US Politics Thread |OT| SAD TRUMP

[FStop7]

This one slipped under the radar.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/10/14/trump-voter-fraud-commission-researcher-arrested-on-child-pornography-charges/

[Madrun Badrun]

https://www.theonion.com/breitbart-criticized-for-publishing-humanizing-profile-1820881338

Just because he goes to Olive Garden with his family doesn’t mean that he’s not actively promoting white genocide.

[CatsCatsCats]

Newsfeed that

[Nola]

So the tax bill eventually leads to a $1 trillion DEFICIT, not just an increase in the debt? Are they expecting to kill Obummercare anytime soon or something?

If I’m not mistaken and they took it out without my knowledge, they are in the midst of dealing an incredible amount of damage to it by repealing the individual mandate as a gross way to offset the revenue loss from their donor class tax cuts.

[Mandark]

The reasoning is that no individual mandate means fewer people signing up on the exchanges, thus less money paid out in subsidies.

[Mandark]

On Dec. 29, a transition adviser to Mr. Trump, K. T. McFarland, wrote in an email to a colleague that sanctions announced hours before by the Obama administration in retaliation for Russian election meddling were aimed at discrediting Mr. Trump’s victory. The sanctions could also make it much harder for Mr. Trump to ease tensions with Russia, “which has just thrown the U.S.A. election to him,” she wrote in the emails obtained by The Times.

It is not clear whether Ms. McFarland was saying she believed that the election had in fact been thrown. A White House lawyer said on Friday that she meant only that the Democrats were portraying it that way.

Hell of a team they put together. Remember after Flynn resigned, and their first choice for a replacement turned them down cause they refused to get rid of McFarland?

[Trurl]

So the tax bill eventually leads to a $1 trillion DEFICIT, not just an increase in the debt? Are they expecting to kill Obummercare anytime soon or something?

I believe that that number refers to the debt.  In other words it's the total cost of the bill as a package.

The tax bill expires in ten years, right?

[Trent Dole]

So the tax bill eventually leads to a $1 trillion DEFICIT, not just an increase in the debt? Are they expecting to kill Obummercare anytime soon or something?

The trillion was their positive idealized FUZZY MATHS version, really it'd do about 1.5 trillion, but considering all itss bizarre revisions of pages with Xs and lines through them along with indecipherable handwritten notes who the hell knows what it'll really do. They still have to do reconciliation with the house so whatever it is now isn't even what it'll end up being.

[kingv]

THe twitters are saying that not only is this tax bill easy to undo, but it makes it easier to increase spending on things Democrats like.

This is probably true.

Because the whole thing can theoretically be undid via  reconciliation, and you can preserve the middle class tax cuts, fleece the rich, and use some of the revenue on whatever the fuck you want, like infrastructure.

[Phoenix Dark]

https://www.theonion.com/breitbart-criticized-for-publishing-humanizing-profile-1820881338

Just because he goes to Olive Garden with his family doesn’t mean that he’s not actively promoting white genocide.

[naff]

good to see the Trump admin finally get something done. and of course it's a fuckin dumpster fire for america. another step forward for our deserved neo-liberal capitalist hegemony

GAFA

[thehunter116]

Socialism is starting to look mighty attractive right about now.

[Boogie]

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/02/media/abc-news-brian-ross/index.html

Whoops.

And that’s why we keep our expectations in check as this investigation unfolds, folks.

[VomKriege]

I believe that that number refers to the debt.  In other words it's the total cost of the bill as a package.

The tax bill expires in ten years, right?

Okay, I looked it up and you're right. NYT and CNN keep reporting it as adding it to the deficit. They know what they're doing. If it's only $1 trillion in new debt over ten years who gives a shit? When did we suddenly start caring about the debt? Norway's been straddling over 10% deficit to GDP ratio for ten years and there's no end in sight to the socialist bacchanalia going on. Any concern about the debt now is just political opportunism.

Wait, isn't debt the sum of all deficits anyway in theory ? It's not 1:1 as I understand that the amount borrowed might exceed the deficit but still if this bill adds 1 trillion in debt it should mean more or less on average 100 billions more deficit each year which is not trivial.

Edit : Checking the source for the number seems to confirm that that the 1 trillion figure is the estimate of the impact on the federal budget (ie deficits) over ten years. And that's factoring in a positive offset of 400 billions due to the supposed growth of overall economy (and thus "better" fiscal earnings even at reduced rates) over the period.

See table here
https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=5045

[Madrun Badrun]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/362938-in-apparent-shift-trump-tweets-he-fired-flynn-for-lying-to-fbi

[Great Rumbler]

Edit : Checking the source for the number seems to confirm that that the 1 trillion figure is the estimate of the impact on the federal budget (ie deficits) over ten years. And that's factoring in a positive offset of 400 billions due to the supposed growth of overall economy (and thus "better" fiscal earnings even at reduced rates) over the period.

That's pretty much how all bills are graded by the independent Congressional groups, as far as I know.

[Great Rumbler]

who cares?

Republicans. Well, until recently, anyway.

[Nola]

If I’m not mistaken and they took it out without my knowledge, they are in the midst of dealing an incredible amount of damage to it by repealing the individual mandate as a gross way to offset the revenue loss from their donor class tax cuts.

They didn't take that out, but what does that have to do with revenue? A mandate costs nothing.

The assumption the GOP is under, and to an extent they will be right, though I personally think less so than they or the CBO project, that by removing the mandate fewer people that qualify for partial subsidies will sign up. Thus reducing the cost to the government to pay out.

Now on the other extreme end, if the GOP and CBO are way off and very few people that qualify for subsidies drop, and healthy non-subsidized people make up the pool of people that drop coverage due to the repeal, the cost for the government could theoretically increase and their already awful deficit projections will end up in reality being even worse.

[Nola]

Okay, I looked it up and you're right. NYT and CNN keep reporting it as adding it to the deficit. They know what they're doing. If it's only $1 trillion in new debt over ten years who gives a shit? When did we suddenly start caring about the debt? Norway's been straddling over 10% deficit to GDP ratio for ten years and there's no end in sight to the socialist bacchanalia going on. Any concern about the debt now is just political opportunism.

Because of what the debt is going to pay for and what it is likely to do to the long-term health of the economy?

I'm not a debt hawk, though there is some reason to believe when you approach 100% debt to GDP you start getting into some shaky territory, but I think the US being the reserve currency and the backbone of the international economy gives us more leeway. With that said, 1.5 trillion in debt for infrastructure, expansion of healthcare, or green energy investment? Yeah, I'm down. To pay for a grossly distortionary tax system that is going to transfer even more wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy? Who the fuck in their right mind(outside the obvious beneficiaries and dumb fuck Trump supporters) finds that a good investment lol?

[VomKriege]

That's correct, but I thought they were saying the yearly deficit would go up by a trillion. Obama added $9T over 8 years so fuck it, I'll take one trillion any day. Our deficit is around 550bil, who cares?

I mean if debt is irrelevant (which it is not IMHO) I'm sure those trillions of cost could find better use (pick your pet cause) than slashing taxes for the wealthy and companies.

[Nola]

[thehunter116]

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/02/media/abc-news-brian-ross/index.html

Whoops.

And that’s why we keep our expectations in check as this investigation unfolds, folks.

I mean the correction doesn't change anything.

[Nola]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/937007006526959618

Surprised this gem wasn't mentioned today(or maybe it was and my lazy skim missed it).

Tell us more about how you knew Flynn lied to the FBI and three days after that asked Comey for a loyalty pledge 

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Of course the spin is that the tweet was written by his lawyer in what I guess they will claim was a Trump-like fuck up of judgement.

[close]

[VomKriege]

If only we listened to him and he got responsibilities.

[benjipwns]

You can always trust a guy who says his plan has accounted for all potential variables in a forty year timeline.

[Kara]

Without the hysteria that I can't separate from all the twitter analysis (lulz)

Is this tax reform going to fuck me raw or not?

Since this was passed in a non-transparent manner, it's possible there are some items on the individual side that we will regret down the line (e.g. fetuses can now have 529 plans, apparently the participation rates weren't low enough on those for Republicans), but the truly pernicious stuff is situated on the business side in the immediate future. We will have tax increases on low and middle income tax payers joining raising the debt ceiling in future games of political chicken, though.

Undoing the damage on the business side will take an extraordinary amount of political courage and vision. For reference the Senate Democrats make public statements like this of late.

[thehunter116]

You can always trust a guy who says his plan has accounted for all potential variables in a forty year timeline.

I'm glad someone is accounting for the molemen uprising of 2033. 

[agrajag]

What damage on the business side is this tax bill doing?


Also, this wouldn't go into effect for another year, right? I could still do all my itemized deductions on this coming up tax return?

[Nola]

 For reference the Senate Democrats make public statements like this of late.

   

[VomKriege]

What damage on the business side is this tax bill doing?


Also, this wouldn't go into effect for another year, right? I could still do all my itemized deductions on this coming up tax return?

Cutting the Corporate Tax from 35% to 20% is pretty major. Good luck ever coming back on that without being blackmailed on killing "growth" and "jobs".

[Kara]

Also, this wouldn't go into effect for another year, right? I could still do all my itemized deductions on this coming up tax return?

This is for 2018 and forward. Your 2017 tax return has not yet been filed.

[VomKriege]

To note, though, that corporate tax decreases are the norm currently in Western Europe too.

[Mandark]

Cutting the Corporate Tax from 35% to 20% is pretty major. Good luck ever coming back on that without being blackmailed on killing "growth" and "jobs".

I've been hearing for years that since the effective rate was so much lower than the statutory rate, you could lower it from 35% while closing loopholes, keeping it revenue-neutral while making it fairer across the board.

Instead they lowered the corporate rate and got rid of individual credits to (partially) offset it. The Republican party does not lack for chutzpah these days.

[VomKriege]

Cutting the Corporate Tax from 35% to 20% is pretty major. Good luck ever coming back on that without being blackmailed on killing "growth" and "jobs".

So you admit cutting the tax rate will create jobs

No it may or it may not. Even if the latter, I know for a fact lobbyists will argue that any additional regulation on companies would turn turn the USA into a third world country overnight.

Edit : Wake me up before Trump go go.

[Nola]

Cutting the Corporate Tax from 35% to 20% is pretty major. Good luck ever coming back on that without being blackmailed on killing "growth" and "jobs".

So you admit cutting the tax rate will create jobs

No it may or it may not. Even if the latter, I know for a fact lobbyists will argue that any additional regulation on companies would turn turn the USA into a third world country overnight.

Thats basically what they have signaled their plan is if the FAKE NEWS media's anonymous sources are to be believed.

Pass this shit now, campaign in 2020 on how Democrats want to kill jobs, raise taxes, and ruin the economy; that the only path forward is cutting social spending and making the tax cuts permenant. Seasoned with some dog whistle politics to rally the base. Which has basically been the strategy since Reagan.

If the Republicans fuck up and lose a majority somewhere, or crash the economy as they often do, you start the whole Paul Ryan deficit pearl clutching thing. Claim the only way to health is maintaining or giving more tax cuts for the rich middle-class.

But don't worry, Senate Democrats are on it this time with Reagan lionizing twitter memes at the ready. They're prepared to overcome the cycle this time.

[benjipwns]

You can always trust a guy who says his plan has accounted for all potential variables in a forty year timeline.

I'm glad someone is accounting for the molemen uprising of 2033. 

Well, something starts the debt share to begin plummeting at a higher rate around 2040 in his chart. If you have an explanation other than plundering the molemen's hidden treasury of riches I'd like to see a more legitimate white paper.

[VomKriege]

http://www.france24.com/en/20171203-usa-pulls-out-un-migrant-refugee-pact-trump-haley

Make America Isolated Again

[benjipwns]

The New York Declaration contains numerous provisions that are inconsistent with US immigration and refugee policies

That's probably accurate. Actually probably has been for at least 20 years or so.

And then like, the whole start of the last century when we did this the first time.

[benjipwns]

Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department's Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email investigation by Peter Strzok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence at the FBI who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year, after Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.

A source close to the matter said the OIG probe, which will examine Strzok's roles in a number of other politically sensitive cases, should be completed by "very early next year."

The task will be exceedingly complex, given Strzok's consequential portfolio. He participated in the FBI's fateful interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 – just days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend prosecution of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private email server.

As deputy FBI director for counterintelligence, Strzok also enjoyed liaison with various agencies in the intelligence community, including the CIA, then led by Director John Brennan.

House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Strzok as a key figure in the chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.

"That’s right. Lock her up. That’s right. Lock her up. I’m going to tell you what, it’s unbelievable; it’s unbelievable. Yes; I use — I use #neverHillary; that’s what I use. I have called on Hillary Clinton, I have called on Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race because she, she put our nation’s security at extremely high risk with her careless use of a private e-mail server. Lock her up! Lock her up!" - General Michael T. Flynn, 2016

[benjipwns]

White House communications director Hope Hicks steamed President Trump's suits on the 2016 campaign trail while he was wearing them, according to an upcoming book on the campaign.

The book, "Let Trump Be Trump," is co-authored by former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and deputy campaign manager David Bossie. In it, the two detail what it was like on the campaign trail with Trump, including that among numerous other duties as press secretary, Hicks was in charge of steaming Trump's suits.

According to The Washington Post, which obtained an early copy of the book, Hicks would bring a steamer on Trump's campaign plane and make sure his suits were always pressed.

Trump would reportedly yell at Hicks to "get the machine!"

“And Hope would take out the steamer and start steaming Mr. Trump’s suit, while he was wearing it! She’d steam the jacket first and then sit in a chair in front of him and steam his pants," Lewandowski writes, according to the Post.

On one occasion, Hicks forgot the portable steamer, which was "a mistake she would never make again" the book says.

"G--dammit, Hope! How the hell could you forget the machine?" Trump reportedly yelled.

[kingv]

He wasn't given any kind of immunity.

1. Charges and Statutory Penalties
Your client agrees to plead guilty to the Criminal Information, a copy of which is attached, charging your client with making false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in violation of 18 U .S.C. § I 00 I.
...
3. Additional Charges
In consideration of your client's guilty plea to the above offense, your client will not be further prosecuted criminally by this Office for the conduct set forth in the attached Statement of the Offense.

The Statement of the Offense lists literally nothing but his twice lying to the FBI in January 2017 (which are the two charges he pled guilty to) and his false statements on FARA filings in March 2017.

Where is he precluded from being charged, by the Special Counsel let alone Justice, for any other crimes he subsequently admits to or commits?

From what I have read, what usually happens in these agreements is that the fbi holds back some of the charges on purpose as leverage to ensure that the person actually cooperates.

This way, if they can’t or refuse to deliver what’s they agreed to in their proffer, the FBI comes back and indicts them on a whole heap of new shit.

This is done to keep the cooperating witness honest.

Otherwise they would get immunity and just back out.

[benjipwns]

Immunity is contingent on testimony. You back out, you lose it.

Once Flynn is sentenced, he can't be prosecuted for this again can he? The unspoken deal is that Mueller will be recommending no jail time. Which is not much of a gift considering the crime. And the more common reason for pleas in general.

Ideally, the writers are planning on having Flynn appear before a judge of Mexican-American descent who sentences him to the maximum penalty while Mueller keeps going "Your honor! Excuse me, your honor!" before leaving and Donald Jr. and Eric meet him near the back and say something cryptic about how it will probably be rough on the General's son. And that it's quite cold in Siberia.

[kingv]

I’m not really gathering what you’re saying. are you saying that there is not evidence to charge him with anything else, and that’s why it’s not there?

If so, I believe this to be quite wrong based on more or less everything else I have read.

[benjipwns]

No, for all I know there's a hundred thousand things a hundred different DA's offices could charge him with tomorrow. What I'm saying is that I don't see the evidence that his deal with Mueller is a grand bargain for blockbuster testimony or cooperation because his deal didn't include any immunity from the special counsel regarding his testimony.

He pled guilty to two counts of lying to the FBI. In his plea agreement, the special counsel agreed to not further investigate him regarding lying to the FBI in that January interview or his false statements on his FARA filing in March. But nothing else. The deal is not contingent on anything except his guilty plea, which he did and is now awaiting sentencing for. It's also seemingly irrelevant because I can't seem to figure out how he could be prosecuted further by anybody on his two counts of lying to the FBI.

It'd be malpractice by his attorney to advise him to agree to testify to criminal actions he performed that the special counsel could immediately charge him for.

[Joe Molotov]

I hate these midseason replacement series. You know it's gonna get cancelled before America ever gets to Prosperity.

[kingv]

No, for all I know there's a hundred thousand things a hundred different DA's offices could charge him with tomorrow. What I'm saying is that I don't see the evidence that his deal with Mueller is a grand bargain for blockbuster testimony or cooperation because his deal didn't include any immunity from the special counsel regarding his testimony.

He pled guilty to two counts of lying to the FBI. In his plea agreement, the special counsel agreed to not further investigate him regarding lying to the FBI in that January interview or his false statements on his FARA filing in March. But nothing else. The deal is not contingent on anything except his guilty plea, which he did and is now awaiting sentencing for. It's also seemingly irrelevant because I can't seem to figure out how he could be prosecuted further by anybody on his two counts of lying to the FBI.

It'd be malpractice by his attorney to advise him to agree to testify to criminal actions he performed that the special counsel could immediately charge him for.

Honestly, if somebody like Preet Bhahara says “this is indicative of a deal”, then I’m going to take his statement at face value. He was a US attorney and maybe knows something about how this works.

 Not going to go look for a source, but IIRC there is a sealed portion of the guilty plea that outlines the deal in more detail. Obviously we aren’t privy to that piece.

[seagrams hotsauce]

lmao @ this fuckwad using an iPad 1 with the oldest charger ever.

[Nola]

lmao @ this fuckwad using an iPad 1 with the oldest charger ever.

To be fair that was from 2011. Back when we were on the cusp of a debt crisis.

Thankfully 2017 Paul Ryan has lived by his words and we are on pace toward sound Republican fiscal governance as promised.

[benjipwns]

Honestly, if somebody like Preet Bhahara says “this is indicative of a deal”, then I’m going to take his statement at face value. He was a US attorney and maybe knows something about how this works.

Honestly, I'm going to take the fact that one can go look at the actual documents of the plea agreement as being a pretty good "indicator of a deal" over a former US attorney, Robert Mueller himself and even that press conference Flynn gave stating the same obvious thing that literally is reported everywhere too.

I'm saying it's an incredibly bad deal if you want it to be setting up Flynn testifying about criminal actions he was part of. And doing my own offhand speculating that it's more likely for sentencing purposes and maybe an unofficial agreement to not rope Flynn Jr. into the investigations scope by putting an end to Flynn's affair.

Also that the real question is still why did Flynn lie about things he was not only allowed to do, but was already known to have done. Really, the whole thing is good news for Trump so far in that he stumbled into keeping a potential hazard of a habitual liar with incredibly poor judgement away from a vital post.

Not going to go look for a source, but IIRC there is a sealed portion of the guilty plea that outlines the deal in more detail. Obviously we aren’t privy to that piece.

Can't find a single mention of this. I also question the legality of this on its face but will have to look into it. They'd have to have submitted it to the court and we'd know that they submitted a sealed guilty plea. In fact, just the very concept of a secret side sealed guilty plea for non-protection reasons is amazing in and of itself.

[Nola]

Since people are still speculating:

The surprising thing about the plea agreement and the stipulated facts underlying it is how narrow they are. There’s no whiff of the alleged Fethullah Gulen kidnapping talks. Flynn has escaped FARA and influence-peddling charges. And he has been allowed to plead to a single count of lying to the FBI. The factual stipulation is also narrow. It involves lies to the FBI on two broad matters and lies on Flynn’s belated FARA filings on another issue. If a tenth of the allegations against Flynn are true and provable, he has gotten a very good deal from Mueller.

The narrowness gives a superficial plausibility to the White House’s reaction to the plea. Ty Cobb, the president’s ever-confident attorney, said in a statement: “The false statements involved mirror the false statements [by Flynn] to White House officials which resulted in his resignation in February of this year. Nothing about the guilty plea or the charge implicates anyone other than Mr. Flynn.” Cobb reads Friday’s events as an indication that Mueller is “moving with all deliberate speed and clears the way for a prompt and reasonable conclusion” of the investigation.

This is very likely not an accurate assessment of the situation. If Mueller were prepared to settle the Flynn matter on the basis of single-count plea to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, he was almost certainly prepared to charge a great deal more. Moreover, we can infer from the fact that Flynn accepted the plea deal that he and his counsel were concerned about the degree of jeopardy, both for Flynn and for his son, related to other charges. The deal, in other words, reflects the strength of Mueller’s hand against Flynn.

It reflects something else too: that Flynn is prepared to give Mueller substantial assistance in his investigation and that Mueller wants the assistance Flynn can provide. We are not going to speculate about what that assistance might be. But prosecutors do not give generous deals in major public integrity cases to big-fish defendants without good reason—and in normal circumstances, the national security adviser to the president is a very big fish for a prosecutor. The good reason in this case necessarily involves the testimony Flynn has proffered to the special counsel’s staff. The information in that proffer is not in any of the documents released Friday, and it may not even be related to the information in those documents. Prosecutors tend to trade up. That is, for Mueller to give Flynn a deal of this sort, the prosecutor must believe he is building a case against a bigger fish still.

There’s another peculiar nuance: Section 3 of the plea agreement leaves Flynn unprotected against certain future prosecutions. The section is titled “Additional Charges” and states in its entirety that “In consideration of your client’s guilty plea to the above offense, your client will not be further prosecuted criminally by this Office for the conduct set forth in the attached Statement of the Offense” (emphasis ours). The office, in other words, seems to be reserving the right to prosecute Flynn for conduct not set forth in that document, which is to say all of the other conduct on which he might be vulnerable. It is hard to know what to make of this language. It could mean nothing at all. It could mean that the threat of further prosecution is being held over Flynn’s head if he does not hold up his end of the bargain. It could mean that another plea agreement covering other matters is coming.

https://lawfareblog.com/flynn-plea-quick-and-dirty-analysis

This and the accompanying podcast in the article I posted the other day about sums up where I am comfortable speculating about the Flynn plea. Despite the often juxtaposed backgrounds, all of the people involved agree on this basic outline and this parameter of speculation. And I’m not really sure why I should doubt them?

[benjipwns]

And the last paragraph contains the only thing that I've been saying here:

The office, in other words, seems to be reserving the right to prosecute Flynn for conduct not set forth in that document

This isn't an immunity deal for testimony because no immunity was granted. Anything criminal Flynn testifies to that he was part of, he can still be prosecuted for. Which is exactly how these deals don't work normally.

If he's such a big get, who is essential to the obviously forthcoming any day now criminal indictments against the Trump campaign and family, then why did Flynn get such a shitty deal? Why he'd plead guilty first if they're threatening to prosecute him anyway if he doesn't deliver? Your assumption (and quite essentially, your attorneys) in that situation should be that you have no deal, you are going to be prosecuted further. And with a good chance that it's especially because of your testimony to the grand jury.

So the most obvious answer is the sign of good faith notion (by admitting to being a repeated liar to law enforcement and other government officials) in exchange for a lenient sentence on two mild charges. (That should again be noted were lies made for no rational conceivable reason.)

[kingv]

This is exactly how the Manafort deal also worked, so unless you work for the fbi or are a US attorney or somehow have some reason other than “I was big-time poligaf poster” please explain on what grounds you are saying this “isn’t usually how it works”.

We’re,, Manafort didn’t have a deal. But the rest stands.

[kingv]

Relevant:
http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/queen-for-a-day-the-dangerous-game-of-proffers-proffer.html

Most proffers are made with the informal understanding that the government, if satisfied that you are telling the truth in the proffer session, will subsequently enter into a formal, written immunity agreement or plea bargain agreement with you. (But don't expect to see that informal understanding reflected in the written proffer agreement that you and your attorney will sign. In fact, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the formal, written proffer agreement will explicitly state that no promises of either immunity or a plea bargain have been made.)Accordingly, your attorney and the prosecutor should have already informally worked out, before you ever sit down for the proffer session, a basic understanding of: 1) what you are likely to proffer; and, 2) what the contemplated post-proffer immunity or plea agreement will look like. To the extent that either part of this informal understanding is not perfectly clear to you, your attorney, and the federal prosecutor, you are heading into exceedingly dangerous territory. Why? Because, proffering will almost always harm you if post-proffer immunity/plea discussions fall apart and the government decides to indict you. For the same reason, if the prosecutor is not trustworthy or if you are not prepared to tell the complete truth, the proffer session should never take place.

This seems to suggest that this is exactly how these deals are made.

Basically Flynn has informal agreement that they will not prosecute him for his other crimes if he delivers on his proffer.

Edit: on second thought, Hmm, well, maybe you are making the distinction between the proffer agreement and the plea agreement.

That said, we really have no idea what the proffer agreement says. It might not give immunity until steps 1-5 happen.

[benjipwns]

The "Manafort deal"? The one where Manafort pled not guilty to the major and multiple criminal charges he still faces with spending the rest of his life in prison possible if he totally loses at trial?

Are you seriously suggesting that prosecutors accepting Manafort putting up millions of dollars worth of real estate as bail collateral, an agreement that has not been accepted by the judge who originally ordered the house arrest in the first place, to be some kind of witness immunity agreement? That's definitely really not how agreements to testify usually work at all.

[kingv]

I edited it to mention he didn’t have a deal before you responded my dude (or while you were responding).

But regardless, I think it’s safe to say we are both talking straight of our ass.

[benjipwns]

Relevant:
http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/queen-for-a-day-the-dangerous-game-of-proffers-proffer.html

Most proffers are made with the informal understanding that the government, if satisfied that you are telling the truth in the proffer session, will subsequently enter into a formal, written immunity agreement or plea bargain agreement with you. (But don't expect to see that informal understanding reflected in the written proffer agreement that you and your attorney will sign. In fact, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the formal, written proffer agreement will explicitly state that no promises of either immunity or a plea bargain have been made.)Accordingly, your attorney and the prosecutor should have already informally worked out, before you ever sit down for the proffer session, a basic understanding of: 1) what you are likely to proffer; and, 2) what the contemplated post-proffer immunity or plea agreement will look like. To the extent that either part of this informal understanding is not perfectly clear to you, your attorney, and the federal prosecutor, you are heading into exceedingly dangerous territory. Why? Because, proffering will almost always harm you if post-proffer immunity/plea discussions fall apart and the government decides to indict you. For the same reason, if the prosecutor is not trustworthy or if you are not prepared to tell the complete truth, the proffer session should never take place.

This seems to suggest that this is exactly how these deals are made.

Basically Flynn has informal agreement that they will not prosecute him for his other crimes if he delivers on his proffer.

Take a look at the next few paragraphs:

Why are proffers so risky, since your words are not supposed to be used against you at a subsequent trial? To begin with, unlike immunity or plea agreements, proffer agreements do not prevent the government from making derivative use of your statements. In other words, although the government cannot use your actual proffer session statements against you in its case-in-chief, it can use the information that you provide to follow up leads and conduct further investigations. If those leads and further investigations capture new evidence, such evidence can be used to indict and convict you. Even if the prosecutor is not able to develop new information from your proffer, he will gain a tactical advantage from seeing (at the proffer session) how you fare under the pressure of tough questioning, how you present yourself as a witness and, most importantly, what your theory of the case is. This will better prepare him to build his evidence against you and to cross-examine you at trial, should you choose to testify, and will thus boost his self-confidence. Moreover, if, like many suspects, you implicate yourself in criminal activity during the proffer session, the prosecutor will feel better about prosecuting you, because he will "know" in his heart of hearts that you are guilty. (If the AUSA believes that you lied during your proffer session, he can indict you under Section 1001 of the federal criminal code for false statements to the government. As a practical matter, this is almost never done.)

But there are even bigger risks in proffering. Virtually all proffer agreements allow the government to use your statements against you for impeachment purposes if you take the stand in a subsequent proceeding and testify inconsistently with your proffer. And the version of the proffer that will be compared to your trial testimony, in order to see whether you should be impeached, is the version that was interpreted and written down by government agents. More ominously, in recent years many government-drafted proffer agreements allow use of your statements against you if any part of your defense, including questions your lawyer asks of government witnesses on cross-examination, is inconsistent with your proffer. These broadly worded agreements, which have been consistently upheld at the federal circuit court level, may effectively deny you the right to present a defense at trial if your anticipated post-proffer immunity or plea deal does not come through. Why? Because if any part of your defense is deemed to be inconsistent with your proffer, and if that proffer implicates you in any way, the entire proffer will be admitted against you at trial. Thus, your attorney may find herself in the unenviable position of failing to contest key portions of the government's case, declining to cross-examine certain witnesses and choosing not to put you on the stand, all in an effort to prevent your damaging proffer statements from coming before the jury. Proposed proffer agreements submitted to you for your and your attorney's signatures should be examined with great care.

Given the risk involved, why would you even want to make a proffer if you have criminal exposure? For one reason and one reason only: if you are facing imminent prosecution and need an immunity agreement or plea bargain deal, you usually cannot get either, particularly in white collar cases, without first making a proffer.

He got a plea bargain deal, where he agreed to be prosecuted at any time in the future for anything except the two specific times on one day he lied for no reason to the FBI (and one time on a FARA form) including anything criminal he testifies to the grand jury. (If he is in fact a witness.)

If the "deal" was just for information to further the investigation, then he's definitely not a "big get" and the start of the great collapse. At this point it seems impossible that Flynn, alone, has any kind of groundbreaking information. It might even be Mueller getting a last loose end out of the way so he can start wrapping up and write his one page report.

With an extended 300 page appendix with air-tight documentation on how exactly Hillary Clinton had Seth Rich murdered.

[kingv]

Or they have so much information that playing ball here is his best option to avoid serious jail time.

Or his son is in jealousy, and they agreed to look the other way on that if he led with this plea deal.

Or there are other plea deals in the works, but Mueller doesn’t want to show his hand on what he does and doesn’t know yet.

This constant downplaying of every piece of trump/Russia news would make brucespringsteen proud

[benjipwns]

I'm just doing my part to Make America Great Again and working to ensure there's no more victims of the Clinton/Weinstein/DNC/Obama/Loretta Lynch/Kneeling NFL Players/Spacey/UraniumOne machine like Seth Rich.

[Mandark]

The unspoken deal

I thought your whole premise is that everything is in the document.

[benjipwns]

My premise is that the released legal document is the only binding legal agreement we are aware of and should be the basis of the details in our rampant expert speculation. Especially the fact that it's not immunity for testimony but rather a pretty open statement of potential future prosecution on other matters.

That baseless unimpeachable speculation of mine can be dismissed by an argument against it, but considering how plea deals normally work, I'm not sure what else could be the inducement for Flynn to agree to one except for a prosecutorial recommendation on sentencing. Unless, like you mentioned pointedly that he's pleading guilty out of the goodness of his heart and this is a real personal attempt at reforming himself. Which like you, I find unlikely considering he didn't plead guilty to the false statements on FARA.