So, Pravda on the Checkout Line is pushing the story that Flynn was a Russian spy. While traditionally, nothing resembling the truth can ever come out of that place, for the past several months, people have had some success applying the principles of Kremlinology to the tabloid. i.e. you don’t ever learn the truth per se, but you learn who’s in, who’s out (as in out of favor, not necessarily out of a job), and who’s going to fall off a roof next week.
Aaaand now we know why Flynn is out of favor:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-flynn-offers-to-testify-in-exchange-for-immunity-1490912959
That said, this sort of thing has been a double-fake-out before, where they ask for immunity and then proceed to testify to nothing as serious as a jaywalking offense, and in the meantime, suck up all the media coverage a la Al Capone’s vault. Also worth noting nobody’s yet taken him up on his offer.
I haven’t seen anything myself that confirms or denies that Flynn is out of favor and asking for immunity in exchange for his testimony. There isn’t even any irrefutable proof that he was asked to resign due to wrongdoing of any kind. It could be entirely true, it might not be, but I wouldn’t even bet my mother’s retirement on this article’s substance or lack of.
😉
If you’re being sarcastic, I admit I missed it entirely, LOL. If not, I’m ok.
“Out of favor” was tongue-in-cheek Kremlinology-speak (and who doesn’t smile when saying “Out like Flynn”?). Asking for immunity… the link’s right there. Feel free to click. I know the Wall Street Journal’s not up there with Zerohedge in your book, but there are some who consider it a fairly reputable source.
Your sarcasm aside, this … “according to officials with knowledge of the matter.” … does not equal accurate. This scenario is being floated around so much with articles from the press that I fail to jump for joy every time I read a story with this so called confirmation included.
If Flynn is actually seeking immunity for testimony, he may be wanting discuss crimes committed that helped start this “russian narrative” mess. There is an article in NPR that reports, as other outlets have, that Flynn would not be charged with wrongdoing because he did nothing wrong.
Sorry, try CNN, maybe they have proof. 😉
Okay:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politics/michael-flynn-immunity-testimony/index.htmlI’m sure that letter’s a Photoshop, though.
Also:
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/31/senate-intelligence-committee-turned-down-flynns-request-for-immunity-nbc.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/note-flynns-story/story?id=46486968Even Fox News and Trump are on board:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/31/trump-backs-flynn-says-ex-adviser-should-seek-immunity-amid-witch-hunt.htmlBut regarding the substance of the news, I’m glad the Senate’s rejected the deal. This seems like an Oliver North deal to me.
How could or would an unnamed Congressional Aide either really know or confirm such details?
If they’re in one of the offices working on either of the two Congressional investigations into the matter. There are three investigations into the Russian matters–the House, which is only nominally active, the Senate, which is only slightly more active, and the FBI, which is active. Based on that, I’d say a Senate Aide for one of the Senators on the relevant committee. The chair of the Senate committee allows the Democrats to be involved with committee business, so it could be either party. If it was the House, it’d have to be a Republican.
If it’s true and legal they should be able to name the aide, no?
Media traditionally do not name their sources for a whole host of reasons. That’s why you always see “unnamed <position> staffer”. Generally you only see named sources in cases where under no circumstances could anyone consider the issue controversial.
The Trump tweet came today, after we started this discussion. I read your link. Thanks for posting it.
The news broke yesterday. As is often the case with breaking news, more always comes out later.
If Flynn did indeed meet with someone it would have been behind closed doors because he hasn’t testified as far as I know. As for the “controversial issue” point, there is nothing to show that this unnamed person was or could even have been part of a closed door meeting. It’s all if, if, and if at this point.
I’ll wait til it’s confirmed by Flynn himself to believe this.
So, the letter from Flynn’s lawyer in the CNN article? Photoshop?