Is the implication of the statement that "I will testify about <whatever> in exchange for immunity" a tacit admission of criminal guilt?

I take it that way.

Why else ask for immunity? Flynn should be asked to give a broad outline of what he will tell and be given immunity only if his testimony may lead to evidence against Trump.

Not necessarily, however last September Flynn himself said this “When you are given immunity that means you probably committed a crime” in reference to Hillary Clinton and her email server. Trump himself said……well it doesn’t really matter what Trump says as he contradicts himself so often.

Consider the “crimes” that Martha Stewart (and Bill Clinton) committed – lying to a federal officer. That is the “gotcha” charge that makes you a felon, even though you are being asked about something that may be embarrassing but is not a crime.

Because Flynn would be “coming clean” with the “whole story” (including why his background paper work was not absolutely accurate), he needs immunity to make sure he does not expose himself to prosecution for lying to the FBI or submitting false information on a form.

And, he may be guilty of something else that has not come to light yet.

Yes. It means he could be indicating himself of a crime while testifying to another person’s crime. It doesn’t mean it’s the same crime, but it means he’s guilty of something.

Yes, but…

I would do the same. For me, if I wanted to tell the “whole story”, I wouldn’t want to work through it line by line to make sure I wasn’t implicating myself in someone else’s dirty work that I happen to know about.

Also, think about something seemingly innocuous like a non-disclosure agreement. Or a contract regarding one of his appearances, or a couple hundred dollars of income he hasn’t reported because of the appearance of impropriety. Those aren’t what comes to mind, we want to think he’s going to drop bombs, but he has to be concerned about all the little things if he’s speaking on public record.

Hope for bombs, prepare for carefully worded almost-admissions everyone can wiggle out of.

It is possible but not always true. It is quid pro quo. He has information the state wants and he wants certainty there will be no charges against him.

No. The legal system can fuck you over even if you are innocent. I would ask for immunity even I knew I did nothing wrong.

Mr Flynn and 45 have previously said that requests for immunity mean guilt. hard for them to step back from that view.

In any case, Mr. Flynn’s request has been denied.

Not always. One may have specific knowledge of a crime or criminal action but not necessarily be implicated for anything other than having said knowledge which could be used against them in a negative fashion. If I knew my neighbors had a meth lab in their basement but was afraid to turn them in because of potential retaliation against myself and fear for my personal safety I would not be “guilty” of anything other than fear and a sense of self preservation.

@elbanditoroso No!

@si3tech – I appreciate your reasoning and the strong case you made.

I lean toward @tinyfaery‘s take on this, even though I consider it probable that Flynn does have something to hide. From her profession, she knows what she’s talking about.

There are plenty of things that, even if not illegal (and even if not true), can cause you a lot of unpleasantness if they’re brought up in court. Having to go to court and testify about anything is unpleasantness in itself. In fact, just being there (even as a spectator) is pretty nerve-racking if you’re one of those people who worry that they might be guilty of something they’re pretty sure they never did. The power to handcuff somebody and lead them away to be sorted out later is awesome and frightening.

As a new driver I once ran a red light right in front of a cop, probably out of nervousness that I might do something wrong. As soon as I realized it, I flung up my hands in horror. To his credit, he laughed. I wouldn’t want to make an equivalent mistake in front of a judge.

You never know. I have seen what looks to me like judicial caprice in the courtroom. And one of the smartest people I’ve ever known, a savvy businessman who had to testify fairly often in civil cases, said that once they get you on the stand the lawyers can make you say pretty much anything they want.

^^Totally agree.