Breaking 1-06-21: MAGA terrorist attack on Capitol

interesting clip. Obviously there are many different reasons one might have for pleading the fifth, including simply not wanting to cooperate with an entire line of questioning.

It does appear that some media outlets and commenters have drawn the conclusions about Flynn's testimony that the lawyer cited in the article said might be drawn, in this case by Chris Cillizza:

An overlooked 'wow' moment from the 1/6 committee's latest hearing

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/29/politics/michael-flynn-5th-amendment-january-6/index.html

 

It's still shocking to hear but shouldn't be surprising given that the question would be a proven lie under oath if there's evidence that you are someone who pushed for violence to be used in order to overturn an election. So while shocking, it really shouldn't surprise anyone that any of the people who were at the Willard Hotel the prior night, or took part in organizing 1/6 in any way would take the 5th. Disgraced General Flynn would be lying under oath most likely if he didn't plead the 5th.

 

Sure he could be taking the fifth for any number of reasons, but that's a softball question he can't answer.

"In June 2021, Flynn was asked a question about why the coup in Myanmar that had seen the military seize control of the government couldn’t (or shouldn’t) happen in the United States.

“No reason,” replied Flynn. “I mean, it should happen here. No reason.”"

I do believe the panel wanted people to draw the conclusion that Flynn is anti-democratic. However, he is guilty of having those beliefs. So the claim that the "Jan. 6 Committee Is Using Innocent Americans’ Assertion Of Their Constitutional Rights As Proof Of Guilt" is false.

And I don't know what "proof of guilt" means. This isn't a trial. They wanted to show that Flynn doesn't believe in democracy and that is demonstrably true.

 

softball questions are often the most dangerous. "When did you stop beating your wife" is the classic example of a "leading question." There is NO good answer to the question. One could very well be much better off simply ignoring such a leading question and/or refusing to answer leading questions.

 

Is asking if someone believes in the peaceful transfer of power a trick question?

 

it certainly could be depending on what else one intends to ask using that question as a jumping off point. Again, it could be a very smart move simply not to get dragged into a potentially unfair line of questioning, that's all I'm saying

 

People are allowed to take the 5th. That's fine. But if they do, it isn't possible to claim they weren't given the chance to have their say.

As I said, the DOJ can also begin to plan a strategy for who to offer immunity so that the 5th is taken off the table.

 

honestly, I don't really have a dog in this hunt. I just think there are often very good reasons for someone to exercise their Constitutional rights, including the right not to risk self-incrimination. And one doesn't need to explain the exercise of that right and/or to justify it, ultimately

 

Come on, that's a weak deflection. "Do you believe the violence on Jan 6 was justified" and "Do you believe in the peaceful transition of power" are not trick questions. He would have to answer no to both those questions based on statements he has made publicly.

The panel is painting a straight forward picture. The response is we don't like the way you are painting.

 

no, see here is where you misunderstand the issues involved with loaded questions. The terms themselves -- "violence," "justified," and "peaceful transition" ALL convey normatively pre-loaded implications where if you respond, you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. Again, the best response is oftentimes no response at all.

And this whole issue is one good reason why it's so very important to have counsel when one is being interrogated by police, giving testimony, being deposed, etc etc.

 

There is no damning at all if you truthfully answer that you believe in the peaceful transfer of power. There is damning at all state there was zero justification for the violence that took place Jan. 6th.

It might be damning if those answers would not be truthful and there is evidence pointing toward the person wanting to prevent peaceful transfer of power.

Then they might indeed incriminate that person. But using the term "peaceful" is not a damned if you do or damned of you don't question.

This is all especially true when you knew the election was actually fair and accurate.

 

Flynn was in jail, let's not forget he is a convicted felon, who was pardoned by the traitorous 45.

DD

 

These articles are side shows meant to divert attention from all the mountains of evidence that show the former president and his cronies (Mike Flynn) attempted a coup.

The fifth amendment is an important right that should be taken seriously -- yes we all agree.
The fifth amendment is an important right that should be taken seriously therefor the Jan 6 Committee is a terrible and Mike Flynn is innocent. -- nope.

 

nobody is arguing this. I certainly am not arguing this

 

but I placed a significant wager on the fox.

 

well? they are certainly innocent until proven "guilty." Not to put too fine a point on it . . . .

 

He and Roger Stone both. Those felons we're pardoned to rile up the hate groups they hung out with by pushing the big lie to incite the people, and get the right wing dangerous men involved in the plot. I have no doubt about that. I'm sure it was a bargain chip Trump used to get them out. Not surprising at all to hear the names at that final meeting were MTG, Gaetz, and the rest of his Big Lie propaganda spreaders.

 

Flynn pled guilty. He wasn't innocent.

 

to something he did in 2017. How does that factor in to his Jan 6 guilt/innocence? or am I missing something here