The Trump Presidency

Do you ...


  • Total voters
    149
Status
Not open for further replies.
From Snopes:

"Nothing said or repeated by Evelyn Farkas on 2 March 2017 was novel or ostensibly more revealing than the New York Times article published just before her interview, and Farkas described the actions of Washington operatives (not President Obama) to preserve extant intelligence about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election (not to spy on Donald Trump).

We have attempted to contact Evelyn Farkas but have not yet received a response."

That's just pathetic .. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

She was the source of the NYT article.

:1orglaugh
 

So Cunty McCuntface posts this shit..
The same fucker that is always proclaiming shit "fake news" :1orglaugh

As someone that is proficient in legalese, I don't find anything particularly screaming immunity here.
IMG_20170330_212318.jpg


They may request it later, as of now, concerns of unfair prosecution is not an immunity deal.
 
lol
Seems to me there's been a lot of premature schwinging going on hereabouts the last couple of months. Seemed like an appropriate moment to join in :D
 
That's why he was a soldier and not a lawyer.

Exercising your 5th amendment privilege usually is indicative of hiding something.

Flynn is wrong as I am sure his attorney has informed him now.

He still hasn't formally requested immunity however.
 

Supafly

Retired Mod
Bronze Member
Michael Flynn Offers to Testify Before Congress in Exchange for Immunity

WASHINGTON — Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser, has offered to be interviewed by House and Senate investigators who are examining the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia in exchange for immunity from prosecution, according to his lawyer and a congressional official.

But the congressional official said investigators were unwilling to broker a deal with Mr. Flynn — who resigned last month for misleading White House officials about his contacts with Russia’s ambassador to the United States — until they are further along in their inquiries and they better understand what information Mr. Flynn might offer as part of a deal.

In a statement on Thursday evening, Mr. Flynn’s lawyer confirmed discussions with the House and Senate intelligence committees about possible testimony by his client. The lawyer, Robert Kelner, did not provide specifics about the terms under which Mr. Flynn would testify, but said that “no reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicized, witch-hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution.”

...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/us/politics/michael-flynn-congress-immunity-russia.html?_r=0

I guess this will not be the final straw, but it all adds up to the bulk of things that at some popint will be too much to cover and accept.
 
This is why reading is fundamental.
He may be offered immunity but he has not requested it.

There is a difference in getting assurances that you will not be unfairly prosecuted and immunity.

Immunity is granted with certain conditions. Assurances you will be treated fairly is a courtesy.
 

I got to thinking about this video and then I realized that someone else that ended up holding a much loftier position said this...



I'm sure Flynn would probably phrase his comments differently now.

I'm not so sure Obama would take his back even now.

He's that tone deaf and under far more grave consequences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top