Why hasn't Mike Flynn been indicted??? (should worry Trumpsters)

[Indeependent]

When you think about it a bit more carefully, what should really, REALLY worry Trumpsters is the silence on the status of Mike Flynn vis-a-vis the Muller investigation.

Flynn pretty much is in the same legal troubles as Manafort, yet he has not been indicted by either of the two empanelled grand juries......WHY???

The only possible conclusion that anyone can draw from NOT indicting Flynn, is the very real possibility that good ol' Flynn is singing like the proverbial canary and fully cooperating with the investigation (after all, Flynn's son is also in hot water and loyalty to Trump can only go so far.)

Who haven't you been committed?

 

[OKTexas]

Yeah, the assessment was based on what he paid, not what he sold for.
.

Assessment is based on "market value". If the market goes down, no matter what you paid for it, it's assessment goes down. When the market goes up, no matter what you paid for it, the assessment goes up.

That's why people make a living challenging assessments.

In this case Trump had it assessed for around $50 million, and sold it for $100 million to a russian. Imagine why a russian oligarch would pay double for a Trump property.

Do you own a home, I've never seen an assessment change downward unless the owner contested it. I know mine haven't.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Really, I guess I missed that, the money laundering was connected to his own funds and supposedly trying to hide them. Where did the indictment mention him laundering money for anyone else?


.

Here we go again

Paragraph 6 states Manafort laundered $75 million, of which $18 million was from Manafort and $3 million from Gates. The rest, by definition, was laundered for the benefit of somebody else.

Who's money was it? BTW Former AG Michael Mukasey said on a Fox show today that there is no such crime as conspiracy against the US, he said an allegation of conspiracy to commit a violation of a specific criminal statute is required and Mueller's wording don't cut it. I think a severely amended complaint is in Muellers future.


.

It's very real.

What is 'conspiracy against the United States'?

I guess Mukasey was wrong, what I don't get is how does trying to cheat impair the lawful functions of a government agency. Would anyone charged with cheating on their taxes would be guilty of that also?


.

Would anyone charged with cheating on their taxes would be guilty of that also?

I can't speak to that. I don't know what scope is required for that to apply. I think Mueller is establishing connections to Russia in order to build a foundation for charges against several Trump folks of conspiracy in a larger context that could include collusion.


The first allegation against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates is "conspiracy against the United States".

But what does it mean?

The detail is spelled out in the US Code of Laws - Title 18, Chapter 19, Section 371.

What does the law say?
Firstly, you cannot be charged with conspiracy alone. The law is used against "two or more people" - in this case, Mr Manafort and Mr Gates.

Secondly, the law is broad. It can be used against a group who "commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose".

In a 1924 case, Hammerschmidt v. United States, Chief Justice William Taft (who was US President from from 1909 to 1913) defined "defraud".

"To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money," he said.

"But it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest."

Note the last paragraph in bold.
Collusion with a foreign power with the intention of interfering in US elections certainly fits.

I disagree, the States run the elections, not the feds. And there is no crime of collusion in this respect in the federal statutes.


.

 

[radical right]

BTW Former AG Michael Mukasey said on a Fox show today that there is no such crime as conspiracy against the US, he said an allegation of conspiracy to commit a violation of a specific criminal statute is required and Mueller's wording don't cut it. I think a severely amended complaint is in Muellers future.
.

What is 'conspiracy against the United States'?

I guess Mukasey was wrong,
.

What do you expect, he was speaking on foxnews.

Your're a day late and a dollar short on this one, the link has already been posted.
.

Just pointing out how you thought something posted on fox was TRUE.

 

[radical right]

I disagree, the States run the elections, not the feds. And there is no crime of collusion in this respect in the federal statutes.
.

How many times does it have to be explained that collusion is just the vernacular for the actual criminal charge. In New York there is no crime of blackmail, or fencing stolen property.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Here we go again

Paragraph 6 states Manafort laundered $75 million, of which $18 million was from Manafort and $3 million from Gates. The rest, by definition, was laundered for the benefit of somebody else.

Who's money was it? BTW Former AG Michael Mukasey said on a Fox show today that there is no such crime as conspiracy against the US, he said an allegation of conspiracy to commit a violation of a specific criminal statute is required and Mueller's wording don't cut it. I think a severely amended complaint is in Muellers future.


.

It's very real.

What is 'conspiracy against the United States'?

I guess Mukasey was wrong, what I don't get is how does trying to cheat impair the lawful functions of a government agency. Would anyone charged with cheating on their taxes would be guilty of that also?


.

Would anyone charged with cheating on their taxes would be guilty of that also?

I can't speak to that. I don't know what scope is required for that to apply. I think Mueller is establishing connections to Russia in order to build a foundation for charges against several Trump folks of conspiracy in a larger context that could include collusion.


The first allegation against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates is "conspiracy against the United States".

But what does it mean?

The detail is spelled out in the US Code of Laws - Title 18, Chapter 19, Section 371.

What does the law say?
Firstly, you cannot be charged with conspiracy alone. The law is used against "two or more people" - in this case, Mr Manafort and Mr Gates.

Secondly, the law is broad. It can be used against a group who "commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose".

In a 1924 case, Hammerschmidt v. United States, Chief Justice William Taft (who was US President from from 1909 to 1913) defined "defraud".

"To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money," he said.

"But it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest."

Note the last paragraph in bold.
Collusion with a foreign power with the intention of interfering in US elections certainly fits.

I disagree, the States run the elections, not the feds. And there is no crime of collusion in this respect in the federal statutes.


.

The crime wouldn't be collusion. The act of collusion can be conspiracy against the US if It's was done with the intention of influencing the election.

 

[OKTexas]

BTW Former AG Michael Mukasey said on a Fox show today that there is no such crime as conspiracy against the US, he said an allegation of conspiracy to commit a violation of a specific criminal statute is required and Mueller's wording don't cut it. I think a severely amended complaint is in Muellers future.
.

What is 'conspiracy against the United States'?

I guess Mukasey was wrong,
.

What do you expect, he was speaking on foxnews.

Your're a day late and a dollar short on this one, the link has already been posted.
.

Just pointing out how you thought something posted on fox was TRUE.

It wasn't posted I saw him say it live. I guess you think he's wrong when he says something favorable to you commiecrats.


.

 

[OKTexas]

I disagree, the States run the elections, not the feds. And there is no crime of collusion in this respect in the federal statutes.
.

How many times does it have to be explained that collusion is just the vernacular for the actual criminal charge. In New York there is no crime of blackmail, or fencing stolen property.

So you're saying accuracy doesn't concern you?


.

 

[OKTexas]

Who's money was it? BTW Former AG Michael Mukasey said on a Fox show today that there is no such crime as conspiracy against the US, he said an allegation of conspiracy to commit a violation of a specific criminal statute is required and Mueller's wording don't cut it. I think a severely amended complaint is in Muellers future.


.

It's very real.

What is 'conspiracy against the United States'?

I guess Mukasey was wrong, what I don't get is how does trying to cheat impair the lawful functions of a government agency. Would anyone charged with cheating on their taxes would be guilty of that also?


.

Would anyone charged with cheating on their taxes would be guilty of that also?

I can't speak to that. I don't know what scope is required for that to apply. I think Mueller is establishing connections to Russia in order to build a foundation for charges against several Trump folks of conspiracy in a larger context that could include collusion.


The first allegation against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates is "conspiracy against the United States".

But what does it mean?

The detail is spelled out in the US Code of Laws - Title 18, Chapter 19, Section 371.

What does the law say?
Firstly, you cannot be charged with conspiracy alone. The law is used against "two or more people" - in this case, Mr Manafort and Mr Gates.

Secondly, the law is broad. It can be used against a group who "commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose".

In a 1924 case, Hammerschmidt v. United States, Chief Justice William Taft (who was US President from from 1909 to 1913) defined "defraud".

"To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money," he said.

"But it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest."

Note the last paragraph in bold.
Collusion with a foreign power with the intention of interfering in US elections certainly fits.

I disagree, the States run the elections, not the feds. And there is no crime of collusion in this respect in the federal statutes.


.

The crime wouldn't be collusion. The act of collusion can be conspiracy against the US if It's was done with the intention of influencing the election.

You might have a point if there were federal elections, there's not. So no federal agencies could be affected, impaired or anything else.


.

 

[radical right]

Just pointing out how you thought something posted on fox was TRUE.

It wasn't posted I saw him say it live. I guess you think he's wrong when he says something favorable to you commiecrats.
.

Just pointing out how you thought something seen on fox was TRUE.

 

[radical right]

How many times does it have to be explained that collusion is just the vernacular for the actual criminal charge. In New York there is no crime of blackmail, or fencing stolen property.

So you're saying accuracy doesn't concern you?
.

If I demanded absolute accuracy from every post,we would spend all our time correcting and none of it actually debating anything. So it's clear you're only stalling for time.

 

[radical right]

The crime wouldn't be collusion. The act of collusion can be conspiracy against the US if It's was done with the intention of influencing the election.

You might have a point if there were federal elections, there's not. So no federal agencies could be affected, impaired or anything else.


.

Maybe you missed the case of Bush V Gore 2000. The USSC ruled elections are held under:

3 U.S. Code § 5 - Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors

 

[AntonToo]

When you think about it a bit more carefully, what should really, REALLY worry Trumpsters is the silence on the status of Mike Flynn vis-a-vis the Muller investigation.

Flynn pretty much is in the same legal troubles as Manafort, yet he has not been indicted by either of the two empanelled grand juries......WHY???

The only possible conclusion that anyone can draw from NOT indicting Flynn, is the very real possibility that good ol' Flynn is singing like the proverbial canary and fully cooperating with the investigation (after all, Flynn's son is also in hot water and loyalty to Trump can only go so far.)

Umm simple - Flynn wasn’t running out a statutory limit on money laundering charges from almost a decade ago.

 

[OKTexas]

The crime wouldn't be collusion. The act of collusion can be conspiracy against the US if It's was done with the intention of influencing the election.

You might have a point if there were federal elections, there's not. So no federal agencies could be affected, impaired or anything else.


.

Maybe you missed the case of Bush V Gore 2000. The USSC ruled elections are held under:

3 U.S. Code § 5 - Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors

Wow, I don't think any of the States changed their method of allocating electors less than 6 days before the meeting of electors. So this is moot. LMAO


.

 

[jknowgood]

Trumps weakness is not paying his contractors. And like on the apprentice, Trump accepted anybody willing to work for free.

Although, whereas contractors got he royal shaft from crooked Trump, his entourage rode his orange coat-tails for their own power-plays......How many Wall Street crooks has Trump taken on around and related to his cabinet???

Still Trump won the election, leaving Hillary and yourself to lose your mind. Go Trump!

 

[ClosedCaption]

When you think about it a bit more carefully, what should really, REALLY worry Trumpsters is the silence on the status of Mike Flynn vis-a-vis the Muller investigation.

Flynn pretty much is in the same legal troubles as Manafort, yet he has not been indicted by either of the two empanelled grand juries......WHY???

The only possible conclusion that anyone can draw from NOT indicting Flynn, is the very real possibility that good ol' Flynn is singing like the proverbial canary and fully cooperating with the investigation (after all, Flynn's son is also in hot water and loyalty to Trump can only go so far.)

No, there is another possibility, there could be no there there.


.

It' also possible that Flynn has transported to another dimension. But like your suggestion it's not probable

 

[OKTexas]

When you think about it a bit more carefully, what should really, REALLY worry Trumpsters is the silence on the status of Mike Flynn vis-a-vis the Muller investigation.

Flynn pretty much is in the same legal troubles as Manafort, yet he has not been indicted by either of the two empanelled grand juries......WHY???

The only possible conclusion that anyone can draw from NOT indicting Flynn, is the very real possibility that good ol' Flynn is singing like the proverbial canary and fully cooperating with the investigation (after all, Flynn's son is also in hot water and loyalty to Trump can only go so far.)

No, there is another possibility, there could be no there there.


.

It' also possible that Flynn has transported to another dimension. But like your suggestion it's not probable

Really, do tell.


.

 

[ClosedCaption]

When you think about it a bit more carefully, what should really, REALLY worry Trumpsters is the silence on the status of Mike Flynn vis-a-vis the Muller investigation.

Flynn pretty much is in the same legal troubles as Manafort, yet he has not been indicted by either of the two empanelled grand juries......WHY???

The only possible conclusion that anyone can draw from NOT indicting Flynn, is the very real possibility that good ol' Flynn is singing like the proverbial canary and fully cooperating with the investigation (after all, Flynn's son is also in hot water and loyalty to Trump can only go so far.)

No, there is another possibility, there could be no there there.


.

It' also possible that Flynn has transported to another dimension. But like your suggestion it's not probable

Really, do tell.


.

I just did

 

[OKTexas]

When you think about it a bit more carefully, what should really, REALLY worry Trumpsters is the silence on the status of Mike Flynn vis-a-vis the Muller investigation.

Flynn pretty much is in the same legal troubles as Manafort, yet he has not been indicted by either of the two empanelled grand juries......WHY???

The only possible conclusion that anyone can draw from NOT indicting Flynn, is the very real possibility that good ol' Flynn is singing like the proverbial canary and fully cooperating with the investigation (after all, Flynn's son is also in hot water and loyalty to Trump can only go so far.)

No, there is another possibility, there could be no there there.


.

It' also possible that Flynn has transported to another dimension. But like your suggestion it's not probable

Really, do tell.


.

I just did

.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When you think about it a bit more carefully, what should really, REALLY worry Trumpsters is the silence on the status of Mike Flynn vis-a-vis the Muller investigation.

Flynn pretty much is in the same legal troubles as Manafort, yet he has not been indicted by either of the two empanelled grand juries......WHY???

The only possible conclusion that anyone can draw from NOT indicting Flynn, is the very real possibility that good ol' Flynn is singing like the proverbial canary and fully cooperating with the investigation (after all, Flynn's son is also in hot water and loyalty to Trump can only go so far.)

Flynn's saying, "Trump has no path to the White House"