Nancy is correct to emphasize that it’s quite possible, likely even, that many folks are drawing the wrong conclusions from the fact that Michael Flynn is seeking immunity before he’s willing to talk again to the FBI or testify before Congress. All it definitely means is that there’s a high probability that Flynn will invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Whether he has something worthy of a trade for immunity is a separate matter. In other words, some folks are willing to say that they’re eager to talk to Congress, and others are warning that they’ll clam up real tight if called or subpoenaed to testify. Flynn is in the latter camp, and for obvious reasons.
If he was ever in any doubt about it, he now knows with a certainty that he’s been the subject of a multiagency counterintelligence investigation since at least July of last year. He’s seen the allegations made against him in the Steele dossier. If those things weren’t terrifying enough, he apparently was “less then forthcoming” with the FBI when they questioned him about the content of his communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. It’s also increasingly clear that even if the Intelligence Community and, in particular, the CIA didn’t see him as potential turncoat and Putin-controlled mole, he attempted to make war on them and lost.
His legal vulnerabilities are therefore huge and his enemies determined, which makes it less than helpful that he’s been caught dead to rights failing to report payments from the Russian government for his travel to Moscow to meet with and fête Vladimir Putin, nor to divulge that he was taking money from Turkey and was therefore serving as an agent of a foreign power. One might imagine that he’s committed perjury by paperwork on these issues as he got himself cleared to work as Trump’s National Security Adviser.
And then there’s the possibility that he could actually be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit kidnapping, which he had the lack of foresight to engage in in the presence of a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Former Central Intelligence Agency Director James Woolsey told CNN Friday that former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn met with representatives of the Turkish government in 2016 and discussed potential ways to send a foe of Turkey’s president back to face charges in that country,
As a representative of his consulting firm, Flynn Intel Group, Flynn met with senior representatives of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government in September 2016, Woolsey said. Woolsey was a Trump campaign adviser at the time and attended the meeting, but said he arrived after it was already well underway.
Woolsey claims that those present discussed sending Fethullah Gulen, a Muslim leader who Erdogan has accused of being behind a failed military coup to overthrow him, back to Turkey to face charges — possibly outside the legal US extradition system.
“What I saw and heard was sort of the end of the conversation — it’s not entirely clear what transpired because of that,” Woolsey said on “CNN Tonight” with Don Lemon. “But it looks as if there was at least some strong suggestion by one or more of the Americans present at the meeting that we would be able, the United States would be able, through them, to be able to get hold of Gulen, the rival for Turkey’s political situation.”
If a president could be impeached for lack of judgment, Trump’s decision to name Flynn as his National Security Adviser would be sufficient to remove him from power. It’s hard to gauge how crippling it would be to the administration for Flynn to discuss all of his criminal and potentially criminal activities in front of Congress. And that’s before he might divulge anything about Trump or his campaign or any coordination with the Russians.
Needless to say, if the FBI wants Flynn to talk, they have enough potential jail time to wave in front of him to make him sing like a canary. The question is, can Flynn help them enough in their counterintelligence investigation to make it worth trading away a bunch of convictions, some of which would be very easy to prove?
Some people have suggested that only by implicating Trump could he give the FBI a bigger scalp, but the FBI’s interest in understanding the facts and the scope and the nature of Russia’s tactics could be enough of an enticement to get them to talk about immunity. If that would tend to exonerate or vindicate Trump, it might still be good enough.
However, with so much criminal liability, Flynn won’t want to commit more perjury. So, either he’s going to keep quiet and take his medicine or he’s going to tell what he knows.
And that can’t be a comfort to Team Trump.
If he were insanely lucky, me might trick Congress into immunizing him against prosecution the same way that Congress inadvertently immunized Oliver North and John Poindexter against prosecution. I could definitely see Rep. Devin Nunes being a willing collaborator in that effort. But, that would still involve him testifying before Congress about everything, which could also destroy the Trump administration even if it saved Flynn’s hide. And, in any case, Nunes can’t give Flynn immunity unilaterally.
The best case for Trump is that Flynn invokes the Fifth Amendment and goes to jail without doing them any further damage. And he might do that if he can’t cut a deal.
Of course, a plea bargain may be the best he can negotiate, since there are so many looming charges against him.
So, no, the fact that Flynn has sought immunity doesn’t mean that he’s about to drop a dime on President Trump. But it does mean that Trump’s presidency is in a world of trouble.
Personally I’m more interested with digging into the sources. Kushner and Bannon got Trump to save Cohen-Watnick’s job as he was using his NSC position to hunt for things to substantiate Trumps wiretapping lie.
That’s important, but probably a side show.
It’s a side show that can illuminate a lot, though.
I can go all the way back to two Decembers ago and find quotes from the Intelligence Community indicating that they were enraged by Flynn’s flirtations with Moscow and suspected him of disloyalty.
I am certain that their suspicions only grew, and then they were verified by the British dossier.
For Trump to name this man as National Security Adviser was the the unwisest thing he could have done, and he’s been destroyed by that decision more than any other.
I’m interested in the insight that the inner circle may not just have stopped at looking into the material to find cover for Trump’s tweets, but that they may have been using the WH access to keep tabs on the DoJ and FBI investigations, even CIA of the Trump organizations. Hell, they may even have been passing what information they found on to Flynn since he seemed to be a Trump favorite.
v.v.
I mean fair’s fair.
discussion of charges and plea bargains seems to be assuming that one of Trump’s US Attorneys will start a prosecution that will greatly embarrass Trump.
That’s correct.
He lost that battle when Sessions lied at his confirmation hearings and had to recuse himself.
Yep, Sessions opened the door of the clown car and now the clowns are loose. I want Manafort, Stone, and Kushner to testify before Flynn. They might just try to dump everything on Flynn which then might discourage him form being the good soldier that would have fell on the sword for the donald.
One thing I didn’t mention is that the Trump-aligned National Enquirer just labeled Flynn a “KGB turncoat” and “White House spy” who Trump “caught.”
That sent a message to Flynn how he would be treated if need be.
Oh, my! I’d spotted that “Trump caught a Russian spy!” headline in the supermarket checkout line and hadn’t bothered to pursue it further. Flynn must know enough to do a lot of damage if they’re going after him like that.
Really? The Enquirer ran a false story? They do that in their sleep. In fact, it’s sort of their raison d’etre. It wouldn’t have cost Trump any more than running down to the corner for a hot pastrami. Less, probably.
But I doubt they’d have bothered if there was nothing to worry about for their hero Trump, would just ignore the whole Russian thing and hope it goes away.
Yeah, it’s not like they’re Weekly World News. Their fake news can have a purpose.
I am not a lawyer, and, it seems, less well educated in Civics 101 than I had thought. Can a U.S. Attorney conduct a prosecution without the approval of the Attorney General? How about in the face of a prohibition from the AG? In other words, if the AG sends him a letter on DoJ letterhead, saying, “In my official capacity as Attorney General of the United States of America and your boss, I command you to stop,” could the U.S. Attorney go ahead with the prosecution? I understand the U.S.A.s serve “at the pleasure of the President,” and he can fire them any time, but how about when they’re in the middle of a serious criminal prosecution? Can their subordinates carry on with the investigation/prosecution after they’re fired? We’re sure getting an education on the nuts and bolts of some government agencies.
Nancy is correct to emphasize that it’s quite possible, likely even, that many folks are drawing the wrong conclusions from the fact that Michael Flynn is seeking immunity before he’s willing to talk again to the FBI or testify before Congress.
Do people not remember that a certain someone connected to the “EMAILZ!!” demanded immunity? It’s also weird that Flynn’s lawyer was all over Twitter last year saying he was voting for Egg McMuffin and saying bad things about Cheeto. I’ll be surprised if anything comes of this besides Flynn paying a decent-sized fine.
Is this because you think the DOJ is captured by Trump?
Because, unless that is the case, and it would cause widespread and very public resignations at the DOJ and FBI, there’s no chance that Flynn can escape all the charges against him without providing a lot of evidence.
As I mentioned, the fact the FBI is primarily concerned with the counterintelligence aspects of this case means that they aren’t necessary going to need a bigger fish to prosecute, but they will need a lot more clarity about how the collusion worked.
When do people of Flynn’s stature go to jail? Did Petraeus? Flynn has a high-powered lawyer. I’ll celebrate if Flynn spends time in jail, I just don’t think it’s going to happen.
Flynn’s not going to say anything and get hit with either contempt of congress or something else via FBI and pardoned by Trump
Dunno about the pardon, he might very well not want to do that. I seem to remember that the Cubans who were part of the Plumbers who were arrested that night at the Watergate ended up in jail but were assured their families would be taken care of and they would get a suitable reward when they got out as long as they kept their mouths shut. I also think I remember, but this is shakier, that they complained bitterly afterward that the promises were not kept.
As a representative of his consulting firm, Flynn Intel Group, Flynn met with senior representatives of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government in September 2016, Woolsey said. Woolsey was a Trump campaign adviser at the time and attended the meeting, but said he arrived after it was already well underway.
From my recent diary …
○ Flynn Intel Group / Woolsey and Turkish Lobby
Flynn Intel Group ‘s sole office closed down in November 2016, a filing as foreign agent for Turkey was made retroactively.
From FIG filing:
Date Received Foreign Principal Purpose Amount
09/09/2016 Inovo BV Consulting $200,000.00
10/11/2016 Inovo BV Consulting $185,000.00
11/14/2016 Inovo BV Consulting $145,000.00
○ Highly Decorated Gen. Mike Flynn Willing to Testify
AFAIK, Flynn hasn’t even done his “Queen for a Day” run yet.
Prosecutors are very, very careful about giving immunity, though the feds hand it out more often than state prosecutors. And this is an opening gambit.
I would expect he’ll get a deal that involves a plea to at least one charge, and a pass on the more serious stuff. He is probably a gold mine on the Trump campaign’s activities. And if he gets probation, he can ask for permission to leave the country. Then he can hook up with Snowden in Moscow.
Pity Kim Philby’s dead. They could have hung out.
I have a vague memory of people being prosecuted in the 1960s for conspiracy for being in a room where someone said, “Hey, let’s kidnap Henry Kissinger,” and someone else said, “Nah. That’d be stupid.”