WHY MICHAEL J. FLYNN SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN IMMUNITY

Mr. Flynn’s lawyer, Robert Kelner, recently issuing a tantalizing public statement as part of an aggressive lobbying campaign to obtain immunity for the former national security advisor: “General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should circumstances permit.”
While Flynn may have a story to tell, his sworn testimony would come at far too high a price if either Congress or the Justice Department were to grant him immunity in return for it. There are numerous reasons for this, and the indications that neither the House or Senate Intelligence Committees are jumping at the opportunity to immunize Flynn and thereby secure his testimony is an extremely positive development. Here’s why.
1. Flynn Is Too High Up In the “Food Chain.”
As a former senior Trump Campaign official and as the National Security Advisor to President Trump (albeit for only 28-days), General Flynn is a very high government official, and an immunity grant to him at this early stage of the investigation would violate one of the cardinal rules of any federal investigation. Absent extraordinary circumstances, immunity should only be granted to a subject or target of an investigation if he or she has credible evidence of criminal conduct by someone higher-up in the in the criminal conspiracy or racketeering organization. Immunity, therefore, is usually only offered to low-level players in order to “flip” them and obtain their sworn testimony against more prominent figures higher up in the criminal organization.
With the possible exception of President Trump and Vice President Pence, Mr. Flynn was at the top of the pyramid, at least during his short tenure in the White House. And there is no indication that VP Pence played any role in the Team Trump/Russian cabal. This leaves President Trump as someone who Flynn could implicate in his “story,” but there is absolutely no reason to give Flynn an “immunity bath” just because we are all curious to hear what he might say about the President. In all likelihood, everything will be disclosed in due time, with or without Flynn’s testimony.
2. Flynn Probably Doesn’t Know Much More Than What Has Been Publicly Disclosed.
Unlike Paul Manafort, whose ties to Russian and pro-Russian oligarchs goes back for more than a decade, General Flynn came fairly late to the “let’s play footsie with the Russians” game as a member of Team Trump.
The major tip-off that Flynn does not really have much more information that would be of interest to Congress or the Justice Department is that his lawyer took the unusual step to publicly announce that Flynn was seeking immunity. Usually, if a defense counsel has some real “smoking gun” information to offer up to government prosecutors in return for a grant of immunity to a client, they set up a closed-door, confidential meeting with the prosecutor, sit down, and go over the “proffered” testimony of the witness in great detail. Either Flynn’s lawyers had already gone down this path and had hit a dead end before issuing their press release, or Flynn did not really have much high value information to share in the first page, so the only available option was to create a media-hype that would stampede one or both of the Congressional committees into giving Flynn immunity in return for the promised “story.”
Flynn’s first major involvement with the far-flung Kremlin propaganda machine came in December 2015 where, less than a year after resigning from the U.S. military, Flynn showed up in Moscow at the 10th Anniversary Gala of Russia Today (RT), an arm of the Russian security apparatus. Flynn sat next to Vladimir Putin at this festive event and, overwhelmed with enthusiasm at being so honored as to be assigned o Putin’s table, jumped up to lead the well-heeled crowd in a rousing standing ovation for this Great Russian Autocrat.
Flynn was paid generously for his services, receiving over $67,000 from RT and three other Russian companies with close ties to the Kremlin. As if this was not enough of a red flag, Flynn apparently did not get clearance for his Moscow trip or these payments from the Pentagon, thus exposing himself to all sorts of possible disciplinary and criminal sanctions.
Then there was the now-famous December 2016 phone calls with the Russian Ambassador, which Flynn discussed the possibility of a Trump Administration lifting or at least easing sanctions against Russia. Flynn then lied to VP Pence about these phone conversations, resulting in the embarrassing situation where Pence was duped into making misleading statements to the press regarding Flynn’s contacts with the Russians. Even though he had been the DIA Director, Flynn either didn’t know or forgot that U.S. intelligence agencies monitor the phone conversations of high-level Russian officials in this country, and that it was likely that his conversations with the Russian Ambassador would be recorded. The transcript of Flynn’s fateful phone calls ended up on the desk of Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, who warned the White House that Flynn could be compromised by the Russians since he was spreading false and misleading stories about his contacts with the Russians. Shortly after the story broke, Flynn was forced to resign.
In all likelihood, before the truth came out, Flynn also lied about his conversations with the Russian Ambassador to the FBI, which is itself a federal crime under Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1001, even though he was not place under oath at the time. If so, this would be a “slam dunk” of a prosecution since all a federal prosecutor would only have to introduce two pieces of evidence in order to get a criminal conviction: (a) the transcript of the phone conversation between the Russian Ambassador and Flynn, and (b) the transcript or notes of the FBI’s interview with Flynn. Case closed. Flynn would then be sentenced to up to five years in prison, although the sentence would probably be on the lighter side if he decided to then tell his full “story” without immunity.
Flynn also has criminal exposure for his retroactive registration as a foreign agent for the Turkish government, while, at the same time, serving as a top advisor to the Trump Presidential campaign. The $64,000 question is why Flynn waited until after he had been terminated as the national security advisor before properly registering and informing Trump and other senior officials: “Oh, and by the way, I am working as an agent for a major foreign power; that’s OK, right?” Flynn also failed to timely disclose that his former consulting firm earned $530,000 in 2016 from a Dutch entity with ties to the Turkish government. What’s his explanation: “I was very busy at the time and just plain forgot.” Not very convincing.
3. History Teaches Us that It is Virtually Impossible to Prosecute Someone After Even a Limited Grant of Immunity

Even if Flynn were to be given limited “use” immunity, as opposed to “transactional immunity,” he could theoretically still be prosecuted under the federal criminal law based upon evidence that is totally independent of the evidence he may provide under oath through his own testimony. However, in practical terms, it would be virtually impossible to prosecute Flynn for any serious criminal offenses he may have already committed once he was granted “use” immunity by either Congress or the Justice Department. History has already proved this point.
On July 20, 1980, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated all three of Oliver I. North’s Iran-contra felony convictions and overturned his conviction for having destroyed classified documents while he served as an aid to the National Security Council under President Ronald Reagan. The major factor leading to this reversal was concern that North’s conviction had been tainted by testimony he had given to Congress on the promise that it would not be used against him.
In the summer of 1987, North, a former Marine Corps Lieutenant colonel who was alleged to have played a key role in getting arms from Iran to be delivered to the right-wing “contras” in Nicaragua, and his boss, John M. Poindexter, the national security advisor, had been given “use” immunity by Congress in return for his sworn testimony. This use immunity agreement had been made by Congress over the objections of independent special prosecutor, Lawrence M. Walsh, and without consultation with the Justice Department.
Similar to the current calls for an immunity agreement with Flynn — based upon the argument that the country and the public urgently needs to immediately know the whole truth about any possible collusion between the Trump Team and the Russians — there was a strong impetus by Democrats during the Reagan Administration to push the Congressional inquiry into President Reagan’s Iran-contra policies as vigorously as possible. Congressional Democrats wanted to get the public testimony of such high-profile witnesses as Oliver North, the assistant to then-National Security Advisor John Poindexter. North usually showed up for public appearances decked out in his spiffy Marine Corp uniform, and never disappointed in given dramatic testimony. The temptation was too much for publicity hungry members of Congress, and the testimony of North and Poindexter was unquestionably the high point of the hearings. Indeed, it was great theater, and many Americans, including myself, remember watching North testify before Congress.
However, the cost for such a spectacle was very high. By immunizing North and Poindexter, the Justice Department’s investigation and later prosecution of them was crippled from the start. The Justice Department invested a tremendous amount of time and money in prosecuting North and Poindexter, only to have those convictions overturned because of the prior immunity grants that they had been given by Congress. The government’s burden of establishing that the evidence used to convict North and Poindexter was completely unrelated to their Congressional testimony was an impossibly high one, and the government was unable to meet it, as the federal appeals court later determined in July 1990.
4. Immunity for Flynn Would Send the Wrong Message
Flynn’s legal predicament is entirely of his own making. Remember his chants of “Lock her up, lock her up” at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland last summer? Remember his clenched jaw and sense of total outrage over the fact that a former Secretary of State had stored confidential data on a less-than-completely-secure server and was still walking around free, and even having the temerity to run for the Presidency? Remember his rants about the five Clinton aides who had been given immunity as part of the FBI investigation, speculating that they must have been involved in criminal conduct if they or their lawyers felt that they needed immunity?
Turnabout is not only fair play, but it provides an important “teaching moment” for the all of us. One of the fundamental ethical principles of our great society is that each person must take responsibility for their own words and their own actions. President Harry S. Truman had his now-famous saying on his desk in the Oval Office: “The buck stops here.” The Trump Administration seems to have gotten a new motto: “If you can pass the buck, do so, and there will be no adverse consequences.”
Flynn is on record as believing that if someone asks for immunity, they must be guilty of something. He has now asked for immunity, so he must believe that he is guilty of something. Whatever that “something” is, a full and fair investigation should be completed by the relevant Congressional committees and the FBI/Justice Department. What Flynn has to say about it right now is largely irrelevant, since has already ventilated his views in numerous lengthy interviews with reporters. Hearing his story once again under oath in a public forum would be interesting, but probably not very enlightening. If he wants to “give up” the President, there will be plenty of time for him to share his story with us after the criminal investigation and possible prosecution has run its course.
The only rational decision for Congress and the Justice Department to make – at least in the short term – is to just say “No.”

THE RELEASE BY BUZZFEED NEWS OF THE “TRUMP RUSSIAN DOSSIER” HIGHLIGHTS THAT THE FBI HAS KNOWN ABOUT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN’S TIES TO RUSSIA SINCE AT LEAST AUGUST 2016, BUT HAS CONDUCTED VIRTUALLY NO INVESTIGATION OF THESE ALLEGATIONS

The publication last Tuesday by BuzzFeed of the 35-page document – referred to as a “Dossier” — prepared by a former British intelligence officer regarding the ties between President-elect Donald J. Trump and the Russian government has triggered a huge political stir in Congress and, of course, in the Office of the President-Elect, but contains little news that has not been widely known within the media, as well as in the law enforcement and intelligence communities.
Specifically, the FBI and U.S. intelligence agencies have had information relating to the direct communications between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government since at least July/August 2016, when it was first alerted that Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, and Carter Page, Trump’s foreign policy advisor, as well as other intermediaries, were receiving information originating with the government that was extremely helpful to the Trump Campaign, and extremely damaging to Hillary Clinton.
As I reported in my law firm’s blog on October 31, 2016 (www.mccallionlaw.com.blog ), the FBI was “applying a double standard when it comes to publicly confirming whether the FBI has active investigations relating to the two major Presidential candidates.” As I pointed out, FBI Director Comey’s cryptic letter to Congress — eleven days before the November 8th election — announcing that the FBI was reviewing some new emails that may or may not be relevant to Hillary Clinton and her use a private email server, was grossly unfair to the Clinton Campaign and the American public, not only because it was inevitably designed to influence the outcome of the election, but because Comey was remaining silent as to the far more explosive investigation it had regarding to possible treason by high-ranking members of the Trump Campaign. Specifically, I sharply criticized Director Comey regarding his refusal to comment on “whether FBI agents had sought to speak with or had interviewed Trump former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, or his deputy, Rick Gates, even though it is widely known throughout the law enforcement and intelligence communities that there is an active FBI investigation of Manafort, Gates and others for money laundering and other illegal activities ever since documents surfaced in Kiev, Ukraine in August 2016 showing that Manafort had received over $12 million in cash from the pro-Russian former President of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovich.”
I was able to reliably report on these investigations since I had personally received reliable information regarding the money laundering operations by Manafort, Gates and others through various companies and bank accounts located in New York and elsewhere, and had brought a civil racketeering lawsuit on behalf of various clients against Manafort, Gates and a Ukrainian oligarch – Dimitri Firtash – who was supplying much of the illegal money that was then “laundered” through these U.S.- based accounts. We also named as a defendant Manafort’s former boss – Victor Yanukovich – – the pro-Russian former President of Ukraine, who was run out of Kiev during the so called “Maiden Revolution” in Ukraine in February/March 2014, and is now residing in Moscow under the protection of Vladimir Putin.
During our investigation, we also collected valuable information regarding the ties between Manafort/Gates and Russian oligarchs and organized crime leaders based in Moscow. All of this information was turned over to the FBI, and Firtash was later indicted by the U.S. Dept. of Justice on similar money laundering and corruption allegations.
The former MI-6 British intelligence officer also provided the FBI with specific information regarding the connections between Manafort/Gates and Russian operatives. For example, he reported in his “Dossier” that he learned “in late July 2016, Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald TRUMP, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership [and that] this was managed on the TRUMP side by the republican candidate’s campaign manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries.”
In fact, the former MI-6 agent believed this and other information urgently needed to get into the hands of the U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies, that – without even the permission of his private clients who had commissioned his investigation – he turned the fruits of his investigation over to U.S. law enforcement and others. He specifically alerted the FBI not only to the possibly treasonous activities by Manafort and Gates themselves, but also – as I had done – the various “ethnic Russian” operatives both within and close to the Trump Campaign.
Yet the FBI did nothing, and kept the entire matter under wraps while, at the same time, the agency leaked like a sieve as to Hillary Clinton’s emails and the “dangers” that some of her emails might have been hacked by Russian operatives.
I also reported in my October 31, 2016 blog that the FBI investigation also covered the money laundering activities of the Trump Organization with regard to the huge influx of cash from that Company from Russian and Eastern European sources, including money provided by known international criminals and organized crime racketeers. For example, the Trump Soho project in lower Manhattan was largely financed by illegally-obtained cash from Russia and Eastern European sources, including money provided by known international financial criminals and organized crime racketeers. The Trump Soho project in lower Manhattan was largely financed by illegally-obtained cash from Russia and several former Soviet Republics, and Trump specifically marketed his Sunny Isles, Florida apartment units in Moscow, St. Petersburg and other venues designed to attract Russian organized crime money, Such as the French Riviera. So much tainted Russian money poured into Trump’s Sunny Isles project that the entire area came to be referred to as “Little Moscow,” complete with Russian shops, restaurants and even directional signs.
As I have previously reported, foreign condo owners in Trump’s Sunny Isles project include Peter Kiritchenko, a Ukrainian businessman arrested on fraud charges in San Francisco in 1999, who, with his partner — former Ukraine Prime Minister Pavlo Lazarenko, laundered hundreds of millions of dollars through the U.S. and elsewhere. Kiritchenko avoided jail time in the U.S. by agreeing to testify against Lazarenko, who was convicted of money laundering and spent 13 years as a client of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons.
Other proud owners of Trump condos at Sunny Isle include Anatoly Golubchik and Michael Sall, members of a Russian-American organized crime group who ran an illegal high-stakes sports betting ring catering almost exclusively to wealthy oligarchs from the former Soviet Union. The list goes on and on.
Based on the fact that Trump’s buildings in New York and Florida were filled with Russian/Ukrainian oligarchs and their families, the Trump Organization (and therefore the Trump Campaign) were in a unique position to collect detailed ongoing information regarding these Russian/Ukrainian expatriates, which was a very valuable bargaining chip with Putin and the Russian intelligence organizations, since Putin has always been paranoid about the ability or likelihood of various Russian oligarchs to undermine his iron grip on all things Russian, both domestically and internationally. So the Dossier (at page 11) has the ring of truth to it to the extent it further reports that a “Source close to TRUMP campaign …confirms regular exchange with Kremlin has existed for at least 8 years, including intelligence fed back to Russia on oligarchs’ activities in the US.”
It was not until the President-Elect strongly denied being briefed about the Dossier at his Thursday news conference – calling it “fake news” – that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and others felt compelled to correct the record by confirming that Trump had, in fact, been briefed on the Dossier, and that FBI Director Comey had specifically taken Trump aside during the recent intelligence briefing to advise him that this information was “out there.” In fact, it has now been disclosed that the Dossier had been widely circulated before the BuzzFeed publication and that it was the height of irresponsibility for the President-Elect to accuse the intelligence community for the “leak” of such a widely available document.
The former MI6 agent has disappeared “off the grid” and is unavailable for comment. Definitely a wise move. The stakes here are very high, and the Kremlin kleptocracy has shown no compunction about terminating with extreme prejudice even those on foreign soil whom they deem pose a threat to them. One of my sources regarding Trump’s Sunny Isles’ holdings recently died after falling (or being pushed) off an apartment balcony of a Sunny Isles apartment. Was his death related to our continued investigation of the ties between the Trump Organization and Russian/Ukrainian oligarchs and organized crime operatives with apartments in Sunny Isles, or was his death a coincidence and unrelated to this investigation? Strangely, his computer and phone went missing, so it is difficult – if not impossible – to fully investigate his contacts in the final days and hours before his fateful plunge. Very unsettling.
In any event, President Elect Trump’s baseless attacks on the press and intelligence communities should not detract from the most important “take away” from the release of the Dossier, and its importance has virtually nothing to do with alleged sex tapes from a Moscow hotel, or whether Trump is a “germaphobe” or not. Those are all sideshows and distractions from the real issue of paramount national importance: Did high-ranking members of the Trump Campaign, including several of those following him to the White House, commit high crimes and misdemeanors – basically treason – against the United States and, if so, what did the President Elect know about it and when did he know it. Question 2: Why did FBI Director fail to disclose its investigation of the Trump Organization’s Russian ties at the same time that he was making public statements about the Clinton email investigation. In other words, why was Director Comey focusing the public’s attention on the tail of the dog (the email investigation), without disclosing the much more important investigation of the dog itself.
The American people have a right to know. NOW!

THE FBI CONFIRM THAT IT ALREADY HAS AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION OF TRUMP AND HIS RUSSIAN CONNECTIONS

FBI Director James Comey has been applying a double standard when it comes to publicly confirming whether the FBI has active investigations relating to the two major Presidential candidates. He recently sent an intentionally cryptic letter to Congress announcing that the FBI was reviewing some new email that had not yet been reviewed, but which may or may not be relevant to Hillary Clinton and her use of a private email server. These new emails may turn out to be something significant to federal law enforcement, or it may turn out to be nothing. Director Comey doesn’t know at this point, and he clearly indicated that it is unlikely that the significance (or not) of these new emails will be clarified prior to election day. The Trump Campaign predictably pounced on Comey’s letter and interpreted it as a message from the FBI that it would be reopening its investigation of Secretary Clinton and certain of her staff members for misuse of classified documents.
On the other hand, Director Comey has absolutely refused to confirm the FBI’s ongoing investigation of Trump and some of his top aides for various unlawful activities, including having actively communicated and colluded with Russian and pro-Russian operatives to illegally influence this year’s Presidential election. Director Comey has even declined to say whether FBI agents had sought to speak with or had interviewed Trump former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, or his deputy, Rick Gates, even though it is widely known throughout the law enforcement and intelligence communities that there is an active FBI investigation of Manafort, Gates and others for money laundering and other illegal activities ever since documents surfaced in Kiev, Ukraine in August 2016 showing that Manafort had received over $12 million in cash from the pro-Russian former President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovich.
Although not yet specifically asked, it can also be assumed that Director Comey would “no comment” if asked about the active FBI investigation into the money laundering activities of the Trump Organization with regard to the huge influx of cash into that Company from Russian and Eastern European sources, including money provided by known international financial criminals and organized crime racketeers. The Trump Soho project in lower Manhattan was largely financed by illegally-obtained cash from Russia and several former Soviet Republics, and Trump specifically marketed his Sunny Isles, Florida apartment units in Moscow, St. Petersburg and other venues designed to attract Russian organized crime money, such as the French Riviera. So much tainted Russian money poured into Trump’s Sunny Isles project that the entire area is now referred to a “Little Moscow,” complete with Russian shops, restaurants, and even directional signs.

Here are the facts that should be disclosed by the FBI in the interests of fairness: There has been an active FBI investigation of the Trump Campaign and several of its senior officials since at least mid-June 2016, when it became publicly known that the DNC computers were hacked by suspected Russian operatives. This FBI investigation further intensified when Paul Manafort was forced to resign at Trump’s campaign manager on August 19, 2016, after it was disclosed that he had received at least $12.7 million in cash from the former pro-Russian President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovich, who was forced out of office in February 2014 and fled to Moscow, where he is still under the protection of President Vladimir Putin.
Less widely publicized – but well known to Manafort and the FBI at the time of Manafort’s resignation — was the fact that Manafort, Rick Gates (the Deputy Chair of the Trump Campaign) and Brad Zackson , a former manager in the Trump Organization, had been using various U.S. and offshore bank accounts to launder money for a pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarch by the name of Dimitri Firtash. Mr. Firtash was ultimately indicted by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago), although efforts to extradite Firtash from Vienna, Austria proved to be unsuccessful.
I am very familiar with these investigations since much of the evidence relating to these money laundering activities was obtained by my law firm as part of a civil RICO investigation, and then provided to the FBI. Over the past several months, at least two FBI agents have been assigned to work in Kiev, Ukraine and are coordinating with a Ukrainian anti-corruption task force in their further investigation of, among other things, Manafort, Gates and others affiliated with the Trump Campaign.
Normally, I would refrain from commenting on an ongoing investigation by the FBI that I was aware of, since the public disclosure of such an investigation could lead the target or targets of that investigation to take steps to obscure the trail of suspicious banking transfers, or to move their money to a more secure location beyond the reach of U.S. law enforcement. However, in these cases, the targets of the investigations, including Manafort, Gates, Epshtyn and Trump himself are well aware that they are the subject of ongoing FBI investigations, so public disclosure should not impair those investigations. Moreover, the American public is entitled to know as much about the FBI ongoing investigations into Trump and his chief advisors before they go to the polls, even though Director Comey has already damaged the electoral process by only disclosing the details regarding the FBI investigation of one of the Presidential candidates, while refusing to even acknowledge that there are far more serious investigations of the Trump Campaign and its various operatives.