Mueller Has Enough Evidence to Bring Charges in Flynn Investigation

[1979Shocker]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mueller-has-enough-evidence-to-bring-charges-in-flynn-investigation/ar-AAutdwx?li=AA5a8k&ocid=spartanntp

WASHINGTON — Federal investigators have gathered enough evidence to bring charges in their investigation of President Donald Trump's former national security adviser and his son as part of the probe into Russia's intervention in the 2016 election, according to multiple sources familiar with the investigation.

Michael T. Flynn, who was fired after just 24 days on the job, was one of the first Trump associates to come under scrutiny in the federal probe now led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into possible collusion between Moscow and the Trump campaign.

[SB Shock]

Drain the swamp. It looks like Flynn was on the Turkish payroll.

[jdshock]

Who's on deck?

[Kung Wu]

Matt Lauer!

[shoxilla]

President Ryan?

[DUShock]

I too thought of this, rather one agrees or disagrees with Speaker Ryan, he has always struck me as a principled man of integrity.

[Kung Wu]

Who's on deck?

ABC's Brian Ross?

[jdshock]

ABC's Brian Ross?

It felt a little strange yesterday when EVERY major news organization was saying Flynn was prepared to testify against higher ups, and then ABC was alone in saying he was going to testify against Trump himself.

Now it sounds like every news site is saying he'll testify against Trump but AFTER he was elected. Is that how you understand it too?

Personally, I'm putting money on Kushner as the next domino.

[Kung Wu]

It felt a little strange yesterday when EVERY major news organization was saying Flynn was prepared to testify against higher ups, and then ABC was alone in saying he was going to testify against Trump himself.

Now it sounds like every news site is saying he'll testify against Trump but AFTER he was elected. Is that how you understand it too?

Not really. My read on it is that ABC's Brian Ross was implying that Trump ordered Flynn to meet with the Russians before he was elected, which depending on the purpose of the meeting might be bad or might not. But now they are backpedaling and saying that Trump ordered Flynn to meet with the Russians after he was elected, which is completely standard business for the president elect and there is nothing bad about it.

That's my read on it, but I am not following it closely.

One year later there isn't a shred of evidence of any collusion with the Russians -- except by Hillary's team.

[jdshock]

Not really. My read on it is that ABC's Brian Ross was implying that Trump ordered Flynn to meet with the Russians before he was elected, which depending on the purpose of the meeting might be bad or might not. But now they are backpedaling and saying that Trump ordered Flynn to meet with the Russians after he was elected, which is completely standard business for the president elect and there is nothing bad about it.

That's my read on it, but I am not following it closely.

That's what I meant.

One year later there isn't a shred of evidence of any collusion with the Russians -- except by Hillary's team.

Alright.

[Aargh]

I'm not saying I agree or disagree, or that I support or do not support this, but it is an interesting read on the implications of the plea deal with Flynn.

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/936602442996813824

[SB Shock]

It felt a little strange yesterday when EVERY major news organization was saying Flynn was prepared to testify against higher ups, and then ABC was alone in saying he was going to testify against Trump himself.

Now it sounds like every news site is saying he'll testify against Trump but AFTER he was elected. Is that how you understand it too?

Personally, I'm putting money on Kushner as the next domino.

My read is that Kushner is the one in trouble. It looks like the “Russian collusion” is now dead. If that had happened then Flynn would have been charged with some type of national security violation.

[Aargh]

My read is that Kushner is the one in trouble. It looks like the “Russian collusion” is now dead. If that had happened then Flynn would have been charged with some type of national security violation.

We don't know what charges Flynn was facing before he made the plea deal. I would suspect he was facing something a lot more severe than lying to the FBI.

[SB Shock]

We don't know what charges Flynn was facing before he made the plea deal. I would suspect he was facing something a lot more severe than lying to the FBI.

Historical precedent says when they move to “lying to the FBI” they don’t have a case for anything else.

[Kung Wu]

We don't know what charges Flynn was facing before he made the plea deal. I would suspect he was facing something a lot more severe than lying to the FBI.

I think the general (no pun intended) thought is that it has something to do with him not disclosing the Turkish government money he had taken as a consultant to help them negotiate on their behalf.

[pinstripers]

This is looking like it's all going to turn out to be nothing. Then does Trump try to bitchslap somebody?