Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Old_SD_Dude

Flynn takes the 5th

Recommended Posts

“The mob takes the Fifth Amendment. If you’re innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?” Trump said at a campaign rally in Iowa in September.

Flynn (who of course asked for immunity in exchange for testimony) himself said during an interview last year "When you are given immunity, that means you have probably committed a crime."

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His right to do so, and frankly he'd be dumb not to - guilty or innocent. But it's rich considering all the consternation about Clinton and Obama people doing the same.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd support a constitutional amendment that denies federal employees from being able to plead the fifth on matters pertaining solely to their actions taken while performing their duties within the government.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, thelawlorfaithful said:

I'd support a constitutional amendment that denies federal employees from being able to plead the fifth on matters pertaining solely to their actions taken while performing their duties within the government.

The military courts already kind of has that is my understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

The military courts already kind of has that is my understanding.

I did some quick reading on the UCMJ, it appears they can still plead the 5th.  In this case it's covered under Article 31 of the UCMJ.   Now, that's just a rudimentary reading of what little I could find at midnight.  

http://www.courtmartial.com/Answer-Center/Know-Your-Rights/What-are-your-Article-31-UCMJ-rights.shtml

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd do the same thing if I hadn't reported my RT income or my Turkish lobbying.  

Congress has a track record of overlooking refusals to testify, so he's playing the odds. Just last year, Hillary's minions had immunity and still took the fifth.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/295620-clinton-it-aide-does-not-appear-before-oversight-panel-despite

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NorthWestCowboy said:

Flynn will eventually get immunity and this little birdie will sing.  Just my opinion.

Whether or not he has anything damning to say is anybody's guess.

I don't believe he'll receive immunity. I think there's a chance that he goes down. Maybe then he'll give up some info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, renoskier said:

I don't believe he'll receive immunity. I think there's a chance that he goes down. Maybe then he'll give up some info.

I don't think the FBI needs him to make their case, or a deal would already have been made. I sense suicide in Flynn's future. I have already predicted that Manafort lives out his days under asylum in the former USSR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, jackmormon said:

I don't think the FBI needs him to make their case, or a deal would already have been made. I sense suicide in Flynn's future. I have already predicted that Manafort lives out his days under asylum in the former USSR.

Especially when the FBI's main "case" is against him! 

So @jackmormon let your imagination run wild.

What high crimes and misdemeanors did Trump, Flynn, Manafort et al commit? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NorthWestCowboy said:

Flynn will eventually get immunity and this little birdie will sing.  Just my opinion.

Whether or not he has anything damning to say is anybody's guess.

My guess too, much like Oliver North.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

I'd support a constitutional amendment that denies federal employees from being able to plead the fifth on matters pertaining solely to their actions taken while performing their duties within the government.

You want to, in other words, suspend a citizen's otherwise constitutional rights based on who they were working for at the time? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SFtoVA said:

You want to, in other words, suspend a citizen's otherwise constitutional rights based on who they were working for at the time? 

If who they are working for is the enormously powerful government that the constitution created then yes. And like I said, solely pertaining to their work for that government. If they're being investigated for doing something illegal not within those bounds then the fifth amendment applies just the same as it does now.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, thelawlorfaithful said:

If who they are working for is the enormously powerful government that the constitution created then yes. And like I said, solely pertaining to their work for that government. If they're being investigated for doing something illegal not within those bounds then the fifth amendment applies just the same as it does now.

Who get's to decide on what's pertinent to their government work? They would have to provide information, potentially testify and/or provide evidence against themselves, in order for someone to make that determination. Or do you have a different process in mind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, SFtoVA said:

Who get's to decide on what's pertinent to their government work? They would have to provide information, potentially testify and/or provide evidence against themselves, in order for someone to make that determination. Or do you have a different process in mind?

 A judge can decide what questions are pertinent for them to answer.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...