The Flynn Deals; it ain't over

As supporters of Donald Trump fume over alleged FBI perfidy in "persecuting" Mike Flynn, it is useful to remember that his indictment  (and subsequent conviction) for lying to the FBI was the result of his agreement to plead guilty to the least charge in exchange for cooperating with the government as it investigated Russian involvement in the 2016 election and related matters. 

Flynn faced a plethora of other, more serious, charges, some of which would have included his son. Among those charges: lying on financial disclosure documents he submitted prior to assuming his position as Trump's National Security Advisor (a felony). As a former intelligence agency head and retired general officer, he traveled to Russia, accepted compensation from Russia Today and failed to notify the Department of Defense and Director of National Intelligence before and after the trip. He also failed to include the compensation on his renewal application for a security clearance (more felonies). He failed to disclose his lobbying work for a Turkish owned consulting firm with close ties to the Turkish government until after he was fired from his White House post and was under investigation by the FBI (possibly a felony). 

But wait, there's more. In a September 2016 meeting with Turkish government officials attended by former Director of Central Intelligence James Woolsey, Flynn is alleged (by Woolsey) to have discussed forcibly detaining and renditioning Fethullah Gulen, a dissident scholar accused by Turkey's president of plotting a coup against him. Turkey had requested Gulen's extradition and was rejected because the application did not pass muster on it's merits by the Obama Justice Department, and is still rejected by Trump's Justice Department. Fethullah Gulen is a legal resident of the United States, so Woolsey's accusation -- if substantiated -- puts Flynn in the way of conspiracy to kidnap charge (a very serious felony). 

So before shedding tears over Mike Flynn's treatment by the FBI, consider this possibility. They didn't really want to go after someone with Flynn's record of service, but confronted with crimes committed -- possibly in fits of impetuosity and ignorance of the law; attributes those of us who've known and worked with/for Mike Flynn are very familiar with -- had little choice, and tried to give him the best deal they could.

Flynn got a good deal out of the FBI and the Special Counsel. He's probably gotten very bad advice from his current legal counsel. The Attorney General's decision to drop charges agaist him after he has already pled guilty (twice) and attested to his crimes, under oath, in court, is irregular and quite possibly irrelevant. The judge presiding over his case, Judge Emmett Sullivan, is the arbiter. And he isn't happy with Flynn or his lawyers, or William Barr, Esquire. 

It ain't over.