ABC is fake news.
And even if it isn’t fake news, Flynn is lying.
Besides, Hillary did far worse. Plus Benghazi.
#MAGA
That would indicate there will be a case where that’s relevant. It doesn’t seem relevant to, say, an obstruction case.
This is a bit vague and potentially misleading, as indicated by the post following yours.
What I’ve seen reported - and this would make sense, if you think about it - is that Flynn is saying that (at least one of) the contacts with Russia that he’s being prosecuted for lying about were directed by senior members of the Trump team (most likely Trump himself, I would assume). That’s Logan Act stuff, not collusion stuff.
I think it depends on when it was – if it was during the campaign, and if it was about the campaign, then it was collusion (which might not be a legal term).
Oh, that makes it so much better. :Old rolleyes:
From what I’ve seen, it was relating to his effort to get the Russians to block an anti-Israel vote at the UN. This was in December, if I’m not mistaken.
Better or worse, it’s relevant to my position here. I’ve consistently said that I think it’s unlikely that Trump colluded with the Russians (in the sense that this was defined when this discussion began), but it would not surprise me if there were some Logan Act violations along the way.
But FWIW, the Logan Act is undoubtedly a much smaller deal than collusion. It’s a law for which no one has ever been prosecuted, whose parameters are very uncertain, and is quite possibly unconstitutional.
Predicting that the latest bombshell is where this story ends has not been the correct prediction to date. There is zero chance that Flynn is not offering up someone(s) else.
I think that was the thing he plead guilty for lying about, but based on what I’m seeing on TV, he will testify that he was ordered to contact the Russians during the campaign (thus long before December).
But haven’t seen confirmation of this.
Thread invite to Pit, hosting a thread about how will they spin this one! Ya’ll come! Take yer shoes off, set a spell!
Didn’t that knucklehead lead a “Lock her up” chant at the RNC?
One of several.
Silly question: Is lying to the FBI a felony?
iiandyiiii, nice to finally have confirmation of what we’ve known for more than a year. 
With respect to the pardon question, I agree with jayjay that Mueller has rendered a pardon moot. However, I think it’s due to reasons additional to the one he stated. Flynn has significant exposure at the state level. Flynn’s son, too. They may literally face kidnapping charges in the State of Pennsylvania. And and as you know, a pardon doesn’t help Flynn or his kid with that. I am quite sure such charges are being held in abeyance as a hedge against Trump’s power to pardon.
Also, as we’ve discussed here several times, a pardon doesn’t shield Flynn from testifying truthfully. He will be compelled to testify irrespective of whether Trump pardons him. If he lies, he’d just have new charges lodged for lying under oath. Check and mate.
There are a number of things I love about how this plea deal all came down:
Mueller revealed almost nothing about the status of what he’s actually got against Trump and/or his family. That’s going to drive Trump nuts.
The investigation is clearly focused on exactly what they were tasked to do, meaning on cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russians. It will now be impossible for Republicans to snipe at Meuller for going “outside his lane.”
A big fish flipping just now also negates rumblings among Republicans that the investigation is just a waste of time and money. Mueller is set to testify publicly in front of Congress (I’m not sure which committee will hear) on December 13th about the money spent on the investigation to date.
Lastly, based on Flynn’s plea, Mueller is obviously very focused on violations of the Logan Act. If Mueller is successful, Trump and his cohorts can have the distinction for the rest of recorded history for being the first to be prosecuted and convicted for violating it.
For F-P: A single sweetheart plea deal for Flynn is likely in exchange for Flynn’s testimony about everything, not just violations of the Logan Act. Violations of the Logan Act and/or “collusion” are not mutually exclusive. I reckon Flynn has promised to testify about a lot more than just Logan Act violations – including the quid pro quo between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Help with winning the campaign in exchange for the lifting of sanctions. That’s “collusion,” or more accurately, conspiracy.
The plea deal was that Flynn admitted lying about contacting the Russians and asking them not to ramp things up as a result of the sanction imposed by the Obama administration – which is, in fact, exactly what happened. Russia declined to retaliate against Obama’s sanctions. According to ABC, he’s also going to testify that this was done at the behest of Trump himself. My, my, my.
Oh, yes. With a prison sentence of up to 5 years for each violation.
I’ve not seen that. What I’ve seen is, e.g. As part of a plea deal, Flynn has admitted that a senior member of the Trump transition team directed him to make contact with Russian officials in December 2016.
No doubt you reckon that. You reckon a lot of things, and have been doing so throughout this thread.
What I’m discussing is the extent to which there is anything in this latest plea beyond adding to an already massive pile of speculation.
Here is Flynns signed statement about what he will attest to:
Items 3 and 4 are particularly damning. Note that there is a distinction between contacting Senior Transition officials and a reference to a Very Senior Transition official.
ABC News is reporting this VSTO is, in fact, Trump.
Missed edit window. To clarify, I meant to say conspiracy to commit kidnapping, not kidnapping itself.
I don’t think that document is necessarily comprehensive as to what Flynn will attest to. It’s about what he’s pleading guilty to, and he could well implicate Trump in all sorts of ways which are not included in that document.
That said, however, the facts stipulated in that document are about transition activities and possible Logan Act violations, as I’ve suggested above. Anything more is speculative.
LOL, please let me know when (if ever) you intend to substantively refute anything I’ve ever said, instead of just taking potshots. 
It actually says in Mueller’s statement: “these facts do not constitute all of the facts known to the parties concerning the charged offense”.