What the Flynn Plea Means

Andrew C. McCarthy

"There’s less to the news than meets the eye", in spite of Joy Behar's glee on "The View".

. . . "Obviously, it was wrong of Flynn to give the FBI false information; he could, after all, have simply refused to speak with the agents in the first place. That said, as I argued early this year, it remains unclear why the Obama Justice Department chose to investigate Flynn. There was nothing wrong with the incoming national-security adviser’s having meetings with foreign counterparts or discussing such matters as the sanctions in those meetings. Plus, if the FBI had FISA recordings of Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak, there was no need to ask Flynn what the conversations entailed. 

"Flynn, an early backer of Donald Trump and a fierce critic of Obama’s national-security policies, was generally despised by Obama administration officials. Hence, there has always been cynical suspicion that the decision to interview him was driven by the expectation that he would provide the FBI with an account inconsistent with the recorded conversation — i.e., that Flynn was being set up for prosecution on a process crime." . . . Read more

Ammoland

Thomas Lifson: Flynn pleads guilty in plea deal with Mueller  . . . "Flynn already is a proven liar and was fired for lying to Vice President Pence.  His word is not worth much.  There would have to be corroborative evidence to convict Trump of anything.  But absence of evidence would not stop the demands for impeachment.  Give the Democrats control of the House next year, and impeachment is what we'll get.

"During the transition, then-president Obama famously said, "There's only one president."  This may be what is seized upon to demand Trump's impeachment and indictment for the Logan Act.  Nobody ever has been prosecuted for violating it, much less convicted.  But Mueller conceivably could do so.

"There will also be plenty of calls for indictment for treason."