Flynn's lawyers split from Trump, signalling possible cooperation with Mueller - NY Times

[webfact]

Flynn's lawyers split from Trump, signalling possible cooperation with Mueller - NY Times

 

FILE PHOTO: White House National Security Advisor Michael Flynn arrives prior to a joint news conference between Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House in Washington, DC, U.S. on February 13, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Lawyers for Michael Flynn, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, have told Trump's legal team they can no longer discuss a probe into Russian meddling in the U.S. election, indicating Flynn may be cooperating with the investigation, the New York Times reported on Thursday.

 

Flynn is a central figure in a federal investigation led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into whether Trump aides colluded with Russia to boost his 2016 presidential campaign.

 

The probe has hung over the White House since January, when U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Russia interfered in the election to try to help Trump defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton by hacking and releasing embarrassing emails and disseminating propaganda via social media to discredit her.

 

Russia has denied interfering in the U.S. election and Trump has said there was no collusion.

 

Flynn's lawyer did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment on Thursday, the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday. A spokesman for Mueller declined comment. Special White House Counsel Ty Cobb referred questions to Trump's outside lawyers John Dowd and Jay Sekulow, who could not be reached for comment.

 

The Times reported that Flynn’s lawyers had been sharing information with Trump’s legal team about the Mueller investigation. Citing four unnamed people involved in the case, the newspaper reported the cooperation agreement had ended.

 

Due to rules that aim to prevent conflicts of interest when lawyers represent clients, the move by Flynn's lawyers to stop communicating with Trump's lawyers indicated Flynn was now cooperating with Mueller, the Times said, although adding that in itself was not proof.

 

But the development has led Trump’s lawyers to believe that Flynn has begun discussions with Mueller about cooperating, according to the Times.

 

Flynn served 24 days as Trump's national security adviser but was fired after it was discovered he had misrepresented his contacts with a Russian diplomat to Vice President Mike Pence.

 

Mueller’s inquiry is looking into Flynn’s paid work as a lobbyist for a Turkish businessman in 2016, in addition to contacts between Russian officials and Flynn and other Trump associates during and after the Nov. 8 presidential election, Reuters reported in June.

A lawyer for Flynn's son, Michael Flynn Jr., who worked with his father and is also being investigated by Mueller, according to a person familiar with the matter, declined to comment.

 

(Reporting by Michelle Price in Washington; Additional reporting by Roberta Rampton in West Palm Beach, Fla. and Nathan Layne in New York; Editing by Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-11-24

[Samui Bodoh]

This is a fascinating and wonderful development!

 

Based on what I have seen reported in the media, there is no doubt in my mind that Flynn faces some very, very serious legal problems. And as the consensus is that we know (perhaps) 5-10% of what Mueller knows, I think Flynn is looking at some loooooong prison time. And his son is as well...

 

As a legal strategy, it makes sense for Flynn to cooperate fully to try to mitigate the damage before someone else does, and remember he already offered to cooperate a while back. There are those who think Trump might/should pardon Flynn, but I think the blowback from such an action would be an impeachable offence (a pardon is not allowed if it is in pursuit of covering up another legal matter), and it wouldn't prevent the information from coming out either.

 

Flynn spent a huge amount of time with Trump during the campaign, and certainly has a VERY long and interesting story to tell. I really look forward to hearing it and seeing the end of that BUFFOON.

 

Happy Turkey day, Donald

 

[Emster23]

Rats leaving a sinking shi*

[Tug]

Ill bet Donald isent enjoying thanksgiving so much lol

[Jingthing]

9 minutes ago, Tug said:

Ill bet Donald isent enjoying thanksgiving so much lol

Hopefully.

If I had Mueller on my case, I'd be shaking in my boots.

He's as serious as a heart attack.

Uncover the truth! Slowly but surely, he will get to it.

Unless the orange horror show fires him.

Then thing would get really interesting. 

[Srikcir]

7 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

There are those who think Trump might/should pardon Flynn

A POTUS pardon only applies to federal crimes. It's possible that Mueller has in cooperation with several state attorney generals built some strong state criminal cases (ie., money laundering, state income tax evasion, bribery) that cannot be pardoned to the extent the Flynn's might still serve lengthy sentences and fines.

 

Furthermore, a pardoned Flynn "could still potentially serve as an unindicted co-conspirator, which triggers benefits to a prosecution such as a hearsay exception  for co-conspirator statements."

Also, a POTUS pardon could potentially remove the federal legal jeopardy in a manner that may defeat an assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Refusal to answer could result in a contempt finding that in turn, could theoretically be enforced by coercive contempt (i.e., jailing until such time as the witness provides ordered testimony)!

(https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/what-happens-if-trump-exercise-pardon-power_us_596f75dbe4b0000eb197ba66)

 

There's the question (in my mind) of what happens to a POTUS-pardoned person if the POTUS pardon was subsequently held to be illegal, ie., obstruction of justice? Could a Flynn pardon be revoked? That might be a risk Flynns might have to consider in deciding to cooperate with Mueller.

 

Then there might be a twist with federal income tax evasion. The tax and penalties are administrative matters. So while (to conjecture) Flynns could escape prison sentences from income tax evasion with a POTUS pardon, they may not be able to avoid collection of unpaid taxes, penalties and interest.

 

In the end a package deal with Mueller in cooperation with state attorney generals might actually give the Flynns a better position than a POTUS pardon.

[dunroaming]

Let's hope we can end the year on a high.  After all it has been an abysmal year for Americans and they deserve some good news.

 

Mr President, it looks as if your goose is being cooked at last! 

[boomerangutang]

5 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Hopefully.  If I had Mueller on my case, I'd be shaking in my boots.

He's as serious as a heart attack.  Uncover the truth! Slowly but surely, he will get to it.

Unless the orange horror show fires him.  Then thing would get really interesting. 

Mueller's firing:  interesting,  yes.  Understatement.  

However, there are still hard core Republicans who could 'delay, delay, delay' (candidate Trump's response, when asked whether Obama and Congress should do their Constitutional duties re; a S.C. Justice nominee).

 

Let's not underestimate Republicans' ability to employ dirty tricks.  They did it to get a Supreme Court justice voted in, when there weren't enough votes.  They didn't say a word when Comey was fired.  They fully approve Trump sexually preying upon 14 women.   

 

They can delay, deflect, for months.  Concurrently, Trump can hide himself away someplace (Mar-A-Lago?) and continue to tweet how great everything is.   .....maybe for years.  

[Morch]

5 hours ago, Tug said:

Ill bet Donald isent enjoying thanksgiving so much lol

 

Well, he practiced pardoning turkeys...

[ToS2014]

23 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

This is a fascinating and wonderful development!

 

Based on what I have seen reported in the media, there is no doubt in my mind that Flynn faces some very, very serious legal problems. And as the consensus is that we know (perhaps) 5-10% of what Mueller knows, I think Flynn is looking at some loooooong prison time. And his son is as well...

 

As a legal strategy, it makes sense for Flynn to cooperate fully to try to mitigate the damage before someone else does, and remember he already offered to cooperate a while back. There are those who think Trump might/should pardon Flynn, but I think the blowback from such an action would be an impeachable offence (a pardon is not allowed if it is in pursuit of covering up another legal matter), and it wouldn't prevent the information from coming out either.

 

Flynn spent a huge amount of time with Trump during the campaign, and certainly has a VERY long and interesting story to tell. I really look forward to hearing it and seeing the end of that BUFFOON.

 

Happy Turkey day, Donald

 

So your assumption could be simply stated as if I do something inappropriate then it was due to my boss.  Ok, I see your point but simply do not agree with it.

[ToS2014]

11 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Mueller's firing:  interesting,  yes.  Understatement.  

However, there are still hard core Republicans who could 'delay, delay, delay' (candidate Trump's response, when asked whether Obama and Congress should do their Constitutional duties re; a S.C. Justice nominee).

 

Let's not underestimate Republicans' ability to employ dirty tricks.  They did it to get a Supreme Court justice voted in, when there weren't enough votes.  They didn't say a word when Comey was fired.  They fully approve Trump sexually preying upon 14 women.   

 

They can delay, deflect, for months.  Concurrently, Trump can hide himself away someplace (Mar-A-Lago?) and continue to tweet how great everything is.   .....maybe for years.  

Replace Trump with any Democrat (without your blinders) and you will see the same same with both parties.  By the way, it was the Democrats that made the law to allow the '....employ dirty tricks' to vote in their SCOTUS; so, I guess I'm saying you are ok when the Dems do 'it' but you are totally against when the Repbus do it.  Sounds just about right.  I wonder when people began to look either to their left or right and not straight ahead.

[mtls2005]

Conspiring to kidnap Fethullah Gülen and deliver him to Erdoğan in exchange for $15 million probably wasn't the wisest thing Flynn Sr. has done. That said, supposedly he is making a deal to ensure his son escapes serious incarceration.

 

 

 

 

[greatwhitenorth]

Flynn allegedly sold his country out. He should lose all military benefits

[boomerangutang]

18 minutes ago, ToS2014 said:

Replace Trump with any Democrat (without your blinders) and you will see the same same with both parties.  By the way, it was the Democrats that made the law to allow the '....employ dirty tricks' to vote in their SCOTUS; so, I guess I'm saying you are ok when the Dems do 'it' but you are totally against when the Repbus do it.  Sounds just about right.  I wonder when people began to look either to their left or right and not straight ahead.

It's not even apples and oranges.  It's more like pineapples and hand grenades.

All politicians lie and throw dirt, but Republicans institutionalize it.  Here are a few Republican political dirty tricksters from the past decade:   Stone, Manafort, Atwater, Kushner, Rove.  If they ever make a museum to showcase their many dirty tricksters, it will be called, the 'Roger Stone Museum.'  as he is, without doubt, the dirtiest and most successful Republican dirty trickster.  He will proudly admit it himself.

 

Here's a site that names/describes conservative political dirty tricksters from the past several hundreds years.  gopdirtytricks.blogspot.com/

 

In contrast:  Obama chose not to release data on Russia interference in the 2016 campaign, even though there was a lot of evidence showing that Putin/Russia was doing all they could to help Trump's campaign by trashing HRC with lies.   Obama didn't release it because he didn't want to be seen as overly-partisan in support of his friend and the better candidate.

 

 

[Thakkar]

 

[Srikcir]

10 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

 

Where's the itemization of the factual errors in the New York Times' breaking news story?

Is there another thread where Seth identifies alleged errors?

In the story, "The notification alone does not prove that Mr. Flynn is cooperating with Mr. Mueller." 

Such caveat disregards the need for accurate facts to draw a speculation.

So I'm confused as to the significance of this post.

[Ron19]

A troll post has been removed.

[ilostmypassword]

6 hours ago, ToS2014 said:

Replace Trump with any Democrat (without your blinders) and you will see the same same with both parties.  By the way, it was the Democrats that made the law to allow the '....employ dirty tricks' to vote in their SCOTUS; so, I guess I'm saying you are ok when the Dems do 'it' but you are totally against when the Repbus do it.  Sounds just about right.  I wonder when people began to look either to their left or right and not straight ahead.

What law are you referring to? Or are you crediting the Democrats with writing the US Constitution?

[Srikcir]

40 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

What law are you referring to? Or are you crediting the Democrats with writing the US Constitution?

I think he is referring to the Biden Rule - not a law.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

I think he is referring to the Biden Rule - not a law.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

Thanks for the link.

So here's what the article says: First off there is no Biden Rule.  The Senate never voted on any such thing. Second it, does not say what the poster thinks it says.All Biden said was the nominations should be delayed until after the Presidential election.

[Thakkar]

6 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Where's the itemization of the factual errors in the New York Times' breaking news story?

Is there another thread where Seth identifies alleged errors?

In the story, "The notification alone does not prove that Mr. Flynn is cooperating with Mr. Mueller." 

Such caveat disregards the need for accurate facts to draw a speculation.

So I'm confused as to the significance of this post.

That earlier link doesn’t seem to work. Try this:

 

https://twitter.com/sethabramson/status/933903761050865665