On Michael Flynn, We Need Air Out All the Facts

America needs to get to the bottom of the Michael Flynn scandal. But we can't do that until all the facts are before us.

President Donald Trump's Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, left; Jason Miller, a senior adviser, second from left; Boris Epshteyn, a spokesman for Trump, fourth from left, and Michael Flynn, Trump's former National Security adviser, fifth from left, listen as Trump speaks to members of the media after meeting with families of the victims of a Nov. 28 knife attack at Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, on Thursday, Dec. 8, 2016.

By Rich Lowry Published on February 17, 2017

In an environment where every day has felt like a month and almost every news cycle has something that the media consider a potentially administration-shaking disaster, we finally have something worthy of the perpetually screaming headlines — a national-security adviser getting fired under a haze of suspicion about his dealings with Russia.

This is gobsmacking by any standard. Michael Flynn, a Trump loyalist constantly at the candidate’s side over the past year, couldn’t even last four weeks. His ouster coincides with reports in The New York Times and by CNN about contacts between Trump aides and Russian officials during the campaign that play into the darkest suspicions about the administration.

Although Trump’s critics are already vested in the most dire scenario — Dan Rather has it all pegged as the next Watergate — the spectrum of possibilities here is quite broad, ranging from a major scandal to a complete fizzle.

Flynn may have flatly lied about a crystal-clear conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about sanctions out of his own cognizance of guilt, or he may have inadvertently relayed incomplete information about an ambiguous conversation and watched the situation spin out of control. Which is it?

Let’s get everything related to this affair on the record in a full, reliable manner.

The Times story about communications between Trump advisers and Russians stipulates that it’s unclear that the conversations had anything to do with Trump, a rather large caveat in the splashy report. If it turns out the contacts did relate to Trump, they could be explosive; if they didn’t, they might be much ado. Which is it?

More broadly, the people around Trump may have been complicit in a Russian assault on the integrity of our election process, or malicious anti-Trump bureaucrats are piling unwarranted insinuations atop fragmentary information, or something in between, or all of the above. Which is it?

All of this obviously demands serious investigation on Capitol Hill. Not a pretending-to-investigate-so-we-can-say-we’re-investigating probe, but an honest-to-goodness attempt to get to the bottom of the whole fetid matter.

The public deserves to know the facts, and even if Republicans wanted to look the other way, the trial by leak will continue every day in the press.

It is not to excuse Flynn’s ineptitude or what appears to have been his deception to note the disturbing nature of the campaign against him. It made use of what is supposed to be the very most sensitive and carefully guarded information gathered in our surveillance of foreign officials to destroy his public career.

There is much about his rapid downfall that still doesn’t add up. His alleged legal vulnerability was a potential violation of the Logan Act, which forbids private interference in U.S. foreign policy. The Logan Act is literally never prosecuted, and is seemingly left on the books solely to give op-ed writers and cable-TV talkers an excuse to suggest that people they don’t like might have broken the law.

Let’s get everything related to this affair on the record in a full, reliable manner. Let’s see the transcripts of Flynn’s calls with Kislyak, now that the entire world knows that they exist. Let’s hear from Flynn, and Paul Manafort, and Roger Stone, and anyone else in the Trump orbit who might have been talking to the Russians. Let’s get a detailed accounting of how the Russians went about their hacking, and why we know it was them. While we’re at it, let’s hear from ex-CIA Director John Brennan, who clearly has cultivated a burning hatred of Trump, and do whatever is possible to identify the source of leaks and the motives of the leakers.

Let’s air it all out. It’s unlikely that anyone will agree on all the facts or what they mean, but litigating it publicly beats the shadow game currently being played by anonymous sources. The leaks may make for fascinating reading, but they aren’t how a great republic should conduct its business or pursue the truth.


Rich Lowry can be reached via e-mail: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com

© 2017 by King Features Syndicate

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Paul

    At this point to me it seems like a waste of time and money. Trump didn’t like something so he fired him and moved on, that’s what you do in business. It will be old news in a few weeks

On Pentecost: The Misunderstood Church
Tom Gilson
More from The Stream
Connect with Us