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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Trekologer

(1,078 posts)

5. I think it is a fourth option

Reply to no_hypocrisy (Original post)

Sat Apr 1, 2017, 11:22 AM

Apr 2017

Too early in the process to be offering immunity to a key player, especially with the FBI investigation ongoing.

You also don't want another Oliver North to happen. He was granted immunity on the expectation he would testify that Reagan knew what was going on the whole time. Instead he testified he alone ran the operation.

Edited to add: I would think we would want to see a plea deal, not blanket immunity.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why did the Senate Committe defer giving Flynn immunity? [View all] no_hypocrisy Apr 2017 OP

Probably too soon in the process dem4decades Apr 2017 #1

D) They're waiting for a better choice for immunity... MineralMan Apr 2017 #2

The cynic in me likes C. ananda Apr 2017 #3

He might be their target HoneyBadger Apr 2017 #4

I think it is a fourth option Trekologer Apr 2017 #5

Too soon. Need time to build case, gather info that can be Panich52 Apr 2017 #6

A little of each Jonny Appleseed Apr 2017 #7

D) They have other sources for everything Flynn could tell them Glitterati Apr 2017 #8

E) the FBI asked them NOT TO Glitterati Apr 2017 #9

'Cause It's a Trap!!! Worktodo Apr 2017 #10