Post by TomPMichael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. There are many other
offenses that Flynn can be charged with but this one alone has a maximum
5 year prison term. In exchange, Flynn has promised to testify against
President Trump.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454269/michael-flynn-plea-no-breakthrough-russia-investigation
Post by TomPIt looks like the noose is slowly tightening around the Donal's neck.
Uh, no it does not:
"Nevertheless, as I explained in connection with George Papadopoulos
(who also pled guilty in Mueller’s investigation for lying to the FBI),
when a prosecutor has a cooperator who was an accomplice in a major
criminal scheme, the cooperator is made to plead guilty to the scheme.
This is critical because it proves the existence of the scheme. In his
guilty-plea allocution (the part of a plea proceeding in which the
defendant admits what he did that makes him guilty), the accomplice
explains the scheme and the actions taken by himself and his
co-conspirators to carry it out. This goes a long way toward proving the
case against all of the subjects of the investigation. That is not
happening in Flynn’s situation. Instead, like Papadopoulos, he is being
permitted to plead guilty to a mere process crime. A breaking report
from ABC News indicates that Flynn is prepared to testify that Trump
directed him to make contact with the Russians — initially to lay the
groundwork for mutual efforts against ISIS in Syria. That, however, is
exactly the sort of thing the incoming national-security adviser is
supposed to do in a transition phase between administrations. If it were
part of the basis for a “collusion” case arising out of Russia’s
election meddling, then Flynn would not be pleading guilty to a process
crime — he’d be pleading guilty to an espionage conspiracy. Understand:
If Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador had evinced the
existence of a quid pro quo collusion arrangement — that the Trump
administration would ease or eliminate sanctions on Russia as a payback
for Russia’s cyber-espionage against the Hillary Clinton campaign and
the Democratic party — it would have been completely appropriate, even
urgently necessary, for the Obama Justice Department to investigate
Flynn. But if that had happened, Mueller would not be permitting Flynn
to settle the case with a single count of lying to FBI agents. Instead,
we would be looking at a major conspiracy indictment, and Flynn would be
made to plead to far more serious offenses if he wanted a deal —
cooperation in exchange for sentencing leniency. To the contrary, for
all the furor, we have a small-potatoes plea in Flynn’s case — just as
we did in Papadopoulos’s case, despite extensive “collusion” evidence.
Meanwhile, the only major case Mueller has brought, against former
Trump-campaign chairman Paul Manafort and an associate, has nothing to
do with the 2016 election. It is becoming increasingly palpable that,
whatever “collusion” means, there was no actionable, conspiratorial
complicity by the Trump campaign in the Kremlin’s machinations."
Read more at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454269/michael-flynn-plea-no-breakthrough-russia-investigation