Also, Flynn.
Michael T. Flynn, President Trump’s first national security adviser, got a harsh warning from a federal judge on Tuesday that he could face prison for lying to federal investigators about his conversations with the Russian ambassador during the presidential transition and his role lobbying for Turkey.
At Mr. Flynn’s sentencing hearing in Federal District Court in Washington, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan called Mr. Flynn’s crimes “a very serious offense” and said he was not hiding his “disgust” at what Mr. Flynn had done.
“All along you were an unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the national security adviser,” the judge told Mr. Flynn. “Arguably that undermines everything that this flag over here stands for. Arguably you sold your country out.”
And not even arguably, he doesn’t get to pretend he just had no idea what the rules are.
During the sentencing hearing, Judge Sullivan questioned Mr. Flynn and his lawyer about their earlier suggestion that F.B.I. agents might have tricked Mr. Flynn by failing to inform him before they interviewed him nearly two years ago that lying to them would constitute a federal crime.
Mr. Flynn told the court that he was not challenging the circumstances of the interview and that he knew lying to the F.B.I. was a crime.
If someone in his job with his job history doesn’t know that…something is very fishy.
Prosecutors dismissed the claims that Mr. Flynn had been tricked as a poor excuse, saying that as a high-ranking White House official and the former director of an intelligence agency, he was well aware that misleading federal authorities was a felony offense.
This is what I’m saying. It’s a bad excuse and it’s absurd.
Comments
5 responses to “A harsh warning”
The Times article suggests that the defense’s attacks on the FBI agents were intended to appeal to Judge Sullivan, who has taken a dim view of prosecutorial misconduct in the past. I think that’s being kind to say the least. The things Flynn raised were not misconduct of any kind, at least not according to actual current law.
I think today’s hearing is the kind of thing that happens when you write your legal submissions to appeal to Fox News and/or the President rather than a judge.
What a cozy warm glow that gives me.
Ken White has an article at The Atlantic making the same point:
I would just add that I understand why Trump is taking that approach. First, he’s a politician, and can’t just stay out of the fray when people are accusing him of crimes, without jeopardizing his support and his re-elect chances. Second, as someone whose main fear is impeachment and removal from office — which is inherently a political process — he can’t afford to neglect that front. (Well, ok, the real reason is that he’s Trump and can’t shut up. But my point is that it’s not necessarily illogical for him.)
But once Flynn made the decision to cooperate, he should have stuck with the standard keep-your-mouth-shut approach, at least until he’s been sentenced. Even Papadopolous had enough sense to wait until he served his sentence to really start yapping.
I hadn’t realized that the whining about entrapment was being done by Flynn’s own lawyers. As the judge made clear, this was an insane tactic.
The commentary on it last week though said it was predictable from his lawyers – you know, along the lines of “Of course his lawyers said that, they’re his lawyers.”