He is one of a dwindling number of flag officers who put’s “Duty, Honor, and Country before his personal ambitions.
When the unhinged attack dogs from the left began making unsubstantiated allegations his position was rather than slow down the Trump Administration’s quick start to begin turning the country around he would not hamper their efforts.
Retired General Flynn is under no obligation to help the feds. make their case.
Now it’s up to them to “Put or Shut up.”
Our Founding Father’s knew exactly what they were doing when they penned The Fifth Amendment.
THIS JUST IN: Comey wants to speak with former F.B. I. Director Comey before he testifies. (Source)
One would think, Special Prosecutor Mueller would want to avoid the appearance of impropriety of Bill Clinton’s meeting with then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, (Source) at Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix.
If the reader believes anything said by Lynch, remember, she is also selling the Brooklyn Bridge, piece by piece COD cashier’s checks only.
The National Review
David French May 22,
May 22, 2017
It merely proves that he has competent attorneys and that he’s taking their advice.
After a short, merciful weekend break from Trump–Russia scoops, the Associated Press reported this morning that Michael Flynn will decline a subpoena from the Senate Intelligence Committee, invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Already, Twitter is exploding with assertions that this “probably” means Flynn is guilty.
Wouldn’t an innocent patriot in Flynn’s shoes want to tell the world his side of the story?
Wouldn’t he want to clear his name?
It’s tempting to think that only a man with something to hide refuses to testify, especially on a matter of national importance.
But in this case, it would be unfair to Flynn.
We don’t have any idea whether Flynn has violated criminal laws, and his decision to plead the fifth does not in any way indicate that he’s guilty of a crime.
Instead, he’s behaving exactly as a prudent citizen embroiled in a federal investigation should behave. There is a reason beyond our nation’s respect for constitutional rights why a defendant’s decision to assert the Fifth Amendment is inadmissible in criminal trials: It simply isn’t a reliable indicator of guilt. To understand
There is a reason beyond our nation’s respect for constitutional rights why a defendant’s decision to assert the Fifth Amendment is inadmissible in criminal trials: It simply isn’t a reliable indicator of guilt. To understand
To understand why a core truth must be understood.
Federal investigations are extremely perilous even for those targets innocent of the crimes being investigated.
In fact, it’s common for investigators to indict or convict the targets of their investigations for misconduct during the investigation, rather than for the alleged crimes that sparked their inquiries, to begin with.
Just ask Martha Stewart. In 2004, a jury found her guilty of obstructing an investigation into her sale of stock in a company called ImClone Systems, Inc.
The judge dismissed the government’s securities-fraud charge before Stewart’s trial, but got her on her testimony for which she was sentenced to jail.
Similarly, in 2007 prosecutors convicted Scooter Libby of lying to the FBI and obstructing an investigation into the leak of CIA employee Valerie Plame’s identity to journalist Robert Novak.
In the so-called “Plame Affair,” no one was ever convicted of a crime for the leak itself.
See the entire article below.