SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has reportedly offered to testify about President Trump's campaign and Russia:
President Trump's former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has reportedly told the FBI that he is willing to testify about the Trump campaign's potential ties to Russia, in exchange for immunity from prosecution, the Wall Street Journal reported.
Flynn resigned in February, after it was reported that he misled White House staff on his interactions with Russia and had discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak ahead of President Trump's inauguration. The Journal reported, citing officials familiar with the matter, that the FBI and the House and Senate Intelligence committees that are investigating Russia's attempts to interfere in the U.S. election have not taken his lawyers up on the offer.
Flynn's lawyer said in a statement that "General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should the circumstances permit."
[...] In September, criticizing Hillary Clinton over former aides being given immunity deals as part of an investigation into her private email server, Flynn said, "When you're given immunity that means you've probably committed a crime."
Also at the LA Times, the Washington Post, Bloomberg, NYT, and Politico.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by wisnoskij on Friday March 31 2017, @01:45PM (25 children)
That is a very creative way to frame the statement made. The entire statement was made in the context of The 5th. He will not volunteer to talk people who are trying to build a criminal case against him and who he claims have been spreading lies and rumors about him. He wants to tell him side of the story, with respect to the "claims of treason" against himself but will not do so in front of a combative congress whose only goal would be to build a case against HIM.
Quoting the entirely of the meat of the statement:
Notwithstanding his life of national service, the media are awash with unfounded allegations,
outrageous claims of treason, and vicious innuendo directed against him [Flynn]. He is now the target of
unsubstantiated public demands by Members of Congress and other political critics that he be
criminally investigated. No reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel,
would submit to questioning in such a highly politicized, witch hunt environment without
assurances against unfair prosecution.
March 30, 2017
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @02:07PM (12 children)
It's so sad that one needs to turn to "alternative media" to actually start getting access to even the simple and complete facts behind these stories. And yeah, what you said is correct - though incomplete. Here is the entire release from his lawyer:
Counsel to Lt. General Mike Flynn (Retired)
General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should the circumstances permit.
Out of respect for the Committees, we will not comment right now on the details of discussions between counsel for General Flynn and the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, other than to confirm that those discussions have taken place. But it is important to acknowledge the circumstances in which those discussions are occurring.
General Flynn is a highly decorated 33-year veteran of the U.S. Army. He devoted most of his life to serving his country, spending many years away from his family fighting this nation's battles around the world. He was awarded four Bronze Stars for actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the war on terror. He received the Legion of Merit twice, and the Defense Superior Service Medal four times. He is a recipient of the Defense Department's Distinguished Service Award and the Intelligence Community Gold Seal Medallion for Distinguished Service, as well as numerous other decorations.
Notwithstanding his life of national service, the media are awash with unfounded allegations, outrageous claims of treason, and vicious innuendo directed against him. He is now the target of unsubstantiated public demands by Members of Congress and other political critics that he be criminally investigated. No reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicized, witch hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution.
Sourced from zerohedge [zerohedge.com]. Not a fan of the source, but they're obviously not fabricating this and they were one of the only sources reporting the actual text of Flynn's "offer." The other being the Boston Globe but they were behind some sort of a registration wall. The way I sought out the entire report was by googling for the first statement of the quote, "Notwithstanding his life of national service, the media are awash with unfounded allegations." Searching for that and seeing how the so called mainstream media is in no way reporting what was actually said is eye opening.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Friday March 31 2017, @03:03PM (9 children)
I actually got the full statement from CNN, since that is the first result Google returned. CNN just assumed that few would read the entire statement and 99% would just believe anything they told them even with the evidence against their statements just 1 inch down the screen. A very ballsy move, but it always works well for them.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @04:04PM (3 children)
What did you search for? Searching for what I mentioned (logged out - clean cache) I get bostonglobe, zerohedge, abcnews.go.com, talkingpointsmemo, businessinsider.de, bustle.com, etc. The ABC article ( http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/flynn-talks-testify-congress-seeking-assurances-unfair-prosecution/story?id=46478140 [go.com] ) had the quote embedded in parts, but was refreshingly impartial otherwise. Zerohedge was the only site that had the quote readily and directly available.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Friday March 31 2017, @04:12PM (1 child)
"flynn lawyer statement"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @04:18PM
Thanks, yeah I also get cnn's link there with zerohedge in second. I do quite like CNN says, literally and verbatim, "This is the statement released by Michael Flynn's lawyer, which says the former National Security Adviser will testify before federal and congressional investigators in their ongoing probe into Russian meddling in the US elections, but only if he's granted immunity." above it. Geeze. I remember in college watching CNN and feeling like I'd grown up in a way and was starting to become in tune with matters of the world. Hahahah. In my defense, I don't think they'd jumped the shark quite so bad back then!
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday April 02 2017, @02:30AM
The Boston Globe did carry the full statement:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/03/30/read-statement-mike-flynn-lawyer/6L09AKaYKmihEgHlXxTWUM/story.html [bostonglobe.com]
Apart from white space and "U.S." vs. "US" it is identical to what was quoted from Zero Hedge in comment #487083.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday April 02 2017, @02:47AM (4 children)
The CNN links, in case anyone else is trying to follow along:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/31/politics/michael-flynn-lawyer-statement/ [cnn.com]
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politics/michael-flynn-immunity-testimony/index.html [cnn.com]
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/3533241/Statement-of-Counsel-to-Mike-Flynn.txt [amazonaws.com]
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/3533241/Statement-of-Counsel-to-Mike-Flynn.pdf [amazonaws.com]
The .txt version is identical to what's posted in comment #487083.
> [...] the evidence against their statements [...]
What do you mean by that?
Are you, as the AC who made comment #487139 perceived, making some distinction between "immunity" (CNN's word) and "assurances against unfair prosecution" (from the statement)? Forgive me for repeating what someone else wrote, but I notice that you didn't answer that commenter. "Immunity" seems to me an accurate paraphrase.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Sunday April 02 2017, @03:34AM (3 children)
On the off chance you are not trolling.
The article states, like so many others, Flynn is looking for immunity to testify against Trump.
While the statement is clear that Flynn is very interested in refuting allegations of treason and misconduct by himself, but not front of a media or congress who are only interested in a witch hunt.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday April 02 2017, @07:39AM (2 children)
So you interpret the statement not as a request for "assurances against unfair prosecution" but rather as asking for an end to the "highly politicized, witch hunt environment" in which Mr. Flynn finds himself?
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Sunday April 02 2017, @11:48AM (1 child)
Somewhat, but I was mainly focusing on his stated goal of refuting allegations about himself, while the articles all state or imply his goal is to spill the beans on presidential misconduct.
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Sunday April 02 2017, @03:02PM
Ah, thanks for explaining.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @08:32PM (1 child)
Your zerohedge site is a nazi fake news site. What the fuck is wrong with you?
If you want unbiased new feed, leave amerikan soil. BBC and Al Jazerra are but a couple good choices for unbiased journalism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @09:56PM
Best troll ever!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by wisnoskij on Friday March 31 2017, @02:23PM (1 child)
It really is a perfect example. Flynn worries that anything he says will be used against him, since he believes that the media and congress are on a witch hunt with him at the center. The media deceitfully quotes an excerpt from this statement to make it seem like he is trying to get a deal so that he can rat out the Trump administration.
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Friday March 31 2017, @07:17PM
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Friday March 31 2017, @02:29PM (5 children)
Then Mr. Flynn can be subpoenaed, brought to testify, take the 5'th, and let the public and Congress make what they will of it. Otherwise, he's just another Washington pussy - always ready to ask for special privileges when it suits them.
That is all.
(Score: 1) by Zipf on Friday March 31 2017, @02:54PM (3 children)
Can you plead the 5th if you have immunity?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fadrian on Friday March 31 2017, @03:42PM (2 children)
No. But again, that's sort of beside the point, which is that Mr. Flynn's fear of prosecution based on his testimony is groundless - he can always take the 5'th if he really fears that, and if he's innocent, the FBI investigation should find that out. Now if he does have stuff to hide or has actually violated the law, I'm sure the FBI investigation already has enough evidence to hang him. But that just makes the plea for immunity savvy - not particularly praiseworthy. In any case, I'm glad that pussy isn't anywhere near the hands of policy anymore - if he can't stand a few hours questioning from Congress, what else could he have caved on... What a Washington pussy.
That is all.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday March 31 2017, @05:56PM
Yeah, didn't these people ever watch Dave Chappelle [youtube.com]?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @07:10PM
No. But again, that's sort of beside the point, which is that Mr. Flynn's fear of prosecution based on his testimony is groundless - he can always take the 5'th if he really fears that, and if he's innocent, the FBI investigation should find that out. Now if he does have stuff to hide or has actually violated the law, I'm sure the FBI investigation already has enough evidence to hang him. But that just makes the plea for immunity savvy - not particularly praiseworthy. In any case, I'm glad that pussy isn't anywhere near the hands of policy anymore - if he can't stand a few hours questioning from Congress, what else could he have caved on... What a Washington pussy.
Because we all know if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. I mean, if you aren't a member of the Communist Party, you have nothing to worry about from McCarthy's innocent questions, right?
Personally I think Flynn is guilty of all sorts of things, potentially including treason ("adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"). That being said, I have no concrete evidence of it, and that whole "presumption of innocence" thing applies so I'll need to side with him.
I could see a kangaroo-court inquiry, trying to railroad a completely innocent man, undergoing proceedings superficially similar to this one. If we condemn Flynn's actions here as "obvious evidence of guilt," then we ourselves will have no defense if the Trump Administration starts attacking each and every one of us.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @06:47PM
Of course, when Hillary staffer plead the 5th on email it was no big deal. If he does it that means that Trump is a Russian Plant!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @04:15PM (3 children)
> assurances against unfair prosecution.
You seem really hung up on the fact that the letter didn't literally use the word "immunity."
The law makes no distinction between "fair" and "unfair" prosecution.
That's just PR spin so hyper-partisans who are motivated to deny the obvious will have something to give them succor.
"Immunity" isn't a word that appears in the legal code.
What his lawyers are requesting is what is colloquially known as immunity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @04:56PM (2 children)
Dragging up a law that is literally more than 200 years old and under which again literally not a single person has ever been prosecuted to try to possibly convict somebody of doing something which is more or less standard practice is generally what most would call unfair prosecution. A similar thing happened during the Occupy Wallstreet protests. New York City had a law on the books, again more than 150 years old, on the books about it being illegal to wear a mask in the city going back to some tenant farmer uprising they were having. After its passage it went through about a century of completely disuse since it was just about the one specific issue which resolved a few years later. Nonetheless it was brought back up to give the city an excuse to go start arresting otherwise law abiding and peaceful Occupy Wallstreet protesters - they were wearing Guy Fawkes masks.
If you think these sort of things are about upholding the law and not political retribution, then I would say you might want to look in the mirror before calling others "hyper-partisans." One of the big failings of our system is that laws never expire allowing them to be exploited to malicious ends many decades after they should have been retired. So for instance simply requiring that any offense he be charged with be a law that has been 'regularly invoked' and is not for behavior generally seen as otherwise lawful would be a means of protecting himself against unfair prosecution without seeking outright immunity.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday March 31 2017, @06:10PM
The law against murder is also more than 200 years old. That doesn't make it not a good law to go after somebody about.
There was 1 indictment under the Logan Act, so it's not like the law has never ever been used. However, there's a good argument that the reason that it tends not to come up is that the people known to have broken that law end up being the very same people in charge of enforcing it and thus escaped prosecution due to corruption. A couple of major examples of this phenomenon:
- Richard Nixon and his staff sabotage LBJ's attempts to end the Vietnam War in 1968 [nytimes.com]
- Ronald Reagan and his staff sabotage Jimmy Carter's negotiations to try to get the Iranian hostages back in 1980 [washingtonreport.me]
What you are calling "standard practice" is that once a presidential election is over, the outgoing administration is supposed to hand off their foreign policy knowledge and duties to the incoming administration. Since both of those cases occurred before the election, and the accusations in this case also occurred before the election, that doesn't put it in the same category.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @06:17PM
> Dragging up a law that is literally more than 200 years old
So, you accept that he was asking for immunity. Good. Glad we cleared that up.
Now... Why do you hyper-partisans insist on making this about the logan act?
The guy lied to the FBI exactly the way he lied to Pence.
The logan act has nothing to do with that.