Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?


Jumbo

Recommended Posts

Why would they accept a deal from him if they can just force him to testify under oath via subpoena if necessary? I guess it would make it easier if, instead of going through questioning for hours on end, he just said "I will completely spill the beans right here and now".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mistertim said:

Why would they accept a deal from him if they can just force him to testify under oath via subpoena if necessary? I guess it would make it easier if, instead of going through questioning for hours on end, he just said "I will completely spill the beans right here and now".

 

It is generally done because the witness can refuse to testify....or they can just lie(like Clapper)

Or the standard "I cannot recall"

http://www.mediaite.com/election-2016/heres-all-40-times-hillary-clinton-told-the-fbi-she-couldnt-remember-something/

 

Just a attempt to get information

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mistertim said:

Why would they accept a deal from him if they can just force him to testify under oath via subpoena if necessary? I guess it would make it easier if, instead of going through questioning for hours on end, he just said "I will completely spill the beans right here and now".

 

tenor.gif

 

I wouldnt think a person in a political/military position like Flynn could plead the fifth but I guess that is the concern here? I guess he was a private citizen at the time of potential criminal conduct and coerced testimony could be incriminating ... 

 

Not really sure how this really works, lots of layers. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont understand why they would turn it down if he had worthwhile information that could get this ball rolling faster. Here's what happened, here is where to look type stuff that can save combing through 6 months of paperwork and interviews etc. 

 

So either A. He must not have had anything worthwhile to bring them B. They think they don't need his support because they have a strong enough case on their own or C. something else lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flynn = Karkaroff

 

hqdefault.jpg

 

"No, please...I have names! I have names! How about.....Kushner, Jared Kushner!"

"We already have him."

 

"Of course of course! .....Bannon! I know for a fact that he passed classified information to the Orange Lord himself!"

 

"We have Bannon too"

 

"No less than he deserves, of course! Conway! I have information on Kellyanne Conway! And Nunes! I have information saying that he orchestrated a coverup for the Orange Lord in the Russia matter!"

 

"Conway is as irrelevant as the dump my dog took this morning and the Nunes stuff is old evidence that we already possess. Look if you don't have anything new to offer us I am going to send you back to the dementors"

 

"Noooo!"

Edited by mistertim
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, willyt said:

How does the immunity thing work? Doesnt Flynn have to basically spill everything first, like off the record? 

 

 

 in general you infer what you can illuminate, there is no off the record....though you can set it up for inadmissible evidence.

usually lawyers do the talking, not the person with direct knowledge, till agreement is made/declined 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

Wouldn't be shocked if we find out he "Commited suicide"

 

One of those situations where he got so despondent he cut his own head off? I know some people that felt that way vis-a-vis the Columbians back in the day................

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Flynn dies suddenly soon, I think we can all assume that Trump did something egregiously impeachable.

 

Also, the WH doesn't know what is going on on all of the 18 acres of the White House grounds?

 

So there are blind spots for dangers?  Yeah, either Spicer admitted the Secret Service isn't protecting the WH effectively, or Spicer is full of it.  Again.

 

It's the latter option, of course.  With these clowns, it's always the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

 in general you infer what you can illuminate, there is no off the record....though you can set it up for inadmissible evidence.

usually lawyers do the talking, not the person with direct knowledge, till agreement is made/declined 

thank you  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...