A former US attorney doesn’t think the light charge against Flynn necessarily means he’s singing like a bird to Mueller.
When Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to one count of lying to the FBI and agreed to cooperate with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation on Friday, many legal experts thought they knew what that meant.
“We know from public reports that Flynn has a ton of criminal exposure, and yet he’s pleading guilty to a relatively minor crime,” Savannah Law School professor Andy Wright told my colleague Sean Illing. “I’m confident Flynn is singing like a bird to Mueller.” (Eight other law professors made similar arguments to Illing.)
Not so sure: Preet Bharara, the former US attorney for the Southern District of New York who was fired by President Trump earlier this year.
On the latest episode of his podcast, “Stay Tuned With Preet,” Bharara says he isn’t convinced that Flynn has gotten “a sweetheart deal of a lifetime” in exchange for hugely important cooperation.
“I don’t know that I believe that,” Bharara said.
In particular, Bharara disputes the common argument that the relatively light charge against Flynn (one false statements count) clearly shows he must have agreed to provide especially valuable information to Mueller’s investigation. (Flynn’s clearly offering some information, but the question is just how important it will be.)
Bharara refers to his own experience supervising similar high-profile investigations and prosecutions. “When we had evidence against somebody and wanted them to flip, we made them plead guilty to every bad act that they had ever done,” Bharara said. “Especially if we were later gonna be alleging other people had engaged in that activity as well.”
Doing that, Bharara argues, makes a witness like Flynn more credible in court if he has to testify against someone else. “Otherwise, the only thing Read More Here