I don’t think its unfair to observe that it appears that he has done some things that are clearly illegal. And he is free to ask for immunity for those offenses in trade for information. But he does not get to trade for unknown information, and I don’t believe that he thinks he will be given immunity for poor or inconsequential information. Its clear that this kind of immunity is given for information that aids in identifying and convicting criminals.
And Flynn knows this well, and if not the lawyer who is advising him knows it well. So the fact that he is asking for immunity while simultaneously suggesting via his lawyer that there is nothing there, means its a publicity stunt to make him look cooperative preying on the publics unfamiliarity with such terms, or its a friendly pitch to a conspiring GOP who could grant him the immunity and then say “oh well, nothing to incriminate the president there”.
You’re quoting someone quoting Flynn’s words, and I’ve been having some trouble figuring out which quote-level you’re responding to.
If you’d be so kind, could you clarify your intent: When you say “this” in the section I’ve quoted above, I assume you’re talking about the meta-quote; what Flynn said to NBC news about other people being given immunity and therefore probably having committed a crime? That is, you’re stating that Flynn’s on-record comments are misleading and logically invalid, and the immunity granted to the people he was talking about was actually 100% non-evidence of their guilt. Am I interpreting your intent correctly, or have I misread your comment?
The quote is Flynn from the news article fuzzyfungus linked, which was BBC quoting something he said to NBC.
My statement (under oath, hand on grandma’s bible) is that in the abstract, knowing how law enforcement acts, asking for immunity is not logically equivalent to admitting guilt. No more, no less. Even taking lava’s concerns into account, bluffing isn’t admitting guilt either. I’d probably prefer he not be given immunity, but that’s for the intelligence community to decide if he has anything worth knowing that they wouldn’t otherwise get out of him.
I would hope they at least have a candid conversation that IF they give him immunity, and his information is lacking anything that actually makes any kind of case for the investigation to continue, he’s playing them and NO deal. IF he has nothing, he gets nothing, except a summons. And when he has been quoted linking guilt with immunity seeking, the fact he now is the one seeking immunity, makes it nearly a requirement to dog him with his own quote.
