The impression being given to Americans by the NYT and others is Flynn had no testimony to give on Prince. Nothing on Bannon. No testimony on Kushner or Don Jr. or Sessions or Trump. That impression is inconsistent with *all* the facts we have.
We should be *very* cautious here.
We should be *very* cautious here.
2/ Many federal prosecutors who know few of the background facts of the Trump-Russia probe are being quoted by media as saying that in the normal course of events Flynn being sentenced means he has no testimony to offer. They should add that they don't know the facts of the case.
3/ The idea that Trump's "shadow" NatSec campaign adviser and former NSA Michael Flynn had something to offer on Manafort and Gates but *nobody else in the whole Trump-Russia probe* is so *mind-bogglingly silly* that I admit to some frustration watching smart people implying it.
4/ It's such a shocking statement to say Flynn wasn't needed as a witness at any point in the Trump-Russia probe that anyone saying it should also declare there will be no further indictments in the case, as it's impossible to imagine a future trial in the case not needing Flynn.
5/ My point is that we analysts have to have the courage of our convictions: if you're—say—at the NYT tonight saying Flynn *will never be needed as a Trump-Russia witness*, either declare the investigation over or explain *which future indictment* wouldn't require him to testify.
6/ I'm putting my own 21 months of research on the line by saying I can't think of a single major (future) Trump-Russia indictment that could go to trial and *not* require Flynn testifying. If someone wants to propose a name to contradict that, I'm all ears and ready to respond.
