Ooh, Ooh, Let Me Testify.....

[Laxman]

the sudden rush to volunteer to appear before the Congressional Intelligence Committee is quite interesting. As the temperature starts to rise the snakes are beginning to stir. Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Jared Kushner have all expressed their sincere desire to sit in the hot seat and answer some questions. Why? To "set the record straight"? I highly doubt that's the motivation.

The record, for what its worth, appears to paint a very ugly picture for these gentlemen and their twittering co-conspirator currently installed in the White House. The sudden mysterious disappearance of Micheal Flynn and reports of his new infatuation with the FBI certainly don't appear to aid their cause. This sudden compulsion to bare their souls in front of a Congressional committee seems a bit...odd, as well as remarkably contagious. So one possibility is a sense of personal indignation requiring each man to stand up for their sullied reputations and make it clear they are honest and innocent people who would never compromise the interests of the United States for mere financial reward and power. Yes, and Trump University has suddenly become accredited and has appeared in the latest US News & World Report college rankings above Stanford, Princeton and Harvard.

Now there's little value in speculation, but it sure is fun. So, there are other reasons that seem a bit more likely. For starters, they can continue to follow the lead of the committee chairman, Devon Nunes, and just continue to muddy the waters of public opinion, to buy time and to provide some cover for their meal ticket and Putin's puppet, Mr. Trump. Next, a Congressional committee is not a grand jury or a court of law. Its not like they're submitting to the jurisdiction of a legal tribunal with possible criminal consequences. Ahh, but you say, they will be testifying under oath! Maybe, but certainly not without being granted use immunity. There's where things get interesting. These skunks have been down this road before.... consider what happened with the once convicted felon and Fox News hero Oliver North who had the concept of use immunity bail his butt out of a very tight spot. From the Court of Appeals:

The prohibition against compelled testimony is not absolute, however. Under the rule of Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 92 S. Ct. 1653, 32 L. Ed. 2d 212 (1972), a grant of use immunity under 18 U.S.C. § 60021 enables the government to compel a witness's self-incriminating testimony. This is so because the statute prohibits the government both from using the immunized testimony itself and also from using any evidence derived directly or indirectly therefrom. Stated conversely, use immunity conferred under the statute is "coextensive with the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination, and therefore is sufficient to compel testimony over a claim of the privilege.... [Use immunity] prohibits the prosecutorial authorities from using the compelled testimony in any respect...." Kastigar, 406 U.S. at 453, 92 S. Ct. at 1661 (emphasis in original). See also Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99, 108 S. Ct. 2284, 2295, 101 L. Ed. 2d 98 (1988) ("Testimony obtained pursuant to a grant of statutory use immunity may be used neither directly nor derivatively.&quot .

When the government proceeds to prosecute a previously immunized witness, it has "the heavy burden of proving that all of the evidence it proposes to use was derived from legitimate independent sources." Kastigar, 406 U.S. at 461-62, 92 S. Ct. at 1665. The Court characterized the government's affirmative burden as "heavy." Most courts following Kastigar have imposed a "preponderance of the evidence" evidentiary burden on the government. See White Collar Crime: Fifth Survey of Law-Immunity, 26 Am.Crim.L.Rev. 1169, 1179 & n. 62 (1989) (hereafter "Immunity&quot . The Court analogized the statutory restrictions on use immunity to restrictions on the use of coerced confessions, which are inadmissible as evidence but which do not prohibit prosecution. Kastigar, 406 U.S. at 461, 92 S. Ct. at 1665. The Court pointed out, however, that the "use immunity" defendant may "be in a stronger position at trial" than the "coerced confession" defendant because of the different allocations of burden of proof. Id.

From: U.S. v. Oliver North

Getting immunity makes prosecution for whatever they say very problematic. North's conviction was vacated and returned for further proceedings because they couldn't show that prosecution witnesses were not influenced by his immunized testimony. That eventually made a re-trial impossible and he's back to being a patriot, hero and focus for conservative fund raising activities. Don't think these sociopaths don't fully understand the implications. I don't know what their real motivation is, but I'll bet the farm it isn't altruistic or benign. Like that leftover meat at the back of the fridge that you can't remember cooking, this all just doesn't smell quite right.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

1. Typical criminals

Every criminal thinks they can talk their way out of trouble. Never can. I agree with you, they're up to something. Hopefully they've already hung themselves with their actions.

[kentuck]

2. Maybe they will get their chance before the Senate Committee?

The House Committee may not hold any more hearings, because of the criminal act of Chairman Nunes.

[Laxman]

4. But Why....

this sudden rush. What the hell happened to cause this mass volunteerism?

[Langkous]

3. Shysters

Is a slang word for someone who acts in a disreputable, unethical, or unscrupulous way, especially in the practice of law, sometimes also politics or business
Wikipedia
Perfect fit ... Apply

[jaysunb]

5. Schiff is a very skilled prosecutor, and I think the whole

setup w/ Nunnes ( discredit the House committee ) and this sudden desire to appear before Burr in the Senate is to get around him. Sorta like judge shopping.

Btw, good post.