Thread by @SethAbramson

The question every lawyer who goes on TV in the next day should be ready to answer is this one: if Michael Flynn gave extraordinary cooperation to Mueller, which is what Mueller has said in court filings...

...pray tell, which indictment that we've already seen did he help with?

It's a trick question, as the answer is: none of them. Moreover, that Flynn finished his cooperation *months* ago, but that we've seen no indictment result from it yet, suggests...

...the target Flynn helped with is a far bigger target than he is (which would make sense anyway).

Mind you, we *always* knew Flynn's cooperation only made sense if he was helping with a bigger target; many analysts just "forgot" that fact, as well as forgetting to explain which indictment Flynn *was* helping with. But the timeline suggests a *long*—and ongoing—investigation.

2 more points:

1) Mueller makes clear that he *specifically* would be fine with Flynn being sentenced now despite him being slated to testify at a July trial, so there's no fuzz on that issue.
2) While Flynn assisted in the Rafiekian case, that *couldn't* be what got him a deal.

Flynn's lawyer publicly shopped a cooperation deal very early on, saying Flynn "had a story to tell." No one's ever said/thought that a rando Flynn business partner infinitely less important to the feds than Flynn was the "story" Trump-Russia investigators would be interested in.

The Rafiekian case aside, Flynn's attorneys told the judge today that "there may be additional cooperation for the defendant to provide pursuant to the plea agreement in this matter." That would seem to refer to *testimony*—given that Mueller says he has all the *info* he needs.