• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

The Trump Administration (just Trump) Thread

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Human Q-Tip said:
He always claimed to have found the gun. The three different stories were that 1) it accidentally discharged three times, either by accidentally pilling the trigger or by stepping on it, depending on which of his stories you believe; 2) shooting at seals. In either case, at trial (which is all that matters) his lawyers admitted he pulled the trigger bit claimed it was an accident).



Quit digging. You're simply wrong. Again.

The jury was in fact given the option to convict on the lesser included charge of involuntary manslaughter, which is what California call negligent homicide:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/30/us/kate-steinle-murder-trial-verdict/index.html

Try reading up on it a bit. No intent or malice is required, and applies to accidental killings:

Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice...In the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=192.

What version of facts could the jury have reasonably believed thay wouldn't fit that definition, given that he admitted firing the gun thay killed her?

The defendant did not testify at trial, so his version of events came in through his pre-trial statements, where he literally came up with three different versions of how the gun managed to fire. Leaving aside the entire possibility that he did this deliberately. He either 1) stepped on it and it fired three time (impossible), picked it up and it fired accidentally three times (also impossible), or 3) picked it up to shoot at sea anals on the pier, which is prettyuch the perfect definition of negligent homicide.

I'd add again the thought experiment if you changed up the parties here. A white guy convicted of seven prior felonies shoots and kills a black guy in public, tells three different bizarre versions of how it happens, and walks completely. No affirmative defense, nothing.

What would be the reaction?
Click to expand...

Oh, is this where we say the whataboutism fallacy? Because you'd just say the legal system is in place and we have to respect the decision that the white person wasn't convicted

He wasn't convicted Q. Either the justice system failed, or you have to respect the decision. I think we both think it's the first.

Redacted on the rest. My b. The article I had originally read did not include involuntary manslaughter; only, like I said, murder 1&2 and manslaugter.
 
Los216 said:
1







2






View: https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/936634778425622528




3 and to the 4. Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's at the door

G0nuN5.gif
Click to expand...
Lmao okay this was funny
 
The Human Q-Tip said:
My.poiny is that Susan Rice believing that the Trump Administration was getting ahead of itself does not constitute a crime. Worth noting that Flynn wasn't even charged with a Logan Act violation.



Though again, there's no charge on that, and "I was just following orders" isn't a valid defense so he should have been charged if it wasnin fact illegal. What got Flynn was lying about it under oath. Had he just told the trith,there's nothing to prosecute.



Agree - but I'm curious - where did you come up with that 60 years figure? Is there something beside the lying under oath and Logan Act that is arguably applicable here?
Click to expand...

Breaking: Flynn Plea Hearing At 10:30 In Mueller Probe; Update: Plea Deal On Single 1001 Count
ED MORRISSEYPosted at 9:31 am on December 1, 2017


flynn-convention.jpg

Robert Mueller’s probe has netted yet another conviction, according to a statement released to media sources a few minutes ago from the special counsel’s media relations office. Michael Flynn will appear at 10:30 this morning in a plea hearing to answer one charge of lying to FBI investigators, a violation of 18 USC 1001. Presumably Flynn has agreed to plead out on this one charge, involving statements regarding his contacts with former Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak.

SEE ALSO: ABC: Flynn to testify that candidate Trump ordered him to make contact with Russia

Specifically, the charge states that Flynn lied when he denied asking Kislyak to keep Russia from escalating its response to Barack Obama’s diplomatic sanctions in late December 2016. That’s a potent admission, if Flynn has decided to make it. The outgoing Obama administration accused Donald Trump’s transition team of tampering with its management of foreign policy at the time, and the Trump team denied that they had done any such thing.

TRENDING:
ABC: Flynn to testify that candidate Trump ordered him to make contact with Russia
The denial is the issue here. Flynn’s actions with Kislyak would have been a violation of the Logan Act, but no one has ever been successfully prosecuted under that law. However, lots of people get prosecuted for lying to federal investigators, and for good reason. Why lie? It could be that Flynn got out over his own ski tips and decided to fly solo — or that he was told to do it, and wanted to cover that up. If Mueller’s cutting a deal with Flynn, which way do you want to bet this goes?

And the Mueller team says it’s definitely a guilty plea:

https://twitter.com/Tom_Winter/status/936598969584685056
Tom Winter

✔@Tom_Winter

FLASH: MICHAEL FLYNN TO PLEAD GUILTY TODAY IN MUELLER CASE, OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL SAYS.


Interestingly, Mueller hasn’t charged Flynn with violations of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA), despite what appeared to be grounds for such charges. That’s also rarely prosecuted, but Mueller showed no hesitation in charging Paul Manafort and Rick Gates under FARA when he was throwing the kitchen sink at them. Flynn’s FARA issues related more to Turkey, though, and it looks like Mueller decided to stick with Russia-related issues for this plea deal, just as he did with George Papadopoulos.

The disparity between the Manafort indictment and Flynn’s plea deal tells us at least that Flynn’s cooperating with Mueller. It also tells us that Flynn had something to hide during the transition, and whatever it is has enough value for Mueller to cut a deal with Flynn. That seems like bad news for the White House, or at the very least a reminder of their incompetence at assembling their national security team after the election.

Update: This is what should be making the White House nervous:

https://twitter.com/DomenicoNPR/status/936606298543714306
Domenico Montanaro

✔@DomenicoNPR

Stands to reason this isn't last shoe to drop in Russia probe. There was other stuff they could have charged Flynn with and he's choosing to plead. So, that begs the question, what does Mueller's team have on someone higher than the national security adviser? And who is that?

9:41 AM - Dec 1, 2017


Update: Judge Andrew Napolitano points out that Flynn could have faced a 60-year sentence if he fought Mueller and got the kitchen sink treatment. Instead, he’s facing a 6-12 month sentence for the 18 USC 1001 violation. That doesn’t come for free, Napolitano tells Fox News:

https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/936610612536401920
Fox News

✔@FoxNews

.@JudgeNap: "What did @GenFlynn through his lawyers give to Bob Mueller through his FBI agents to induce Mueller to reduce that exposure from 60 years to 5 to 12 months?"

9:59 AM - Dec 1, 2017

Twitter Ads info and privacy




As I said on Twitter earlier, I may not be able to make it through a calculus course, but I can add.
​
 
DJTJ said:
Oh, is this where we say the whataboutism fallacy? Because you'd just say the legal system is in place and we have to respect the decision that the white person wasn't convicted.
Click to expand...

Quite right, which is why I never argued that this decision should not be respected, nor have I advocated protests, etc.. I'm consistent in that regard. Nor have I noted any riots or violence in SF after this decision.

It is also why I posed the the question of how differently this case would be covered if the races were changed.

I'm fine with accepting verdicts even if I personally don't agree with them. I just don't think that's what generally happens.
 
MediumBaller said:
Trump and Putin could've hacked voting machines over Moscow mules and Russian strippers for all I care. Hillary was stopped.
Click to expand...

fucking traitor.

the rules of this board keep me from absolutely fucking laying into you. As someone that works in support of protecting this country, get the fuck out if you dont care about an enemy of this country impacting its elections.
 
billmac91 said:
Right....you'd be talking about VP Pence (if that was the senior campaign official) directing the National Security Adviser (Flynn) to reach out to countries within the UN to convey some type of message, but this is important....after Trump had already won the election.

Then what? Incoming administrations do this all the time. I'm not trying to trivialize it. Even Obama did it in 2008. But they're using these 3 relatively small charges to get him to cooperate. Where that goes will be interesting. But the charges slapped on Flynn today are not that shocking, traitorous, or even alarming....it's leverage for what else he might know.

But I think it's important to make sure people understand what they're posting. There's a major difference between "Transition team" activity and "candidate Trump" activity. And to go a step further, if there was "candidate Trump" campaign activity with Russia, what was that activity. Was he promising removal of sanctions for a flood of fake news? Were they reaching out to discuss mechanics of communication going forward should he win? Were they discussing Trump properties in some quid pro quo scheme? Were they discussing the Magnitsky Act?

I don't find today that troubling for Trump personally. The charges on Flynn just aren't that scrupulous or underhanded.

We'll see I guess.....
Click to expand...

The minor charges Flynn pleaded guilty to are related to the transition, but you are entirely correct about the transition--campaign distinction. I do think Pence, as the Transition Director, may be at risk with the transition activity, but Flynn may be in.a position to implicate Trump and his associates concerning the email acquisition and distribution and targeting of Russian social media and election hacking activities.

Taken out of context, the transition outreach does not seem like a big deal. But what we may actually be looking at is cooperation with the Russian that may have helped Trump be elected, the U.S. intelligence community discovering and reporting the activity; the then current administration taking action via sanctions based on the Intelligence conclusion; THEN the incoming administration who had colluded with the Russians contact them illegally during the transition to tell them not to retaliate as they normally would cuz we got this.

BTW, another interesting angle not discussed much is that Trump had significant business interests in Turkey that were under attack within the Turkish political system in the 2015-16 timeframe (a pesky Trump Tower that the government was threatening to remove the "Trump" name and licensing contract).

But of course, as you say, we will see. One thing that is not happening is an investigation that is wrapping up soon.
 
bob2the2nd said:
fucking traitor.

the rules of this board keep me from absolutely fucking laying into you. As someone that works in support of protecting this country, get the fuck out if you dont care about an enemy of this country impacting its elections.
Click to expand...
Read my post on the previous page where I explained my feelings. It's not meant to offend you or anyone else in your line of work.
 
billmac91 said:
Breaking: Flynn Plea Hearing At 10:30 In Mueller Probe; Update: Plea Deal On Single 1001 Count
ED MORRISSEYPosted at 9:31 am on December 1, 2017


flynn-convention.jpg

Robert Mueller’s probe has netted yet another conviction, according to a statement released to media sources a few minutes ago from the special counsel’s media relations office. Michael Flynn will appear at 10:30 this morning in a plea hearing to answer one charge of lying to FBI investigators, a violation of 18 USC 1001. Presumably Flynn has agreed to plead out on this one charge, involving statements regarding his contacts with former Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak.

SEE ALSO: ABC: Flynn to testify that candidate Trump ordered him to make contact with Russia

Specifically, the charge states that Flynn lied when he denied asking Kislyak to keep Russia from escalating its response to Barack Obama’s diplomatic sanctions in late December 2016. That’s a potent admission, if Flynn has decided to make it. The outgoing Obama administration accused Donald Trump’s transition team of tampering with its management of foreign policy at the time, and the Trump team denied that they had done any such thing.

TRENDING:
ABC: Flynn to testify that candidate Trump ordered him to make contact with Russia
The denial is the issue here. Flynn’s actions with Kislyak would have been a violation of the Logan Act, but no one has ever been successfully prosecuted under that law. However, lots of people get prosecuted for lying to federal investigators, and for good reason. Why lie? It could be that Flynn got out over his own ski tips and decided to fly solo — or that he was told to do it, and wanted to cover that up. If Mueller’s cutting a deal with Flynn, which way do you want to bet this goes?

And the Mueller team says it’s definitely a guilty plea:

Tom Winter

✔@Tom_Winter

FLASH: MICHAEL FLYNN TO PLEAD GUILTY TODAY IN MUELLER CASE, OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL SAYS.


Interestingly, Mueller hasn’t charged Flynn with violations of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA), despite what appeared to be grounds for such charges. That’s also rarely prosecuted, but Mueller showed no hesitation in charging Paul Manafort and Rick Gates under FARA when he was throwing the kitchen sink at them. Flynn’s FARA issues related more to Turkey, though, and it looks like Mueller decided to stick with Russia-related issues for this plea deal, just as he did with George Papadopoulos.

The disparity between the Manafort indictment and Flynn’s plea deal tells us at least that Flynn’s cooperating with Mueller. It also tells us that Flynn had something to hide during the transition, and whatever it is has enough value for Mueller to cut a deal with Flynn. That seems like bad news for the White House, or at the very least a reminder of their incompetence at assembling their national security team after the election.

Update: This is what should be making the White House nervous:

Domenico Montanaro

✔@DomenicoNPR

Stands to reason this isn't last shoe to drop in Russia probe. There was other stuff they could have charged Flynn with and he's choosing to plead. So, that begs the question, what does Mueller's team have on someone higher than the national security adviser? And who is that?

9:41 AM - Dec 1, 2017


Update: Judge Andrew Napolitano points out that Flynn could have faced a 60-year sentence if he fought Mueller and got the kitchen sink treatment. Instead, he’s facing a 6-12 month sentence for the 18 USC 1001 violation. That doesn’t come for free, Napolitano tells Fox News:

Fox News

✔@FoxNews

.@JudgeNap: "What did @GenFlynn through his lawyers give to Bob Mueller through his FBI agents to induce Mueller to reduce that exposure from 60 years to 5 to 12 months?"

9:59 AM - Dec 1, 2017

Twitter Ads info and privacy




As I said on Twitter earlier, I may not be able to make it through a calculus course, but I can add.
​
Click to expand...

Still having a hard time figuring out where Judge Nap got his 60 years from. Guess we'll find out.
 
The Human Q-Tip said:
My.poiny is that Susan Rice believing that the Trump Administration was getting ahead of itself does not constitute a crime. Worth noting that Flynn wasn't even charged with a Logan Act violation.



Though again, there's no charge on that, and "I was just following orders" isn't a valid defense so he should have been charged if it wasnin fact illegal. What got Flynn was lying about it under oath. Had he just told the trith,there's nothing to prosecute.



Agree - but I'm curious - where did you come up with that 60 years figure? Is there something beside the lying under oath and Logan Act that is arguably applicable here?
Click to expand...

lol

That's because he's talking. He flipped. He's protecting his son from going to jail. Keep in mind that Mueller can't put everything in these charges in order to protect from future indictments and charges from more people. There will be more people you know that right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-15: "Cavs Survive and Advance"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:15: Cavs Survive and Advance
Top