Mueller Has Enough Evidence to Bring Charges in Flynn Investigation

[Kung Wu]

He's more of a grabber.

[jdshock]

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

I'm just blown away by this. Look, it might end up being nothing for Trump himself. But in an incredibly short period of time, Mueller has gotten plea deals from four people, including two who were relatively important members of the campaign and administration.

What could make you so confident it's nothing?

[Kung Wu]

I'm just blown away by this. Look, it might end up being nothing for Trump himself. But in an incredibly short period of time, Mueller has gotten plea deals from four people, including two who were relatively important members of the campaign and administration.

What could make you so confident it's nothing?

They have had a year to find anything related to collusion, and ... nothing.

The charges against Manafort and Gates are unrelated to the Trump campaign.

The plea bargain by Flynn is likely to be unrelated to the Trump campaign.

Papadapawhoever is a junior level know nothing idiot.

I believe that a special prosecutor hired to investigate ANY President Elect will find a treasure trove of crap on "important members of the campaign and administration".

It appears they are now using the "search for collusion" as an excuse to keep digging deeper and deeper into unrelated matters in the hopes to find anything, in order to justify what can now pretty clearly be described as a witch hunt.

[ShockCrazy]

They have had a year to find anything related to collusion, and ... nothing.

The charges against Manafort and Gates are unrelated to the Trump campaign.

The plea bargain by Flynn is likely to be unrelated to the Trump campaign.

Papadapawhoever is a junior level know nothing idiot.

I believe that a special prosecutor hired to investigate ANY President Elect will find a treasure trove of crap on "important members of the campaign and administration".

It appears they are now using the "search for collusion" as an excuse to keep digging deeper and deeper into unrelated matters in the hopes to find anything, in order to justify what can now pretty clearly be described as a witch hunt.

You realize that "they have had a year" means that this is one of the fastest moving special investigations right? Usually it is over a year and a half before ANY charges are brought against ANYONE. If you genuinely think the Flynn plea bargain has nothing to do with the Trump campaign, why the heck would there be a plea bargain? Plea bargains are offered in order to get people higher up the chain. Who is higher up the chain other than Trump, his family, and Pence? If Flynn is as high as it goes why wouldn't they throw the book at him?

[Kung Wu]

You realize that "they have had a year" means that this is one of the fastest moving special investigations right? Usually it is over a year and a half before ANY charges are brought against ANYONE.

Most investigations have a shred of credibility, so there is something to go on. So far there isn't even circumstantial evidence that would indicate the premise for collusion is reasonable -- unless you think Hillary losing is enough?

If you genuinely think the Flynn plea bargain has nothing to do with the Trump campaign, why the heck would there be a plea bargain? Plea bargains are offered in order to get people higher up the chain. Who is higher up the chain other than Trump, his family, and Pence? If Flynn is as high as it goes why wouldn't they throw the book at him?

They are offered to get someone to cooperate, to find out if it goes higher up the chain. Since he said he was willing to call out a "very senior member", they were willing to take a chance on the plea bargain (Flynn not being the target of the investigation).

So far we know that he is willing to testify that he was ordered to meet with the Russians after President Trump was elected. They wanted to know who ordered that meeting and the contents of the meeting -- and Flynn wouldn't cough that up without a plea bargain to save his butt from falsifying his Butterball fundraising (probably to save his son's neck). They made the plea bargain in order to see if they could get to Trump -- turns out they can now get to Kushner but it's unlikely anything was illegal about what transpired.

They couldn't know that without the plea bargain.

Seems to me Flynn is the winner.

[pinstripers]

the plea bargain was to keep the FBI from his children

[ShockCrazy]

Most investigations have a shred of credibility, so there is something to go on. So far there isn't even circumstantial evidence that would indicate the premise for collusion is reasonable -- unless you think Hillary losing is enough?



They are offered to get someone to cooperate, to find out if it goes higher up the chain. Since he said he was willing to call out a "very senior member", they were willing to take a chance on the plea bargain (Flynn not being the target of the investigation).

So far we know that he is willing to testify that he was ordered to meet with the Russians after President Trump was elected. They wanted to know who ordered that meeting and the contents of the meeting -- and Flynn wouldn't cough that up without a plea bargain to save his butt from falsifying his Butterball fundraising (probably to save his son's neck). They made the plea bargain in order to see if they could get to Trump -- turns out they can now get to Kushner but it's unlikely anything was illegal about what transpired.

They couldn't know that without the plea bargain.

Seems to me Flynn is the winner.

Lets say there was nothing shady going on related to Flynn prior to Trump being elected (I am highly skeptical given the things Flynn has done both before and after the campaign), why would he lie about the meetings? I agree that meetings after election aren't unusual and discussions with foreign dignitaries, while technically illegal at that time, are generally overlooked. Why would he not only lie to the FBI about the meetings, but also to Pence? And if we are operating under the assumption that Trump did ask Flynn to talk to the Russians but only after the election, wouldn't Pence know about it? If he did know why would he lie about it? Or is Pence incompetent and has no idea what is going on with the transition team? There's a lot of this story that flat doesn't add up.

[Kung Wu]

Lets say there was nothing shady going on related to Flynn prior to Trump being elected (I am highly skeptical given the things Flynn has done both before and after the campaign), why would he lie about the meetings? I agree that meetings after election aren't unusual and discussions with foreign dignitaries, while technically illegal at that time, are generally overlooked. Why would he not only lie to the FBI about the meetings, but also to Pence? And if we are operating under the assumption that Trump did ask Flynn to talk to the Russians but only after the election, wouldn't Pence know about it? If he did know why would he lie about it? Or is Pence incompetent and has no idea what is going on with the transition team? There's a lot of this story that flat doesn't add up.

Your facts and assumptions do not align with -- and can easily be explained by -- what is being reported. It actually does all add up.

[ShockCrazy]

Your facts and assumptions do not align with -- and can easily be explained by -- what is being reported. It actually does all add up.

I made zero assumptions in my post and facts are exactly what has been reported. Point to one thing I assumed or falsified? I gave options for both paths regarding Pence and that's it. He either lied when asked if Flynn talked to the Russians, or he didn't know, which is weird if Trump directed Flynn. What has been reported and is known as fact:
1. Flynn did meet with Kislyak after the election.
2. Flynn lied to the FBI about meeting with Kislyak, which means:
3. He either also lied to Pence, OR Pence knew about the meetings and he is the one who lied.
4. Flynn is testifying that he indeed was directed to speak to Kislyak by Trump but ONLY after the election which means:
5. Pence was aware that Trump made such direction OR Pence did not and really didn't know much of what was going on with the transition.
And again Flynn isn't some low level staff he was to be the National Security Adviser so Pence not knowing about such a directive seems highly unusual.

Also you say it does add up but provide absolutely zero explanation how. Maybe I'm obtuse show me how clear and obvious it is. But it seems apparent there is some lying happening at a very high level.

[Kung Wu]

I made zero assumptions in my post and facts are exactly what has been reported. Point to one thing I assumed or falsified? I gave options for both paths regarding Pence and that's it. He either lied when asked if Flynn talked to the Russians, or he didn't know, which is weird if Trump directed Flynn. What has been reported and is known as fact:
1. Flynn did meet with Kislyak after the election.
2. Flynn lied to the FBI about meeting with Kislyak, which means:
3. He either also lied to Pence, OR Pence knew about the meetings and he is the one who lied.
4. Flynn is testifying that he indeed was directed to speak to Kislyak by Trump but ONLY after the election which means:
5. Pence was aware that Trump made such direction OR Pence did not and really didn't know much of what was going on with the transition.
And again Flynn isn't some low level staff he was to be the National Security Adviser so Pence not knowing about such a directive seems highly unusual.

Also you say it does add up but provide absolutely zero explanation how. Maybe I'm obtuse show me how clear and obvious it is. But it seems apparent there is some lying happening at a very high level.

"Lets say there was nothing shady going on related to Flynn prior to Trump being elected (I am highly skeptical given the things Flynn has done both before and after the campaign), why would he lie about the meetings?"

Bad assumption -- it is widely reported that Flynn made a deal with the Butterballs and then falsified information to the FBI about it.

"Why would he not only lie to the FBI about the meetings, but also to Pence?"

Because he knows influencing a foreign dignitary is _technically_ illegal, and he didn't want to get snared in that trap.

"And if we are operating under the assumption that Trump did ask Flynn to talk to the Russians but only after the election, wouldn't Pence know about it?"

Bad assumption -- it's widely reported that Kushner asked Flynn to talk to the Russians.

"Or is Pence incompetent and has no idea what is going on with the transition team?"

Bad assumption -- we aren't privy to what tasks Pence was delegated with. We are talking _days_ after Trump was elected. Pence would have been VERY busy with a crap load of initiatives. This communication may not have been on Pence's radar AT ALL and it would say nothing about his competence.

[boltforge]

So Flynn "lied" to Peter Strzok in an interview. An interview that has no recording and just notes from men like Strzok. Who, by the way, was lied to by Hillary's ladies and they were never charged. AND he helped change the wording for Hillary being "grossly negligent" (a crime) to "extremely careless" (she was just being her typical stupid self). AND he used the Democrat/Russian 'dossier' to kick off the whole spying on Trump people as well.

It looks like the men like Strzok are the only ones shown to have actually colluded with Russia.

Nice bunch of guys Mueller has on staff.

[ShockCrazy]

"Lets say there was nothing shady going on related to Flynn prior to Trump being elected (I am highly skeptical given the things Flynn has done both before and after the campaign), why would he lie about the meetings?"

Bad assumption -- it is widely reported that Flynn made a deal with the Butterballs and then falsified information to the FBI about it.

"Why would he not only lie to the FBI about the meetings, but also to Pence?"

Because he knows influencing a foreign dignitary is _technically_ illegal, and he didn't want to get snared in that trap.

"And if we are operating under the assumption that Trump did ask Flynn to talk to the Russians but only after the election, wouldn't Pence know about it?"

Bad assumption -- it's widely reported that Kushner asked Flynn to talk to the Russians.

"Or is Pence incompetent and has no idea what is going on with the transition team?"

Bad assumption -- we aren't privy to what tasks Pence was delegated with. We are talking _days_ after Trump was elected. Pence would have been VERY busy with a crap load of initiatives. This communication may not have been on Pence's radar AT ALL and it would say nothing about his competence.

What is the assumption on the first one???? https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download He lied about having the meetings and the contents of the meetings to the FBI full stop.

So he lied to Pence because it's illegal, ok. Sure we'll go with that.

So Kushner directed him on his own and Trump really had no idea? So we are really gonna stretch here. And when Trump applauded Putin's restraint in not retaliating, he still didn't know and didn't encourage further meetings and likewise for Pence? I mean Flynn did this good work in preventing Russian retaliation to US sanctions and he told people that he did it, and that his talks were the reason and still Pence didn't know?

Why is my assumption any worse than yours? I mean is Pence really not aware of major negotiations regarding a foreign country? It keeps being said that Pence doesn't know anything about soooo many things... This is weird to me. What IS Pence doing?

[CBB_Fan]

For that keep on saying "they've had a year to find evidence and ... nothing."

Do you realize that you are calling for a criminal case to be tabled before any evidence is shown in an actual trial, on the basis that no evidence has been shown? The reasoning is entirely circular. And largely what you are really saying is "there's been no evidence I believe." There have been actual guilty pleas and mounds of actual evidence, a solid stream for the past year.

As for the "collusion is dead" mantra (which, BTW I know comes from Rush because I listened to him make the argument), repeat after me: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The fact that current charges have been small is not evidence that bigger charges aren't looming. Rush Limbaugh is not an expert in criminal law.

When the Gambino crime family was targeted by the FBI, do you think they immediately tried to charged the henchmen they were trying to flip with murder and sex crimes? No, they got them for racketeering. That doesn't mean they were dropping murder charges, they were just more concerned with hitting the top of the food chain. Flynn, Papadopoulos, and Manafort aren't the big fish in this scenario, they are the henchmen. Trump, Trump Jr., Ivanka, and Kushner are the top.

And the whole "collusion is dead" argument is again coming from El Rushbo, who also claimed that collusion never existed to begin with and the whole thing was made up. He hasn't, and won't change his views nor will he report new breaking evidence that disproves them. He didn't when we had evidence that Roger Stone was working with Wikileaks to get dirt on Clinton. He didn't when we found email's from Felix Sater claiming "I will get Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected." He didn't when Papadopoulos's testimony revealed many attempts to meet with the Russians. He didn't when we learned that Jr. met with the Russians in Trump Tower.

That's a heck of a lot of evidence. And while collusion isn't a crime, many of the above is. It isn't legal for US citizens to try to influence foreign governments without our government's consent and every Trump associate had secret meetings with Russian officials to try to influence them into giving Trump aid.

As far as the speed of the investigation goes, this is proceeding far quicker than Watergate. Today is the 44th anniversary of Ford's swearing in as Vice President, and Nixon didn't resign till August 9th the following year. The first White House pleas didn't happen till late February of Nixon's second year. If they closed Watergate the way people want to close the Mueller investigation, Nixon would have finished his term.

[SB Shock]

accept this is not Watergate - so that paradigm breaks down quickly

[jdshock]

They have had a year to find anything related to collusion, and ... nothing.

The charges against Manafort and Gates are unrelated to the Trump campaign.

The plea bargain by Flynn is likely to be unrelated to the Trump campaign.

Papadapawhoever is a junior level know nothing idiot.

I believe that a special prosecutor hired to investigate ANY President Elect will find a treasure trove of crap on "important members of the campaign and administration".

It appears they are now using the "search for collusion" as an excuse to keep digging deeper and deeper into unrelated matters in the hopes to find anything, in order to justify what can now pretty clearly be described as a witch hunt.

Mueller was appointed a little over six months ago. They've been moving incredibly fast. The idea that they have little to show for a year of work is definitely wrong.

I will say I don't COMPLETELY buy the idea that they had mountains of evidence against Flynn and he just pleaded to lying to the FBI. It's definitely tempting to believe, but after talking to a few folks who know a lot more than I do, that's just not that common of a strategy. If you're at all interested in a more moderate take on all things Mueller, I'm a huge fan of the "Stay Tuned with Preet" podcast. He's a Democrat, but he's a former US prosecutor and his latest episode actually said the same thing. It's just not that common to drop a ton of charges to flip the witness.

Your point about Russia is interesting to me, though. Collusion is a mostly meaningless word. There's not a specific crime called collusion. The investigation certainly relates to Russia, but from day one it included, for example, discussions about Trump's financial dealings.

If Mueller finds no evidence of "collusion," but he authors a report that recommends charges be brought on the grounds of obstruction of justice, would you support impeachment? If not, why not?