37 thoughts on “The Flynn Plea”

  1. Overall, I think this is becoming an even bigger clown show on the part of the FBI. But, I see the increased interest. Flynn testifying against Trump can introduce all sorts of guffaw moments and pearl clutching, but so far the only criminal items seems to be about incidents long before the election or after the election was settled. And as Andrew McCarthy points out, the incidents aren’t actually a crime, but lying about them to the FBI is.

    So what does the FBI have? They have procedural crimes, but like most special prosecutors, nothing on the original supposed crime. And I say FBI, because Mueller is only following what Comey suggested, and Comey seems to have committed just as many procedural crimes to instigate the special counsel. So we have Comey breaking the law to get a special counsel to investigate someone else. And now we have an admitted and guilty liar as a key hearsay witness.

    And what else is in the news with the FBI? The news that the FBI focused on potential leaks of the Clinton/Lynch tarmac meeting than investigating what the hell the two why were secretly meeting when his wife was under investigation and she the potential prosecutor. At this point, the FBI no longer seems like a impartial agency to be trusted with responsible and professional investigative capability. And who lead them to this point? Comey and Mueller.

    The question is, if Flynn gives enough fluff to lead to impeachment proceeding, will the GOP hatred of Trump cause them to ignore all these failings of the FBI just to remove Trump? And it will take GOP hatred because Democrats don’t have the votes.

    1. The idea of the FBI as an agency protecting the American people went out the window for me with Comey’s July speech “clearing” Hillary. It was almost an FU to the American public (and to genuine prosecutors), detailing her crimes and then saying that no serious prosecutor would ever press charges.

      What it said to me is: We, the people, are no longer protected. We have the equivalent of the KGB protecting the powerful elite, including the criminal powerful elite.

    1. Key word is “can”. Hillary knows it. She would only be worried if the word became “shall”, but that won’t happen.

      Alas, Comey knows it too, which is why no one is talking about his lies to Congress.

  2. Fake news is all breathless about their “sources” saying that Flynn will roll on trump. Won’t happen. The charges he pled to are minor. Flynn’s estimated prison sentence is 0 to 6 months and a $500 to $9,500 fine.

    1. From what I’ve read, those arguing that Mr. Flynn will be providing evidence against a bigger fish — perhaps the president, perhaps his son or son-in-law — are specifically pointing out the lesser nature of the charge and saying that it is an indication that the special council is offering the prosecutorial discretion of not perusing greater charges against Mr. Flynn Sr. and any chargers against Mr. Flynn Jr. in exchange for cooperation, and he would not do so if he didn’t believe that Mr. Flynn had incriminating evidence against a more valuable target

      1. I’m guessing more perjury traps for people who weren’t being spied on by Obama.

        Doesn’t look like this will go anywhere but I don’t have much confidence in the corrupt officials running this show. They are the same ones that rigged the investigation into Hillary and other abuses of power by the Obama administration.

  3. Lying to the FBI is a crime (a fact I disagree with) but it needs to be remembered that lying to the FBI is not lying under oath (perjury).

    This Flynn case worries me, a lot, due to a factor absent from press coverage; Flynn’s son. He was under investigation for dirty dealings with Turkey (That also involve his father). Was he let off the hook as part of this deal? If so, Flynn is likely willing to say almost anything to save his son, including giving false testimony.

    On the other hand, if Flynn was rolled to that extent, I’d have thought Muller would have extracted a confession from Flynn to some sort of conspiracy charge. (which would be something Muller could use against Trump, as opposed to what happened, which isn’t).

    To me, the dates are the key; what Flynn plead guilty to lying about occurred in late December, 2016. The election was long over then.

    1. Ah, for the good ol’ days, when the Left was all aghast that Ed Meese wasn’t facing criminal charges for his “insensitivity to the appearance of impropriety.”

    2. If Trump told Flynn to contact the Russians after the election was over during the transition (something Flynn’s job required of him) this actually exonerates Trump of collusion during the election (as far as involving Flynn.)

      What a comedy (and tragedy in wasting taxpayer money.)

      1. So why did he lie to the FBI when he must have known they had a recording of his conversation? From his work heading the DIA he would have been aware of the heavy level of surveillance placed on Russian diplomats.

        1. The problem is that it is very easy to get caught up in a lie or misrepresentation just by talking to law enforcement. He should have had them talk to his lawyer rather than just speaking off the cuff to them.

          I haven’t read the complaint but from media reports, the crux of the conversations he lied or misrepresented were only not illegal but part of the job requirements. The perjury charge isn’t the meat here but rather what he didn’t get charged with. The rumors surrounding his work for Turkey are a lot more serious.

          I find it troubling that our government was spying on elected officials operating in a legal capacity in the course of performing their job. It doesn’t say much for their ethics if this is how they set the perjury trap,

        2. From his work heading the DIA he would have been aware of the heavy level of surveillance placed on Russian diplomats.

          Equally, he would probably be aware there were laws placed on unmasking innocent US citizens caught up in the surveillance. That doesn’t excuse his lying to the FBI, but if not for the questionable unmasking, the FBI wouldn’t have information to contradict Flynn’s statements and create the perjury trap.

          Alas, the only thing here is a potential of a Logan Act violation, which has not been tried and would be predicated on the notion that a President elect shouldn’t unduly influence foreign relations days before he takes office. That might sound like a fair enough charge to rabid leftist, but most will recognize that’s the sort of activity expected during a transition. Indeed, no one squawked when Trump said, back in February, it was Flynn’s job to make those calls.

          Which likely explains why ABC News screwed up when they couched their story as “candidate Trump directed”, because that would suggest influencing when he had no obvious role to do so. But then ABC News had to issue a correction, because the guilty plea is about conversations with the Russian Ambassador less than a month prior to inauguration. Even ABC News realized if their was a story about Russian collusion and meddling with the elections, it would have to be about candidate Trump, and that there is no there there with a President-Elect Trump.

          It still doesn’t make sense for Flynn to lie about doing his job, but then the record seems to suggest Flynn has trouble with the truth. It doesn’t speak well of Trumps vetting operations, but Trump did fire the guy the moment he learned Flynn lied to Pence. Oddly, the Left seem to think a serial liar will make for a star witness for a high crime that has yet to be identified.

          1. “… but Trump did fire the guy the moment he learned Flynn lied to Pence.”

            Well, 18 days after he learned about it, but who’s counting?

          2. “Apparently you are, so why do you find that information valuable?”

            You apparently considered the circumstances valuable enough to write that, “Trump did fire the guy the moment he learned Flynn lied to Pence” despite reports to the contrary. Most people appreciate knowing of their errors, though few enjoy being told, hence the humorous tag.

          3. I don’t consider 18 days to be significant to my comment. It’s roughly two weeks notice to complete a transition, which isn’t anything special or extraordinary.

            Why is 18 days significant to you?

          4. If find it significant only in the context of your “the moment he learned”.

            So it is irrelevant other than you think I got it wrong.

            Would it help you to know that your count was wrong? That it was only 17 days, not 18. That’s greater than a 5% difference, only a 2 sigma variance.

            Some would say that it significant, but that’s only people who think counting days means something, which you do. So now that you were off in your recollection of events, why do you try to remember those events? What do those 17 days mean to you? Why are they so important to you, yet you can’t actually remember what the count was for something you were counting?

          5. Jeez Leland, what’s your problem? Are you reliving a traumatic experience from childhood where your psyche was bruised when a teacher had the temerity to use a red pen to correct your worksheet?

            Thank you for your correction; I truly appreciate it. I believe the that 18 days was counting from the date Acting Attorney General Yates informed White House Counsel McGahn. Mr. McGahn must then have informed the president the following day, and in the context of your remark that is what should be counted.

          6. Again, I have no problem. I’ve stated from the beginning I don’t find any significance to your post about the days. I’m starting to find no significance any anything you post, but you could always change.

            I’ve asked you to tell me the significance, and it seems the only importance to you is in correcting me. It seems an irrelevant correction unless the days have some significance, but you have yet to provide the significance.

            Let me ask you this, do you often count things that have no value? Do you regularly interject comments that have no value into conversations?

            By the way, how does McGahn finding out equate to the same time Trump finding out? You mention the context of my comment; and remember, my context is that 17 or 18 days is insignificant. Are you suggesting that one day is insignificantly different, but 17 or 18 is? Because I counted none of those days, but you did and thought them important. Why is one day unimportant to you, but 18 days are?

      1. You have the right to remain silent. Do you understand this right?


        Apparently you don’t. You just waved them!

  4. What I don’t get is why, after the deep state is so blatantly revealed, the majority doesn’t prosecute to the limit? The fix wasn’t just in, it was multi-layer and known.

    BTW, I did type the ‘i in waived… I’m blaming my cheap laptop keyboard.

  5. Why did Flynn lie to the FBI? IMHO, that’s the key question, because what he lied about was not a crime. Normally, one lies to the FBI to avoid prosecution, but that motive is absent in this case.

    So, why did he lie? I think the answer lies in the timing. Flynn was interviewed by the FBI just days after taking office. He’d already lied to Pence (and maybe Trump). And what he lied to the FBI about was mainly related to what he’d lied to Pence about. So, I postulate that his motive for lying was that he wanted to conceal the fact he’d lied to Pence, because if that was revealed, he could be fired for it (as indeed he was, shortly thereafter).

    As an aside on Flynn, Muller has neatly undermined Flynn’s usefulness as a witness. Attempting to use Flynn’s testimony now amounts to, “Hey, jury, listen to what this convicted liar has to say. We sure think he’s a liar because we charged him with it, and he thinks he’s a liar because he plead guilty, but you can believe everything he says!”

    1. I agree that Flynn is a non-credible witness. Further, if Mueller can’t explain why Flynn lied; then I think that open question adds to the “he’s just a liar notion”. Its almost as if he can’t help but lie for any reason, which makes him an even worse witness.

  6. More analysis from Alan Dershowitz, with something I do think significant:

    The second question is why did Mueller charge Flynn only with lying? The last thing a prosecutor ever wants to do is to charge a key witness with lying.

    A witness such as Flynn who has admitted he lied — whether or not to cover up a crime — is a tainted witness who is unlikely to be believed by jurors who know he’s made a deal to protect himself and his son.

    This makes it seem, well here is more from the article:

    I think it may be a show of weakness on the part of the special counsel rather than a sign of strength.

    1. I can imagine we’re all over analyzing. Perhaps Mueller just got this well paid gig fall into his lap with an unlimited budget and he’s just milking it for all it’s worth? Not only is there no there, there to the subject, but also no there, there to the investigation?

      Stranger things have happened.

  7. This takes the whole notion of a Logan Act violation completely off the table. It’s not just an archaic law that may be unconstitutional and almost never enforced, but Trump was right that Flynn was doing his job as admitted by the Obama Administration State Department at the time Flynn was doing his job.

  8. It would be useful to know what the actual lies were. Is there a transcript of the conversation? Not all lies are equal.

    1. Maybe he told them that he provided all the work related emails to them, and the other emails were about Chelsey’s wedding or Yoga.

      No wait, that can’t be it, because apparently you can lie to the FBI about stuff like that, even to this particular FBI Agent, and he won’t care at all, even if the deleted emails are later found on the laptop of man solicited sex from a minor and the emails marked classified.

      So you can bet these were pretty big lies.

    2. Huh… the WSJ wrote this:

      This specific charge is surprising because, as a seasoned intelligence officer, Mr. Flynn had to know that the U.S. would be listening to Mr. Kislyak’s conversations and have transcripts. CNN reported on Feb. 17 that “the FBI interviewers believed Flynn was cooperative and provided truthful answers,” even though he first said sanctions were not discussed and later said he couldn’t recall.

      A Congressional source also tells us that former FBI director James Comey told the House Intelligence Committee on March 2 that his agents had concluded that Mr. Flynn hadn’t lied but had forgotten what had been discussed. Perhaps the FBI changed its view.

      BTW, I keep reading this “Mr. Flynn had to know the US would be listening”, because that right there is BS. First, it is an assertion of what he must know. Hillary apparently had no criminal intent, but we can tell you what Mr. Flynn actually knew. Second, accepting the premise that Flynn knew because of his background, he also knew something else; his name would be masked to other agencies that didn’t have a need to know. The FBI didn’t need to know unless there was a crime to investigate. In this case, the “crime” came afterwards, after the unmasking, which provided the evidence of a lie. The FBI later didn’t “need to know”, because Obama changed the regulation and said that unmasked information could be shared. Obama floated the idea of sharing on 26 Dec 16 just after Flynn met with the Russian Ambassador, and then made it official in January.

Comments are closed.