Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)
Fri Nov 24, 2017, 11:42 AM Nov 2017

Read at your own risk. You will agree with Trump and Flynn on this issue:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/03/31/michael-flynn-in-2016-immunity-means-you-probably-committed-a-crime/?utm_term=.6f1ab2b55c4c

But Flynn saw immunity differently in September 2016, when reports surfaced that aides around Hillary Clinton had been granted immunity by the government in exchange for talking freely to the FBI about Clinton’s private email server.

“When you are given immunity, that means you probably committed a crime,” Flynn, then a top campaign aide to Donald Trump, said on “Meet the Press.”

That same month, then-Trump communications adviser Jason Miller said pretty much the same thing.

“Revelations” that Clinton aides “were granted immunity from prosecution in Hillary Clinton’s email scandal shows this was without a doubt a criminal scheme,” he said.

Not to be outdone, Trump himself told a rally in Wisconsin around the same time that “The reason they get immunity is because they did something wrong. If they didn’t do anything wrong, they don’t think in terms of immunity.”

“If you are not guilty of a crime,” he said, “what do you need immunity for? Right.”




----------

I wonder if the Republicans still think that asking for immunity is an admission of guilt...
3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Read at your own risk. You will agree with Trump and Flynn on this issue: (Original Post) DetlefK Nov 2017 OP
Flynn used to feel differently about immunity Gothmog Nov 2017 #1
I don't think it is. Igel Nov 2017 #2
There's an old saw rock Nov 2017 #3

Igel

(35,309 posts)
2. I don't think it is.
Fri Nov 24, 2017, 12:40 PM
Nov 2017

The premise is, "The only reason to accept immunity is if you're guilty of a crime."

Conyer's: "I'm innocent, and we settled under terms that gave me immunity because ..." lots of reasons.

Publicity. Expense. Time. The fact that for many, just being investigated is the same as a guilty verdict, for others just being indicted is the same as a guilty verdict, for yet others just being put on trial is the same as a guilty verdict. Hireability--nobody's going to hire you while there's a possible trial hanging over your head.

And when it's the government taking you to court, remember--they have a bunch of staff lawyers. They're on staff. They sit and read the latest law journals, they get paid. They throw paperwork at you so your lawyer racks up 20 billable hours a week for the next 30 weeks and you've paid nearly half a million dollars just in legal fees. While they're bankrupting your family and ruining your future, you're also experiencing stress.

Remember that: "If you're innocent, you have nothing to fear." Except public humiliation, a loss in status, stress, a lot of time, possible unemployment, and almost certain bankruptcy.

But remember, none of that matters.

Even Flynn's statement was more nuanced: "you probably committed a crime." Miller's statement's sans nuance; then again, "revelations" is hardly a neutral term, and in political speak you go for a complete lack of nuance because that's where the overwhelming number of Americans are, esp. when it come to people they don't like.

rock

(13,218 posts)
3. There's an old saw
Fri Nov 24, 2017, 01:07 PM
Nov 2017

"The only thing you cannot be forgiven for is - being right." Apropos, don't you think?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Read at your own risk. Yo...