deal is a win-win for prosecution and defense (well, as much as the defense can feel like getting a felony conviction is ‘winning’ anyway). If the reports are true, Flynn (and potentially his son) are facing multiple felony counts. It’s in Flynn’s interests to share anything he knows so that the prosecution may recommend some measure of mercy - which by the way doesn’t mean a judge has to accept the prosecutor’s recommendations, though they often do.
My guess is that Flynn is cooperating with Mueller to get one or more of the charges dropped or reduced, to get one of the convictions reduced, and to avoid having his son implicated in anything serious, assuming these are things that Mueller’s in a position to ‘play ball’ with. I’m like you in being skeptical that Mueller has the gotcha that Mueller’s looking for, but he might very well have a lot of background. He might know who Trump talked to on certain days and what about. He might be able to mention a name or two that hasn’t come up yet, or bring up the name of a person who was once thought to be on the periphery but suddenly comes into focus again. It’s about connecting dots.
While everything that you have written is technically true, I think it’s safe to say that there’s a 100% chance of Trump, Junior, and/or Kushner being guilty of something that Flynn could implicate them on. So while there may be a theoretic possibility that Flynn won’t be used against the higher ups (e.g., because Mueller is trying to avoid Federal crimes and Flynn can’t help them with any State crimes), it doesn’t really seem like an outcome that one needs to devote too much thought on.
It should also be noted that Mueller is specifically focused on this case as a counter-espionage investigation. His focus is going to be less on getting “that one piece of information” as “getting all of the information”. I don’t think he’ll be too interested in bartering for a few tidbits. He’ll want a full and honest accounting of everything Flynn knows on every situation that he is aware of. That it might incriminate the Trump clan is more of a side-effect than an aim.
Not as simple as that, because the witness can testify to whatever he wants. He wants to get a good deal for himself and if he knows that the only way to do this is to incriminate someone else, then he might be tempted to say “yes, I discussed my various crimes with so-and-so and he agreed …” and so on. So a lot depends on the prosecutor, and whether he’s looking to only get additional evidence against those whose guilt is evident from other sources, or he’s just looking to convict as many people as possible. (I’ve not seen anything to indicate that Mueller is of the latter type. Though Weissman might be another story.)
Understood. As I said in that post, “The notion that the above is incorrect would presumably have to rest on one of two grounds. Either that there’s definitely some guilt on the part of high-ranking Trump people which Flynn is aware of and can implicate …” If you assume going in that the Trumpsters are guilty and that Flynn has actual knowledge of this guilt, then the fact that he’s cooperating is a big deal. But the cooperation is not a big deal in and of itself, and if your “100% odds” is incorrect, then the rest is also incorrect.
Sure the witness can testify whatever he wants. The question is whether or not Flynn has anything to offer Mueller, and can Mueller verify that he does.
And don’t forget that Trump told Flynn to “stay strong” in May. Flynn might have had good reasons to expect and trust Trump would have pardons ready for him and his son when the time came. I’m guessing Mueller showed him how that was not going to work out the way he thinks it will.
If you mean that Trump is unlikely to pay a significant personal price in order to help someone else, that’s probably true. But Trump wouldn’t have seen asking Comey to lay off on Flynn as paying a significant personal price.
But if you’re saying that Trump wouldn’t lift a finger to help anyone ever, then you’re vastly overstating things.
In addition, as I alluded above, Trump tends to do things emotionally and dig in on things, and if he viewed the attacks on Flynn as unfair attacks on himself it would be natural for him to keep up the pro-Flynn stuff just based on that emotion alone.
Lets say he has a nephew who is suffering from a treatable disease that his father cannot afford to treat. Do you think that he would assist in paying for that treatment?
Yes, it is. It shows that he will only do the things that are in his own best interest. If he is willing to allow his nephew to suffer due to his selfishness, I doubt he’s gonna be lifting a finger for anyone else.
Not saying that he will never do anyone else a favor, but only because he is expecting something in return.
No, it doesn’t. He cut that nephew off because he was in a huge fight with that family over the inheritance. That has zero bearing on whether he would do a favor to a guy he wasn’t in middle of a bitter dispute with.
If you didn’t know the above facts, then you’re posting misleading facts out of ignorance. If you knew these facts, then you’re posting complete nonsense. Either way, it’s not worth further discussion.
No doubt I could. So could you, if you could be bothered in the slightest. But you can’t be bothered and neither can I.
As I understand it, you were making the assertion that Trump has done charitable things without any reasonable expectation of that coming back to help him out in any way. While I do believe that I have read examples of him doing so, and don’t find your assertion implausible, I will note that the person making the assertion is the person who needs to provide evidence for it. Sherrerd cannot prove a negative and it’s completely reasonable for him to ask for evidence of something that strikes him as preposterous.