Flynn charged with one count of making false statement

a reply to: face23785

I know, but they're so invested in Russia so I referenced it, but yes, Steele is a foreign agent too and did all of the legwork.

I guess they figure it has all been "laundered" because it went through Fusion GPS, but even so, it was still all information obtained exclusively by foreign agents even if it was brokered by an American firm who outsourced the work.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Nope no lies. Sorry charley.

Again educate yourself on the law before making a false claim.

In other words blindly regurgitate right wing propaganda.

a reply to: introvert

There is no such crime as collusion in federal criminal statutes.

The people charged / indicted thus far have nothing close to collusion as a charge.

Talking to the Russians is not against the law. Lying to the FBI is, and that is where Flynn is at.

In situations like this its not the "initial supposed criminal activity" that gets people. It's the attempt to cover it up that screws people in the end.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes. There is no such thing as collusion. There IS a legal definition for conspiracy, and it would probably be better if people used that word instead of collusion to cut out the confusion.

a reply to: face23785

Nobody got plea deals. There were no indictments. The word you're looking for is immunity not plea deals. And those were issued as a precaution insisted upon by lawyers for those people. Immunity is not a guilty plea nor does it imply guilt of any kind.

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: face23785
The elephant in the room: Flynn lied to Pence.

If there was an organized collusion between the campaign and the Russians, why would Flynn have lied to Pence about talking to the Russian ambassador about sanctions? Flynn and some other underlings may be going down, but that puts a huge hole in the hopes of those that thought this would take down Trump and Pence.

Bingo !!

Hmmm. Except that Mike Pence was informed by Flynn's lawyers and by a letter from Rep. Cummings... Pence was either willfully blind and incompetent OR he knew enough from those sources to keep Flynn out of the White House.

I'm sure more unwanted attention will be directed towards our VP in the coming weeks...

What was the timeline ?

a reply to: introvert

Perhaps "conspiring with" is a better legal term...

"A foreign national spending money to influence a federal election can be a crime," Persily said. "And if a U.S. citizen coordinates, conspires or assists in that spending, then it could be a crime."

Persily pointed to a 2011 U.S. District Court ruling based on the 2002 law. The judges said that the law bans foreign nationals "from making expenditures to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a political candidate."

Another election law specialist, John Coates at Harvard University Law School, said if Russians aimed to shape the outcome of the presidential election, that would meet the definition of an expenditure.

"The related funds could also be viewed as an illegal contribution to any candidate who coordinates (colludes) with the foreign speaker," Coates said.

To be sure, no one is saying that coordination took place. What’s in doubt is whether the word "collusion" is as pivotal as Jarrett makes it out to be.

Coates said discussions between a campaign and a foreigner could violate the law against fraud.

"Under that statute, it is a federal crime to conspire with anyone, including a foreign government, to ‘deprive another of the intangible right of honest services,’ " Coates said. "That would include fixing a fraudulent election, in my view, within the plain meaning of the statute."

Josh Douglas at the University of Kentucky Law School offered two other possible relevant statutes.

"Collusion in a federal election with a foreign entity could potentially fall under other crimes, such as against public corruption," Douglas said. "There's also a general anti-coercion federal election law."

In sum, legal experts mentioned four criminal laws that might have been broken. The key is not whether those statutes use the word collusion, but whether the activities of the Russians and Trump associates went beyond permissible acts.

Link

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: ketsuko

Hillary Clinton did not pay Russia for information, she paid a private firm for information. This is not illegal.

Sounds illegal when considered with this federal code you posted:

Link

52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(a) Prohibition: It shall be unlawful for—

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

BwaaaHaHaHa

Maybe Flynn will lie about that too.

His last fling.

a reply to: face23785

In order to be a foreign agent, Steele would have had to be working for the British government. He was not. He was working for a private firm.

There is a legal difference between getting information from a private firm and getting information from a foreign power.

"Getting opposition research from a qualified professional, even if it's a foreign national, is one thing," Tyler said. "There are lots of foreign nationals in the US and abroad who work on political campaigns. But it's a very different thing for a government, particularly an enemy, to somehow offer opposition research as a way of saying 'we want to help you win and someone else lose.' That is very serious, and would essentially be allowing a foreign government to help influence an election."

There are other differences, as well.

"Uncovering information as Steele did (and so many other intel services!) of a Russian intelligence operation, and then reporting it to the proper authorities is not the same thing as meeting with Russian intelligence officers so as to collude in secret to support their covert action to undermine and alter the US election," veteran CIA operative Glenn Carle said in an email.

Business Insider

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I don't know that word in the context you've used it.
Did you mean you're awake?
Woke is the past tense of wake. What are you actually saying my dear?

You're alseep? LOL

a reply to: Xcathdra

Collusion is the wrong word here.
I'm pretty sure it's against the law to take favors from a hostile foreign nation during an election.
And it sure looks like team Cheeto was more than willing to play ball with Ivan...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: face23785

Nobody got plea deals. There were no indictments. The word you're looking for is immunity not plea deals. And those were issued as a precaution insisted upon by lawyers for those people. Immunity is not a guilty plea nor does it imply guilt of any kind.

Yeah it's technically not a plea deal. Poor choice of words on my part. It's still a deal they make in exchange for information. That actually hurts your case. You would think you'd have to have more valuable information to get immunity than you would to get a plea deal where you could still face a penalty. And a number of people got immunity and the investigators didn't get anything out of it. This shows the fact that a deal was made does not automatically mean the investigators are getting what they need.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: ketsuko

Hillary Clinton did not pay Russia for information, she paid a private firm for information. This is not illegal.

Sounds illegal when considered with this federal code you posted:

Link

52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(a) Prohibition: It shall be unlawful for—

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

Hey hey, get those facts out of here. They're disrupting the narrative.

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: face23785

In order to be a foreign agent, Steele would have had to be working for the British government. He was not. He was working for a private firm.

There is a legal difference between getting information from a private firm and getting information from a foreign power.

"Getting opposition research from a qualified professional, even if it's a foreign national, is one thing," Tyler said. "There are lots of foreign nationals in the US and abroad who work on political campaigns. But it's a very different thing for a government, particularly an enemy, to somehow offer opposition research as a way of saying 'we want to help you win and someone else lose.' That is very serious, and would essentially be allowing a foreign government to help influence an election."

There are other differences, as well.

"Uncovering information as Steele did (and so many other intel services!) of a Russian intelligence operation, and then reporting it to the proper authorities is not the same thing as meeting with Russian intelligence officers so as to collude in secret to support their covert action to undermine and alter the US election," veteran CIA operative Glenn Carle said in an email.

Business Insider

Great point. So does that standard apply to the Russian lawyer Papadopolous met with?

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

President Pence? Or President Ryan?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

That was a good point. However, I found this. It would not be a donation to Hillary Clinton because she paid for the services.

"The law prohibits accepting contributions from foreigners or providing substantial assistance to foreigners in making independent expenditures," Hasen said. "It does not prohibit paying foreigners at market value to perform services."

However, it looks like Hillary could get in trouble for hiding it.

But Baran added that he believes the Clinton campaign could be in trouble for not accurately disclosing its payments to the law firm.

Washington Examiner

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: ausername
He lied to the FBI?

Never lie to the FBI!

Unless you're a high profile liberal or a Clinton, with connections and loyal subjects throughout the various agencies. Then you can get away with anything.

Better yet never talk to the FBI to begin with...That way you can't lie....


Show up to the interview and say "sorry I don't recall that conversations" over and over and over....

What can they really do then? NOTHING!!

They can charge you with making false statements to the FBI:

You really do have to be a Clinton or in their circle.

What that says is Flynn did not tell Special Council about details of the meeting or said he didn't say something when on tape he did. That doesn't mean Flynn told them he didn't recall it means he lied to them when asked directly about it.

IF Flynn would have answered "I don't recall talking about that" instead of "we never talked about that" he would have been in the clear. The problem is it is impossible to prove or disprove what some recalls.

Now when pressed with the evidence Flynn then could have said well yes that's me and now I remember or even then could have gone with "ok apparently I did say it but still don't recall the conversation".

He is charged because he didn't play it that way...


just my .02

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I don't know that word in the context you've used it.
Did you mean you're awake?
Woke is the past tense of wake. What are you actually saying my dear?

That's because you live in an insulated white woman world of privilege where you just point your finger at non-Democrats and call them racists, but you don't actually associate with black people:

Woke is a political term of black origin which refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice. It is derived from the African American Vernacular English expression "stay woke", whose grammatical aspect refers to a continuing awareness of these issues.

Wikipedia

But I already suspected this about you, so I really am not surprised.