Why Flynn’s plea is a dead end for ‘Russiagate’ conspiracy

[jg121783 3,921]

7 hours ago, yuna628 said:

But many would say there is pretty strong evidence something very bad was going on in the Trump campaign. Your perspective differs from theirs on it, so who is right? I would be quite comfortable in allowing the SP to continue investigating Trump and then investigating Hillary's dealings when finished... but I'm not in charge.. so.

 

My question to a Hillary supporter is the same as to a Trump supporter:

What if we do find out they did something very bad? What would it take for you to believe?

Yes many say there is evidence but when asked for the evidence no one is able to provide any.

[yuna628 9,873]

16 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Where is the evidence?  Didn’t the Obama or Bush transition teams make contact with foreign ambassadors during the transition period.  Why is that ok for them, but not for the Trump team?  Is there a different standard?  As to something bad during the campaign, I would think all of that would have come out with Manafort, but so far he is only being charged with issues that had nothing to do with the campaign.  I realize many in the MDL want this to be the end to Trump, but I still don’t see what was untoward in their transition.  What really concerns me is the precedent this entire special procecutor business is setting, it seems that now we will need to have the DOJ appoint a special prosecutor each time a presidential election occurs.

The evidence has been discussed at length on here before. Some detailed, and some less so, because the convo usually devolves into shouting matches. You understand that much of what is going on with Manafort, like Flynn is small steps at first, in order to get to bigger fishes right? There's a process that has to be followed, and that takes time. In fact, there's some who believe it is likely Flynn could be charged with even more serious offenses later on.. because the current plea deal does not guarantee everything will go away for him... only some of it. We, the public are being kept from reviewing some of the info, so as not to compromise the investigation... some of the charging documents have been worded very carefully, so as not to tip off, what I suspect are others involved. Perhaps nothing will come of it, you say. But perhaps it will. We deserve to know. We have had special prosecutors assigned when there is a need to before. No doubt I believe, had Hillary won, republicans would have clamored for it just as much. And I feel that's how it should be. We deserve to hold officials accountable, and too many of them right now, aren't.

13 hours ago, jayjayj said:

This again.  What criminal scheme do you believe the Trump campaign or Trump himself was involved in?  I'm open to listen.  Many people on here can go into great detail about what crimes they suspect the Clinton's committed, and provide evidence.  I've asked several times in other threads and we are still waiting for someone to detail what exactly they think Trump did.  If you think he is going to be impeached, then he must have committed a crime, what is the crime?

Are you open to listen though? And if you are, are you open to acknowledging there is a possibility of something wrong? Yes, there are many here who will go on about Clinton's alleged crimes, and I acknowledge and am comfortable with the fact that if she needed to be investigated I wouldn't have an issue with that. There are many who will 'provide evidence' about her activities. I say 'provide evidence' in this manner because, there are others that believe that evidence is weak at best, despite how convinced some are of culpability. It's the same with Trump. It begins to make people very worn out explaining, because it leads to nothing but arguments. When do we rarely have a rational and reasonable conversation about politics here, while acknowledging the hypocrisy on both sides? I would happily write a detailed muli marathon post regarding what I believe went on. I would be told that 1) my thoughts are too long 2) some will dismiss without reading it at all 3) the links I provide would be from reasoned constitutional and legal scholars that would be dismissed as fake or biased no matter if they were from the right, left, or middle (there are voices on all sides that agree something is very wrong but we're too partisan these days to talk about it), 4) evidence provided wouldn't be believed in the first place because of partisanship. People don't want to be wrong.. they are uncomfortable with the fact a person they support may not have their best interests at heart (this goes both ways btw). Do I think he will be impeached? I am not certain yet... but I do know there is something that we haven't fully grasped yet until the process is complete. I believe, that for all the republican 'support' behind him... is fake at best - none of these men want him in there, they just have to pretend they do. And there may come a time where they feel he is expendable.

 

9 hours ago, jg121783 said:

Yes many say there is evidence but when asked for the evidence no one is able to provide any.

What happens when a person doesn't believe the evidence presented no matter how hard you try? Examining facts often makes people uncomfortable about things they don't want to think/talk about.

Edited December 3, 2017 by yuna628

[jg121783 3,921]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

The evidence has been discussed at length on here before. Some detailed, and some less so, because the convo usually devolves into shouting matches. You understand that much of what is going on with Manafort, like Flynn is small steps at first, in order to get to bigger fishes right? There's a process that has to be followed, and that takes time. In fact, there's some who believe it is likely Flynn could be charged with even more serious offenses later on.. because the current plea deal does not guarantee everything will go away for him... only some of it. We, the public are being kept from reviewing some of the info, so as not to compromise the investigation... some of the charging documents have been worded very carefully, so as not to tip off, what I suspect are others involved. Perhaps nothing will come of it, you say. But perhaps it will. We deserve to know. We have had special prosecutors assigned when there is a need to before. No doubt I believe, had Hillary won, republicans would have clamored for it just as much. And I feel that's how it should be. We deserve to hold officials accountable, and too many of them right now, aren't.

Are you open to listen though? And if you are, are you open to acknowledging there is a possibility of something wrong? Yes, there are many here who will go on about Clinton's alleged crimes, and I acknowledge and am comfortable with the fact that if she needed to be investigated I wouldn't have an issue with that. There are many who will 'provide evidence' about her activities. I say 'provide evidence' in this manner because, there are others that believe that evidence is weak at best, despite how convinced some are of culpability. It's the same with Trump. It begins to make people very worn out explaining, because it leads to nothing but arguments. When do we rarely have a rational and reasonable conversation about politics here, while acknowledging the hypocrisy on both sides? I would happily write a detailed muli marathon post regarding what I believe went on. I would be told that 1) my thoughts are too long 2) some will dismiss without reading it at all 3) the links I provide would be from reasoned constitutional and legal scholars that would be dismissed as fake or biased no matter if they were from the right, left, or middle (there are voices on all sides that agree something is very wrong but we're too partisan these days to talk about it), 4) evidence provided wouldn't be believed in the first place because of partisanship. People don't want to be wrong.. they are uncomfortable with the fact a person they support may not have their best interests at heart (this goes both ways btw). Do I think he will be impeached? I am not certain yet... but I do know there is something that we haven't fully grasped yet until the process is complete. I believe, that for all the republican 'support' behind him... is fake at best - none of these men want him in there, they just have to pretend they do. And there may come a time where they feel he is expendable.

 

What happens when a person doesn't believe the evidence presented no matter how hard you try? Examining facts often makes people uncomfortable about things they don't want to think/talk about.

What evidence has been presented?

[Dashinka 25,887]

40 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

What evidence has been presented?

I agree, there is a lot of supposition and of course the biased media will try to frame this as actual evidence much like the wonderful dossier Hillary’s foreign agent pulled together under the guise of legal expenses.  Considering that the FBI may have actually used this to jumpstart the Russian narrative investigation makes me wonder how anyone could trust them (the FBI).  Along with the fact that senior members of the FBI appear to be injecting their political biases into their investigations makes all of this suspect.  We saw for the past eight years how the major departments of the administration have been politicized, and this just makes the leaders of these departments more and more untrustworthy.

[Dashinka 25,887]

2 hours ago, yuna628 said:

The evidence has been discussed at length on here before. Some detailed, and some less so, because the convo usually devolves into shouting matches. You understand that much of what is going on with Manafort, like Flynn is small steps at first, in order to get to bigger fishes right? There's a process that has to be followed, and that takes time. In fact, there's some who believe it is likely Flynn could be charged with even more serious offenses later on.. because the current plea deal does not guarantee everything will go away for him... only some of it. We, the public are being kept from reviewing some of the info, so as not to compromise the investigation... some of the charging documents have been worded very carefully, so as not to tip off, what I suspect are others involved. Perhaps nothing will come of it, you say. But perhaps it will. We deserve to know. We have had special prosecutors assigned when there is a need to before. No doubt I believe, had Hillary won, republicans would have clamored for it just as much. And I feel that's how it should be. We deserve to hold officials accountable, and too many of them right now, aren't.

Are you open to listen though? And if you are, are you open to acknowledging there is a possibility of something wrong? Yes, there are many here who will go on about Clinton's alleged crimes, and I acknowledge and am comfortable with the fact that if she needed to be investigated I wouldn't have an issue with that. There are many who will 'provide evidence' about her activities. I say 'provide evidence' in this manner because, there are others that believe that evidence is weak at best, despite how convinced some are of culpability. It's the same with Trump. It begins to make people very worn out explaining, because it leads to nothing but arguments. When do we rarely have a rational and reasonable conversation about politics here, while acknowledging the hypocrisy on both sides? I would happily write a detailed muli marathon post regarding what I believe went on. I would be told that 1) my thoughts are too long 2) some will dismiss without reading it at all 3) the links I provide would be from reasoned constitutional and legal scholars that would be dismissed as fake or biased no matter if they were from the right, left, or middle (there are voices on all sides that agree something is very wrong but we're too partisan these days to talk about it), 4) evidence provided wouldn't be believed in the first place because of partisanship. People don't want to be wrong.. they are uncomfortable with the fact a person they support may not have their best interests at heart (this goes both ways btw). Do I think he will be impeached? I am not certain yet... but I do know there is something that we haven't fully grasped yet until the process is complete. I believe, that for all the republican 'support' behind him... is fake at best - none of these men want him in there, they just have to pretend they do. And there may come a time where they feel he is expendable.

 

What happens when a person doesn't believe the evidence presented no matter how hard you try? Examining facts often makes people uncomfortable about things they don't want to think/talk about.

Just wondering what your take is on Andrew McCarthy’s analysis?

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454269/michael-flynn-plea-no-breakthrough-russia-investigation

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

On 12/2/2017 at 2:03 AM, jg121783 said:

https://www.rt.com/usa/411687-flynn-plea-mueller-analysis/

Looks to deny Kremlin conspiracy, uses registered Russian agent Russia Times as the source 

 

 

[TBoneTX 47,535]

Draconian administrative action has been taken against a participant in this thread, and those posts hidden.

[jayjayj 571]

11 hours ago, yuna628 said:

The evidence has been discussed at length on here before. Some detailed, and some less so, because the convo usually devolves into shouting matches. You understand that much of what is going on with Manafort, like Flynn is small steps at first, in order to get to bigger fishes right? There's a process that has to be followed, and that takes time. In fact, there's some who believe it is likely Flynn could be charged with even more serious offenses later on.. because the current plea deal does not guarantee everything will go away for him... only some of it. We, the public are being kept from reviewing some of the info, so as not to compromise the investigation... some of the charging documents have been worded very carefully, so as not to tip off, what I suspect are others involved. Perhaps nothing will come of it, you say. But perhaps it will. We deserve to know. We have had special prosecutors assigned when there is a need to before. No doubt I believe, had Hillary won, republicans would have clamored for it just as much. And I feel that's how it should be. We deserve to hold officials accountable, and too many of them right now, aren't.

Are you open to listen though? And if you are, are you open to acknowledging there is a possibility of something wrong? Yes, there are many here who will go on about Clinton's alleged crimes, and I acknowledge and am comfortable with the fact that if she needed to be investigated I wouldn't have an issue with that. There are many who will 'provide evidence' about her activities. I say 'provide evidence' in this manner because, there are others that believe that evidence is weak at best, despite how convinced some are of culpability. It's the same with Trump. It begins to make people very worn out explaining, because it leads to nothing but arguments. When do we rarely have a rational and reasonable conversation about politics here, while acknowledging the hypocrisy on both sides? I would happily write a detailed muli marathon post regarding what I believe went on. I would be told that 1) my thoughts are too long 2) some will dismiss without reading it at all 3) the links I provide would be from reasoned constitutional and legal scholars that would be dismissed as fake or biased no matter if they were from the right, left, or middle (there are voices on all sides that agree something is very wrong but we're too partisan these days to talk about it), 4) evidence provided wouldn't be believed in the first place because of partisanship. People don't want to be wrong.. they are uncomfortable with the fact a person they support may not have their best interests at heart (this goes both ways btw). Do I think he will be impeached? I am not certain yet... but I do know there is something that we haven't fully grasped yet until the process is complete. I believe, that for all the republican 'support' behind him... is fake at best - none of these men want him in there, they just have to pretend they do. And there may come a time where they feel he is expendable.

 

What happens when a person doesn't believe the evidence presented no matter how hard you try? Examining facts often makes people uncomfortable about things they don't want to think/talk about.

I'm open to listen, but still nothing, only statements like the ones above.  Tell me what criminal scheme you think Trump was or is involved in.  Did you coordinate with the Russians to hack voting machines?  

 

Hilary and her aides mishandled classified information - Top Secret and above Top Secret.  That is a fact, backed up by real evidence.  It isn't debatable.  That is a serious crime.  Any regular Joe who did that would be in prison right now.    

 

 

Edited December 4, 2017 by jayjayj

[jayjayj 571]

4 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

Looks to deny Kremlin conspiracy, uses registered Russian agent Russia Times as the source 

 

 

Attempting to belittle the OP isn't a substantial contribution to the thread.  OP admitted already that the source article might be difficult for some to read objectively.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

2 hours ago, jayjayj said:

Attempting to belittle the OP isn't a substantial contribution to the thread.  OP admitted already that the source article might be difficult for some to read objectively.

No attempt to belittle, just observing the irony.  Have you looked at the other "analysis" of the Serbian Nationalist and Bosnia genocide denier "Gray Falcon"? He is a well known anti NATO Putin apologist.

[Dashinka 25,887]

52 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

No attempt to belittle, just observing the irony.  Have you looked at the other "analysis" of the Serbian Nationalist and Bosnia genocide denier "Gray Falcon"? He is a well known anti NATO Putin apologist.

So are you suggesting RT made up the quotes from Andrew McCarthy in the article?  Sure RT is slanted which is well known and in my opinion, this should lead to reading the material  more carefully.  I just wish we would put the same scrutiny to the other mainstream media sources.  I hear ABC's Brian Ross was suspended for false reporting of this issue, shouldn't we scrutinize any news coming from ABC more closely now?

[yuna628 9,873]

16 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Just wondering what your take is on Andrew McCarthy’s analysis?

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454269/michael-flynn-plea-no-breakthrough-russia-investigation

I am inclined to completely disagree with him and I would counter it with the following:

McCarthy still states he doesn't know why Flynn was being investigated to begin with. This is a clear missing piece of the puzzle, but we do know there are a whole host of reasons why this may have happened - quite simply the guy was up to his neck in not doing very good things.

2) If such discussions were normal, why would Flynn lie about it, especially if it was so standard procedure and also procedure to have such convos recorded under FISA?

3) McCarthy goes very wrong to assert that since the FBI had such recordings they wouldn't have needed to ask Flynn about the subject. That's quite an odd thing to say to me. When you investigate a murder case for instance, you will take statements from all witnesses and see where things don't fit.. you corroborate alibies, even if you may have information as to where a subject was at the time at such a murder. If the police know that a suspect was at X location or have evidence pointing to where they were and what they were doing at the time, and during their interview the suspect states that he was elsewhere, this would be a very normal and wise thing to ask. That statement from McCarthy is the one that troubles me the most actually.

4)We and McCarthy do not know verbatim what Flynn said to the ambassador, nor do we know what he said in the course of lying to the FBI - beyond what the charging documents briefly describe.

5)Flynn was given a plea deal, and if you have reviewed all the things he had been up to that the FBI could have potentially charged him with - he was put under a great deal of pressure to comply in exchange for a lesser charge. This was done because Flynn has the ability to cough up information extremely valuable on a variety of subjects. Stop focusing on what he was charged with, and focus on what he wasn't charged with and what under the plea agreement says he can now do. The plea deal offers him no protection from more charges down the pipeline either, a unique feature I'd say.. and perhaps proof that the threat of pressure needs to be on him at all times.

6) McCarthy only seems to feel that surely if Flynn had done something truly terrible that Mueller would have charged him with all these truly terrible things, instead of allowing a plea. Maybe this is how McCarthy feels this is what he would have done if he was in Mueller's shoes... but of this I also strongly disagree. Mueller received something very importantly critical in return for rewarding him in this manner... because by all accounts sources have said Flynn had been up to a certain point always very hostile and resistant.

 

There are links I could provide that also analyze the Flynn charges (what it does and does not say) if you'd like. I find what McCarthy has said to be misleading and strange... that's my take on it. 

[Dashinka 25,887]

1 minute ago, yuna628 said:

I am inclined to completely disagree with him and I would counter it with the following:

McCarthy still states he doesn't know why Flynn was being investigated to begin with. This is a clear missing piece of the puzzle, but we do know there are a whole host of reasons why this may have happened - quite simply the guy was up to his neck in not doing very good things.

2) If such discussions were normal, why would Flynn lie about it, especially if it was so standard procedure and also procedure to have such convos recorded under FISA?

3) McCarthy goes very wrong to assert that since the FBI had such recordings they wouldn't have needed to ask Flynn about the subject. That's quite an odd thing to say to me. When you investigate a murder case for instance, you will take statements from all witnesses and see where things don't fit.. you corroborate alibies, even if you may have information as to where a subject was at the time at such a murder. If the police know that a suspect was at X location or have evidence pointing to where they were and what they were doing at the time, and during their interview the suspect states that he was elsewhere, this would be a very normal and wise thing to ask. That statement from McCarthy is the one that troubles me the most actually.

4)We and McCarthy do not know verbatim what Flynn said to the ambassador, nor do we know what he said in the course of lying to the FBI - beyond what the charging documents briefly describe.

5)Flynn was given a plea deal, and if you have reviewed all the things he had been up to that the FBI could have potentially charged him with - he was put under a great deal of pressure to comply in exchange for a lesser charge. This was done because Flynn has the ability to cough up information extremely valuable on a variety of subjects. Stop focusing on what he was charged with, and focus on what he wasn't charged with and what under the plea agreement says he can now do. The plea deal offers him no protection from more charges down the pipeline either, a unique feature I'd say.. and perhaps proof that the threat of pressure needs to be on him at all times.

6) McCarthy only seems to feel that surely if Flynn had done something truly terrible that Mueller would have charged him with all these truly terrible things, instead of allowing a plea. Maybe this is how McCarthy feels this is what he would have done if he was in Mueller's shoes... but of this I also strongly disagree. Mueller received something very importantly critical in return for rewarding him in this manner... because by all accounts sources have said Flynn had been up to a certain point always very hostile and resistant.

 

There are links I could provide that also analyze the Flynn charges (what it does and does not say) if you'd like. I find what McCarthy has said to be misleading and strange... that's my take on it. 

I assumed you would disagree with him, but can you say for certain that he is wrong?

 

Per your item 5 it seems like you are saying the FBI and Mueller (who's impartiality is questionable) are blackmailing Flynn.  I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me if there is an underlying crime they are trying to pin on a bigger fish and Flynn was part of it, but he decided to flip, then they need to include this as part of the plea agreement.  Instead, they charge Flynn with a process crime for lying to the FBI.  I am not really sure why Flynn even talked to the FBI instead of invoking the 5th, but he did, he lied and now he is being prosecuted for it which doesn't really make him a very credible witness against anyone else. 

 

Per your numbers 1 and 6, are you saying, or do you know if there are more serious crimes Flynn is being let off on?  Sure there are a lot of speculations and now it is the MDR that has to play defense in a similar manner as all the Hillary supporters did in 2016. The plea deal to my knowledge did not include any agreement to not prosecute Flynn in the future on more serious crimes so what if Mueller reneges on whatever backroom agreement they might have? 

 

Regardless, I am sure there is something there and Trump will be gone in a week or so since Mueller wants so much to avenge his protégé Comey, and of course we need to keep the narrative alive.  You mentioned earlier that going forward, we will need a special prosecutor appointed at each presidential election phase, and to me that is very sad, but in reality we will need at least two for each major party nominee and at least one each to investigate the special prosecutors themselves especially if they come from Washington because as we see with Strzok, even the "best" law enforcement officers and I assume lawyers are not about political dealings.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

I assumed you would disagree with him, but can you say for certain that he is wrong?

 

Per your item 5 it seems like you are saying the FBI and Mueller (who's impartiality is questionable) are blackmailing Flynn.  I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me if there is an underlying crime they are trying to pin on a bigger fish and Flynn was part of it, but he decided to flip, then they need to include this as part of the plea agreement.  Instead, they charge Flynn with a process crime for lying to the FBI.  I am not really sure why Flynn even talked to the FBI instead of invoking the 5th, but he did, he lied and now he is being prosecuted for it which doesn't really make him a very credible witness against anyone else. 

 

Per your numbers 1 and 6, are you saying, or do you know if there are more serious crimes Flynn is being let off on?  Sure there are a lot of speculations and now it is the MDR that has to play defense in a similar manner as all the Hillary supporters did in 2016. The plea deal to my knowledge did not include any agreement to not prosecute Flynn in the future on more serious crimes so what if Mueller reneges on whatever backroom agreement they might have? 

 

Regardless, I am sure there is something there and Trump will be gone in a week or so since Mueller wants so much to avenge his protégé Comey, and of course we need to keep the narrative alive.  You mentioned earlier that going forward, we will need a special prosecutor appointed at each presidential election phase, and to me that is very sad, but in reality we will need at least two for each major party nominee and at least one each to investigate the special prosecutors themselves especially if they come from Washington because as we see with Strzok, even the "best" law enforcement officers and I assume lawyers are not about political dealings.

Since when is prosecuting a crime blackmail?  Do you think that Mueller is the one who invented plea bargaining?  If there were no chance of prosecution then Flynn's lawyers would have said no deal. 

[yuna628 9,873]

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

I assumed you would disagree with him, but can you say for certain that he is wrong?

 

Per your item 5 it seems like you are saying the FBI and Mueller (who's impartiality is questionable) are blackmailing Flynn.  I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me if there is an underlying crime they are trying to pin on a bigger fish and Flynn was part of it, but he decided to flip, then they need to include this as part of the plea agreement.  Instead, they charge Flynn with a process crime for lying to the FBI.  I am not really sure why Flynn even talked to the FBI instead of invoking the 5th, but he did, he lied and now he is being prosecuted for it which doesn't really make him a very credible witness against anyone else. 

 

Per your numbers 1 and 6, are you saying, or do you know if there are more serious crimes Flynn is being let off on?  Sure there are a lot of speculations and now it is the MDR that has to play defense in a similar manner as all the Hillary supporters did in 2016. The plea deal to my knowledge did not include any agreement to not prosecute Flynn in the future on more serious crimes so what if Mueller reneges on whatever backroom agreement they might have? 

 

Regardless, I am sure there is something there and Trump will be gone in a week or so since Mueller wants so much to avenge his protégé Comey, and of course we need to keep the narrative alive.  You mentioned earlier that going forward, we will need a special prosecutor appointed at each presidential election phase, and to me that is very sad, but in reality we will need at least two for each major party nominee and at least one each to investigate the special prosecutors themselves especially if they come from Washington because as we see with Strzok, even the "best" law enforcement officers and I assume lawyers are not about political dealings.

Is there any investigator that you feel has no impartiality questionable? Seriously. Mueller is a lifelong public civil servant, who has served his country honorably, and has had great success at leading the FBI - he was the person both D's and R's agreed upon was the best fit for the job. Certainly not saying anything about blackmail. It's called plea bargaining, and I suspect that Maven would be great at explaining how that sort of stuff works, for clarity. Why would they include details regarding investigating a bigger fish? If some sort of obstruction is one of the angles they may or may not be examining, why would you want to tip people off? No one knows why Flynn talked, but... when it comes down to it there are hundreds of persons that do the same stupid thing. I'm not concerned with why he talked, I'm concerned why he lied. I'm concerned with all the things he was not charged with but could have been charged with. This is a man that doesn't serve a country or any president well at all. You would say the fact he lied makes him not a credible witness, but if I understand how such prosecutions work correctly, once you flip and swear to tell the truth or cooperate in the various methods they (may have already gotten him to wear a wire for instance) want, you agree that if you lie again - things get very very bad for you. They have him over a barrel, and I don't think there would be any lawyer out there that would advise a client to continue to be dishonest after taking such a deal. These things happen all the time, and they prove to be very valuable and successful witnesses for crimes.

 

Yes, I am saying there are more serious crimes that Flynn is being let off on. It's from sources I trust. Mueller could renege on the plea deal, but as far as I'm aware that's not how it works. He could renege if Flynn stops cooperating, but also offers no guarantee that Flynn will escape entirely from additional charges being brought. That's intentional and how it should work for something as serious. You might ask, why accept such a plea deal then, if it still leaves the door open for Mueller to bring heavier charges in later? I believe that this was the best outcome a lawyer could get for his client - he had no other options left. It's to Flynn's advantage to comply and hope that such compliance brings mercy.

 

 I did not say that we will need a SP at every single election - but we also should not fear one IF there is a President, or individuals surrounding the President that are doing very bad things. We have a democracy, a process, and a country to safeguard. We investigated Clinton and Nixon, no doubt the R's would have desired Mrs Clinton to have her time in the barrel too (something I'm not opposed to either). But SP's have also been assigned to investigate lots of things during various administrations... it's not so uncommon, you know? Sometimes they find big things, and sometimes they don't. We will find out.