Flynn needs to come clean before he can get immunity

“Lock her up, lock her up!”
—Retired Gen. Michael Flynn in a speech at the 2016 Republican National Convention, referencing the FBI’s investigation into Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s email server during her tenure as secretary of State.

In February, after Michael Flynn resigned as national security adviser because of reports that he lied about discussions he had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak shortly after President Obama levied sanctions on Russia, Flynn was hailed as an “honorable man” by President Trump and most of his surrogates on the daily news shows.

Now it’s looking like Flynn has no honor.

After six weeks of hearing his name called out for possible investigation and indictment, Flynn, through counsel, now indicates a willingness to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee and the FBI in exchange for immunity from prosecution.

The irony, folks, is indeed rich.

{mosads}Last September, not long after becoming a Trump campaign rock star for his “Lock her up!” cheerleading at the Republican convention, Flynn told NBC’s Chuck Todd that “when you are given immunity, that means you probably committed a crime.”

Indeed, Gen. Flynn, indeed! But Flynn’s predicament reminds me of a line from the late Bobby Womack’s classic “If You Think You’re Lonely Now”: “[W]hen the skeletons come out of your closet, and chase you all around the room.”

Now, six months later, Flynn is having to run from his own words. To his chagrin, they apply directly to his possible collusion with the Russian government during the campaign.

As to the procedure of possible immunity, as a lawyer who has sat through countless proffers with the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration while representing various clients, I am not sure that assurances of no prosecution are warranted on the front end for Flynn.

You see, most regular folks facing possible federal indictment have to sit down and come clean first, and federal prosecutors decide after hearing what they have to say whether to grant immunity or to provide a memorandum highlighting their substantial assistance if they are later named criminal defendants.

In my estimation, such should be the modus operandi in Russia-gate for any and all potential witnesses and defendants to assure transparency.

Flynn does not deserve a front-end break because, having read his lawyer Robert Kelner’s letter several times now, it is clear that he does not understand that the feds do not need him to build whatever case or cases are being considered.

The pertinent part of his lawyer’s letter is in the very first sentence: “General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should the circumstances permit.”

When lawyers use “should” in instances like these, such is tantamount to wishful thinking, not a substantial certainty that such an opportunity will arise.

Kelner goes on to say:

[Flynn] is now the target of unsubstantiated public demands by Members of Congress and other political critics that he be criminally investigated. No reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicized, witch hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution.

Counsel Kelner, most “reasonable” persons who are under investigation gain no such front-end assurances.

Chuck Hobbs is a lawyer and award-winning writer who is a regular contributor to The Hill. Hobbs has been featured in The New York Times and theGrio in addition to numerous regional newspapers. Follow him on Twitter @RealChuckHobbs.

The views of contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.