The Trump Impeachment Thread
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-12-2017, 10:12 AM
RE: The Trump Impeachment Thread
(17-12-2017 09:49 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  A state judge could not bar that.

They can indeed bar it, forcing a prosecutor to find evidence elsewhere:

Quote:Although petitioners were granted immunity from prosecution under state laws, they refused to answer questions at a hearing conducted by the respondent on the ground that the answers might tend to incriminate them under federal law, to which the grant of immunity did not extend. They were held in civil and criminal contempt of court. The State Supreme Court reversed the criminal conviction on procedural grounds, but affirmed the civil contempt judgment, holding that a State may constitutionally compel a witness to give testimony which might be used against him in a federal prosecution.

Held: One jurisdiction in our federal system may not, absent an immunity provision, compel a witness to give testimony which might incriminate him under the laws of another jurisdiction.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal.../case.html
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2017, 11:23 AM (This post was last modified: 17-12-2017 01:14 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Trump Impeachment Thread
(17-12-2017 10:12 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(17-12-2017 09:49 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  A state judge could not bar that.

They can indeed bar it, forcing a prosecutor to find evidence elsewhere:

Quote:Although petitioners were granted immunity from prosecution under state laws, they refused to answer questions at a hearing conducted by the respondent on the ground that the answers might tend to incriminate them under federal law, to which the grant of immunity did not extend. They were held in civil and criminal contempt of court. The State Supreme Court reversed the criminal conviction on procedural grounds, but affirmed the civil contempt judgment, holding that a State may constitutionally compel a witness to give testimony which might be used against him in a federal prosecution.

Held: One jurisdiction in our federal system may not, absent an immunity provision, compel a witness to give testimony which might incriminate him under the laws of another jurisdiction.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal.../case.html

The case cited does not apply.
He (by accepting the pardon) (would have) agreed to his guilt.
It's the opposite scenario.
Flynn SIGNED an agreement to cooperate with any investigation.
Testimony to congress is not a "confession".
The Plea is a quid pro quo ... he got something for giving something. It also is not a ''confession".
The information (would be) already public knowledge, FROM the accused.
Mueller's team will have thought of all the scenarios, and preempted any end-run.

I agree with Girly. Whatever happens, will be unexpected.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
17-12-2017, 03:09 PM
RE: The Trump Impeachment Thread
(17-12-2017 11:23 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(17-12-2017 10:12 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  They can indeed bar it, forcing a prosecutor to find evidence elsewhere:


https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal.../case.html

The case cited does not apply.
He (by accepting the pardon) (would have) agreed to his guilt.
It's the opposite scenario.
Flynn SIGNED an agreement to cooperate with any investigation.
Testimony to congress is not a "confession".
The Plea is a quid pro quo ... he got something for giving something. It also is not a ''confession".
The information (would be) already public knowledge, FROM the accused.
Mueller's team will have thought of all the scenarios, and preempted any end-run.

I agree with Girly. Whatever happens, will be unexpected.

But what we're saying here is that IF Trump pardoned Flynn, all signed deals are off the table. If Flynn refused to cooperate after the pardon, Mueller wouldn't have any crime to charge him with because the pardon wiped them out.

Death is a debt we all must pay...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2017, 03:34 PM (This post was last modified: 17-12-2017 03:46 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Trump Impeachment Thread
(17-12-2017 03:09 PM)Grim Wrote:  
(17-12-2017 11:23 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The case cited does not apply.
He (by accepting the pardon) (would have) agreed to his guilt.
It's the opposite scenario.
Flynn SIGNED an agreement to cooperate with any investigation.
Testimony to congress is not a "confession".
The Plea is a quid pro quo ... he got something for giving something. It also is not a ''confession".
The information (would be) already public knowledge, FROM the accused.
Mueller's team will have thought of all the scenarios, and preempted any end-run.

I agree with Girly. Whatever happens, will be unexpected.

But what we're saying here is that IF Trump pardoned Flynn, all signed deals are off the table. If Flynn refused to cooperate after the pardon, Mueller wouldn't have any crime to charge him with because the pardon wiped them out.

Not necessarily, and not if he plead guilty to state crimes, (already) You don't know what he signed, and the circumstances outlined in agreements other than the public plea agreement.
You're underestimating Mueller's foresight. Nothing is off the table with respect to state charges. Conspiracy to kidnap the cleric, which was done in NY would not be covered by a Federal pardon.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2017, 04:23 PM
RE: The Trump Impeachment Thread
(17-12-2017 11:23 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(17-12-2017 10:12 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  They can indeed bar it, forcing a prosecutor to find evidence elsewhere:


https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal.../case.html

The case cited does not apply.
He (by accepting the pardon) (would have) agreed to his guilt.
It's the opposite scenario.
Flynn SIGNED an agreement to cooperate with any investigation.
Testimony to congress is not a "confession".
The Plea is a quid pro quo ... he got something for giving something. It also is not a ''confession".
The information (would be) already public knowledge, FROM the accused.
Mueller's team will have thought of all the scenarios, and preempted any end-run.

I think this finding doesn't specify which original jurisdiction nor the final jurisdiction. The language in that ruling is clear-cut, that immune testimony in one jurisdiction cannot be used in another. I could be wrong; IANAL.

Quote:I agree with Girly. Whatever happens, will be unexpected.

I think Flynn is screwed either way, and I think that's exactly why he's under the bus right now. Trump is dropping crumbs hoping the bear will get distracted.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2017, 04:25 PM
RE: The Trump Impeachment Thread
(17-12-2017 04:23 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  IANAL.

IVAGINAL.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
17-12-2017, 04:28 PM
RE: The Trump Impeachment Thread
(17-12-2017 04:23 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(17-12-2017 11:23 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The case cited does not apply.
He (by accepting the pardon) (would have) agreed to his guilt.
It's the opposite scenario.
Flynn SIGNED an agreement to cooperate with any investigation.
Testimony to congress is not a "confession".
The Plea is a quid pro quo ... he got something for giving something. It also is not a ''confession".
The information (would be) already public knowledge, FROM the accused.
Mueller's team will have thought of all the scenarios, and preempted any end-run.

I think this finding doesn't specify which original jurisdiction nor the final jurisdiction. The language in that ruling is clear-cut, that immune testimony in one jurisdiction cannot be used in another. I could be wrong; IANAL.

Quote:I agree with Girly. Whatever happens, will be unexpected.

I think Flynn is screwed either way, and I think that's exactly why he's under the bus right now. Trump is dropping crumbs hoping the bear will get distracted.

He HAS to testify (and cannot invoke the 5th) before congress. That is not "immune testimony". It's a "non-immune" requirement. A state is not going to grant him "further immunity".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2017, 01:32 PM
RE: The Trump Impeachment Thread
Don't feel like starting a new thread: Trump has been publically saying he won’t fire Mueller. After he obtained Trump’s transition team emails, rumor on the Hill is Trump will fire him on the 22nd after congress leaves for recess. I'm hoping it's just a rumor.

Right now, Trump's legal team is making the case that Mueller obtained the emails illegally. I don't know if this is the usual bluster for muddying the waters of the investigation, if Trump is worried something will be found there, or if they're searching for grounds to fire Mueller (or any combination of the above). The conservative media has certainly been casting doubt on the Mueller investigation and the FBI, in general.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
18-12-2017, 03:39 PM
RE: The Trump Impeachment Thread
There have been reports that trump thinks his xmas present will be a letter from Mueller that he is not involved in collusion. Apparently some in the White House worry that he is deluded..... go figure. Facepalm

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2017, 04:34 PM
RE: The Trump Impeachment Thread
(16-12-2017 05:01 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(15-12-2017 11:20 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I don't think he can, unless invited. Rahm Emmanuel is the mayor. Suspension of Habeus Corpus is what they'd have to use.

The Posse Comitatus law expressly forbids it without Congressional legislation or Consitutional authority, neither of which exist:

Quote:Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Correct, and this is why the US Coast Guard falls under Homeland Security and not DOD. So they retain the ability to detain and arrest smugglers and other criminals in US waters.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: