The Flynn Case Confuses Me

For John, BLUF:  If the press tries to sweep this Flynn imbroglio under the rug it will just make them look bad.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Neverending, Mysterious Saga of Michael Flynn

From American Greatness, by Professor Victor Davis Hanson, 23 December 2018.

Here is the lede plus four:

Certainly, no one should defend a top-ranking federal employee’s lying to federal investigators or to his superiors in the Trump Administration, if that is what former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn did, as evidenced by his own confession.

Note if Flynn lied to President Trump or Vice President Mike Pence about details of his private conversations, then that is unethical and understandably should be grounds for dismissal. The distinction, however, is whether Flynn deserved to be fired or to be in jail.

What put Flynn in legal jeopardy were the general’s statements to FBI investigators that purportedly were false, and allegedly given deliberately to mislead two federal investigators.

I express doubt here only because of media reports and leaks that Special Counsel Robert Mueller later either pressured Flynn for a confession, by strategies of financial exhaustion or leveraged him by threats to indict his son, or both.

Without that pressure, one wonders how Flynn might have explained his earlier alleged inconsistencies in recounting a private off the record conversation with a foreign diplomatic official to two FBI officials. That is, had he had adequate legal resources or not faced prosecutorial threats to indict his son, would he have later claimed that months earlier that he had been dishonest to Peter Strzok and his fellow FBI investigator?

I think Judge Emmet Sullivan smells a rat.

The Special Counsel investigation by Mr Robert Mueller has uncovered veniality in several places, but seems not to have uncovered a smoking gun with regard to Russian collusion.  Is it out there?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff