The Lying Allegation Against Gen. Flynn and Its Perception

The case against General Michael Flynn, a close confidant to former President Donald Trump, is often discussed with a particular emphasis on the charge of lying to the FBI. This article explores the rationale behind why opponents of President Trump, and some supporters, believe that the case was primarily focused on this single charge, despite attempts by prosecutors to secure more serious convictions.

Why the Lying Allegation?

General Flynn pleaded guilty to falsely denying to the FBI that he had discussed sanctions with Russia's ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, on December 29, 2016. This charges the crime of lying under oath. It's a critical point to understand that his plea was for this specific offense, which is a statutory violation. Technically, he pled guilty to 18 U.S. Code § 1001 – False statements.

Strategic Decisions and Plea Bargains

The prosecution often employs plea bargains to secure convictions, especially when confronted with strong evidence of a defendant's guilt. General Flynn's plea agreement was a strategic choice to avoid a potentially more severe and lengthy trial. Plea bargains are common in criminal cases and can be beneficial for both the defendant and the prosecution. A better-funded defendant with good legal representation can negotiate a plea deal that avoids a more serious charge that could lead to harsher penalties.

Critics and Supporter Perspectives

Some of President Trump's opponents assert that the case against General Flynn was solely about lying to the FBI. This perception stems from the fact that the other charges were not pursued. However, it's important to note that not finding additional charges doesn't necessarily mean they didn't exist. The prosecutors may have decided that the evidence for additional charges, such as falsifying records or engaging in unauthorized foreign lobbying, was not strong enough to secure a conviction without an entrapment defense.

The Question of Entrapment and Justice Department Practices

The concept of "entrapping" a suspect, and the ongoing efforts by the Justice Department to drop charges, further complicates the narrative. Some supporters of President Trump argue that the case against Flynn was an entrapment, but this is a mischaracterization. The Justice Department determines charges based on the evidence and the pursuit of justice, not by political considerations. FBI agents may pursue cases where there is a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity, regardless of the political affiliation of the suspect. The timing and nature of the charges are based on the evidence available, not on political motivations.

Conclusion

The case against General Flynn emphasized the crime of lying to the FBI because that was the most significant and proven offense at the time. The decision to drop other potential charges was likely a pragmatic one, given the strength of the evidence for the lying charge and the desire to avoid a prolonged and potentially contentious trial. The focus on lying to the FBI is not about political support or opposition to Trump but about the legal issues at hand.