Flynn pleaded guilty, under oath. Under oath, he agreed that he did what he was accused of doing, and that his plea was free, knowing and voluntary.
Either Flynn was telling the truth when he pleaded guilty, or he was not. If he was not, he committed perjury. There is no “understandable motivation” defense to perjury, like “I lied to help my son.”
Why is his lawyer not contesting the validity of his plea? Because all the foregoing is true.
Sworn statements under oath, especially those made freely, knowingly and voluntarily, and intended to bring the end of litigation for all the parties involved, count for something. In effect, a person is saying, I do not want to litigate this matter further, including anything not presently known to me.
Flynn pleaded guilty, and then when judges changed, the new judge spent time confirming that Flynn did not want to withdraw his plea, and that FLYNN himself agreed that he was IN FACT guilty. So Flynn in effect pleaded guilty twice.
The government took the plea agreeing that Flynn should do no time. Now, the government has backed off that agreement.
If Flynn does any time for this conviction, then he received very poor advice in deciding to litigate matters which had little chance of finessing a guilty plea, and a great chance of getting Flynn incarcerated.
Or, of having the judge vacate the plea and setting the matter down for trial, re-opening all sorts of bad possibilities.
This will turn out with a spectacular win, or with the reality that Flynn was poorly advised.
If Flynn does any time for this conviction, then he received very poor advice in deciding to litigate matters which had little chance of finessing a guilty plea, and a great chance of getting Flynn incarcerated.
Flynn wasn’t receiving poor advice. He was set up by his lawyer. No doubt in my mind.