In the latest episode of Russiagate, General Mike Flynn supposedly has offered to testify in exchange for immunity from prosecution.

Mike Flynn, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, has told the Federal Bureau of Investigation and congressional officials investigating the Trump campaign’s potential ties to Russia that he is willing to be interviewed in exchange for a grant of immunity from prosecution, according to officials with knowledge of the matter.

The last sentence has the reek of #FakeNews on it, but this isn’t the first source that indicates that Flynn is thinking of doing this.  So it deserves consideration.

The two questions I have are these:

  1. Has Flynn actually committed any sort of crime?  The article mentions a violation of the Emoluments Clause, but I’m not aware of that being any sort of felony.  Was he bribed?
  2. What would he have to offer in exchange for immunity?  Former DNI James Clapper has already publicly stated that the Obama Administration found no evidence of collusion between the campaign and Putin’s government, though it sure looks like Flynn was writing checks his ass couldn’t cash from the wiretaps incidental intelligence collection we already know about.

Given that nobody is in any position to grant immunity to Flynn just yet, I’m going to have to withhold judgement on this story.  We’ll see what changes if he’s charged.

newest oldest
Notify of

Assuming that this isnt some kind of head fake…

I wonder if Comey ought to be worried about his job too…

mashav

Here’s a generous spin on this from his council: https://mobile.twitter.com/robkelner/status/847590575352270850/photo/1?

mashav

My favorite part of this:
“When you are given immunity, that means you have probably committed a crime.” – Michael Flynn, September 2016

mashav

That’s how I read that letter from his lawyer. Are you not seeing it that way?

Thrill

No, that’s not what “immunity” is. You can read it however you like, but it’s clear you guys are going to be disappointed by anything he has to say if he testifies.

mashav

You guys are behind, the real fake news is that Trump is considering resignation because of this. Using my usual 50/50 approach, I choose to interpret ‘assurance against unfair prosecution’ as asking for immunity from prosecution.

Zurvan

But….But…PUTIN!!

mashav

But he is not choosing not to testify. He is choosing to testify if they guarantee immunity from prosecution. You don’t have to be under investigation to get immunity. Someone else can be under investigation, you can offer to testify in exchange for immunity. Remember the SATs? Flynn is to staffer like Trump is to Clinton. Not sure how my quote was out of context? He was referring to Clinton staffers getting immunity before they would agree to testify, which, now that Flynn is trying to do it, is just a wise precaution, right? Look, I don’t believe that Trump… Read more »

I think it’s pretty clear by this point that Flynn has shown himself to be untrustworthy. There has been enough of a trickle of news about his prior associations that make me think the Feds would have some sort of case were it all to be laid bare. His motivations aren’t really clear though–does he resent Trump for firing him and wants vengeance? Is this a head fake to expose info indicting Obama? Is he just trying to innocently clear his name? Whatever the case, it will take the intelligence committee working through the proposition, considering what he really would… Read more »

Zurvan

You guys got yourself a Benghazi/but her emails level of scandal

This level of delusion is impressive. I’ve read the law. Even if I was a dyed in the wool Democrat, I would be forced to admit Clinton broke the law by putting classified email on a private server. Equating that to the absolute lack of proof of anything illegal going on in regards to Trump or Flynn is nuts.

Zurvan

Wow, I had not seen that video. She definitely alludes to the Obama Administration knowingly spying on Russia/Trump, which is what Trump claimed, and Obama denied. Why isn’t this bigger news? Context that is missing?

mashav

I love the logic that we don’t need to investigate Trump because there is no proof he did anything wrong.
Which law did Clinton break? Why did multiple investigations clear her? Why is she still not on trial, what with the GOP in control of both the executive and the legislative?
Is it Obama’s fault somehow?

mashav

First of all, the Democrats are doing something. They have literally just fired the whole DNC. I am not sure why you think the narrative is crumbling, though? More and more people are getting swept up into the story. Also keep in eye on Russia, itself. Interesting stuff going on which might either lead to blood on the streets or new people in power. One might make cozying up to Putin less palatable, the other might reveal some info. Either way, we live in interesting times. But it’s good to know that you plan to vote to re-elect the man… Read more »

mashav

I honestly don’t see what you guys are seeing. The woman is talking about the NYT article (your clip is edited, this is the article which they throw on the screen in the full clip – https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/obama-trump-russia-election-hacking.html?_r=0) and only saying that they spy on the Russians, they don’t want the Trump people to reveal the sources to the Russians or sweep the election tampering investigation under the rug. You are high if you think that somehow adds up to spying on Trump himself, or that she would be in a position to know about it, if it was happening. She… Read more »

mashav

Wasn’t Kushner getting swept up into the story? He met with Kilslyak? I am honestly paying way more attention to the stuff in Russia proper than to this.
What has Trump done that you would consider the right track? I am asking sincerely. Aside from making us look like idiots abroad, I have not seen much in the way of actual movement. What am I missing?

It looks like he won’t be getting a deal, at least from the Senate:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/senate-intelligence-committee-rejects-immunity-michael-flynn-n741061

he had to pee.?

Zurvan

I love the logic that we don’t need to investigate Trump because there is no proof he did anything wrong. Nowhere did I imply we shouldn’t investigate what happened between Flynn and the Russians. I did say there is zero actual evidence thus far that any law was broken, which is true. Which law did Clinton break? The Director of the FBI outlined that she did in fact have emails on her server that were classified at the time they were sent/received, that is without question, despite many liberals still not believing/knowing it. U.S. Code § 1924 Whoever, being an… Read more »

%d bloggers like this: