What the Flynn Plea Means

National Review ^

[springwater13]

While initial reporting is portraying Flynn’s guilty plea as a major breakthrough in Mueller’s investigation of potential Trump-campaign collusion with the Russian regime, I suspect the opposite is true.

Nevertheless, as I explained in connection with George Papadopoulos (who also pled guilty in Mueller’s investigation for lying to the FBI), when a prosecutor has a cooperator who was an accomplice in a major criminal scheme, the cooperator is made to plead guilty to the scheme. This is critical because it proves the existence of the scheme. In his guilty-plea allocution (the part of a plea proceeding in which the defendant admits what he did that makes him guilty), the accomplice explains the scheme and the actions taken by himself and his co-conspirators to carry it out. This goes a long way toward proving the case against all of the subjects of the investigation. That is not happening in Flynn’s situation.

Instead, like Papadopoulos, he is being permitted to plead guilty to a mere process crime. A breaking report from ABC News indicates that Flynn is prepared to testify that Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians — initially to lay the groundwork for mutual efforts against ISIS in Syria. That, however, is exactly the sort of thing the incoming national-security adviser is supposed to do in a transition phase between administrations. If it were part of the basis for a “collusion” case arising out of Russia’s election meddling, then Flynn would not be pleading guilty to a process crime — he’d be pleading guilty to an espionage conspiracy.

[Az Joe]

This will turn out to be very small potatoes. It sounds like Flynn was led into a perjury trap, not to excuse his lies, but he was set up.

[Az Joe]

PERJURY TRAP

“The whole idea is basically the prosecutorial equivalent of digging a hole, putting some twigs and leaves over it and saying, `Come on, come on, come on, walk this way,”’ a former prosecutor said.

Perjury traps have become a popular tactic among independent counsels: if they can’t prove the alleged crime they were appointed to investigate, they indict suspects for lying to investigators. But the traps are effective only because independent counsels have succeeded over the past few decades in expanding the lying laws far beyond their historical roots.

[Bob434]

not sure what you mean, but i just figured out what happened- must have hit the “Headers” link at the top of the articles list- clicked on text- now the excerpts are showing up again

[SunkenCiv]

Flynn is prepared to testify that Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians — initially to lay the groundwork for mutual efforts against ISIS in Syria. That, however, is exactly the sort of thing the incoming national-security adviser is supposed to do in a transition phase between administrations.

[Fitzy_888]

Gen. Michael Flynn Pleads Guilty | Lionel and Stefan Molyneux
https://youtu.be/DmSXnnH3cpE

[Fitzy_888]

It’s actually worse than what we think of as perjury.

In a court of law you must be found to have lied about something material to “the case” to be charged with perjury.

Conversely, there is no such standard for lying to a federal agent. The FBI can conduct a fishing expedition over the course of five interviews, they might discover an inconsistency that is completely irrelevant to the case and you can still be charged.

Let’s say your a witness to a drive-by shooting on the corner of Broadway and First Street. In court your asked where I was coming from. You lie and say you had been at a work meeting, when you were actually having an interlude with your mistress. That’s not perjury in court, because it’s not material to your testimony about what you saw. However, that is more than enough for the FBI to charge you, even though it’s not remotely or in any way material to what happened on the corner of Broadway and First Street.

[Az Joe]

Agreed. I think Flynn got caught up in something like you describe and/or was greatly fearful about his son being charged.

[greeneyes]

This case has impressed upon me, once again, that it is imperitive to exercise the 5th amendment. You have a right to remain silent.

Furthermore, if you and your attorney agree to answer questions, precede each one with the phrase: I could be mistaken, but to the best of my recollection-——.

[qaz123]

Agreed.

I went back and forth with someone the other day, who stated that cops make those charges all the time. As I made my case, the response was that in smaller jurisdictions, cases like that are made all the time, because the cops don’t have as much going on, whereas, working in a major city, like I did, that stuff would clog the system.

My response was, that if I had ever brought a, False Statements charge to Superior Court, as my sole charge, I’d be laughed out of the courtroom and the judge would probably recommend a lawyer to have me sued for false arrest. That is, if I could even get a warrant for such a ridiculous charge, which is highly unlikely.

If the Feds didn’t have, 18 USC 1001, a good deal of their cases would never see the inside of a courtroom.

I was recently interviewed for a security clearance. After introductions, the first thing I was told was that I could be charged under that code section. Of course, that could have come from the recent arrest of Reality Winner and others, but I was a little surprised by it.