Skip to content


“Mike Flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch hunt (excuse for big election loss), by media & Dems, of historic proportion!” – Donald Trump on Twitter yesterday, after his former National Security Advisor (who resigned because he lied about meetings with the Russians) asked for immunity from prosecution. Normally, you get immunity only if you are willing to testify against someone else (usually someone higher up, like, you know, the president) who is even more guilty.

“If you’re not guilty of a crime, what do you need immunity for?” – Donald Trump six months ago, when he was repeatedly complaining about the DoJ granting immunity to people during the investigation into Clinton’s private email server.

“When you are given immunity, that means that you’ve probably committed a crime.” – Michael Flynn in September 2016, also complaining repeatedly about Hillary Clinton and her email server.



  1. Wildwood wrote:

    I wonder if he has to tell them who he has dirt on before getting immunity. And would he lose that if his information does not lead to a conviction?

    Friday, March 31, 2017 at 7:58 am | Permalink
  2. notycoon22 wrote:

    Okay, so let’s play a little game. Flynn is granted immunity by someone (I see the Senate has declined to do so) and he testifies that the connections between the Trump campaign include the two top guys and they’re tried for treason or some such and removed from office. Who becomes president? The speaker of the house, right? Now there’s a thought.

    Friday, March 31, 2017 at 10:23 am | Permalink
  3. Wildwood wrote:

    Ryan as president is scary indeed, but so is Pence. I think we need to remove Ryan first and see who replaces him and then go for the top two. Pence is wackadoodle but reliably wackadoodle. The Other is wackadoodle but unreliably wackadoodle. I fluctuate in feeling which is worse. They all need to retire and go play golf somewhere far away from DC.

    I wonder how the vote went to deny Flynn immunity. Do we know that?

    Friday, March 31, 2017 at 12:15 pm | Permalink
  4. btn wrote:

    There is only one reason to give anybody immunity: to obtain eveidence against a more powerful person that could not be obtained by any other method.

    Based on this, I don’t think he will end up with immunity. More likely, he will be prosecuted and receive no jail time, and/or a Presidential pardon.

    Friday, March 31, 2017 at 12:52 pm | Permalink
  5. redjon wrote:

    Used to be that, it was the job of both houses of Congress to PROTECT US from the possibility of presidents doing crazy things… I think the operative phrase was something like, “balance of power…”

    Friday, March 31, 2017 at 1:13 pm | Permalink