We begin today’s roundup with the bombshell story that former Trump national security advisor Mike Flynn is reportedly asking for immunity in exchange for his testimony. Here’s Matt Ford’s take at The Atlantic:
A cryptic statement by Robert Kelner, Flynn’s attorney, also provided more questions than answers. “General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should the circumstances permit,” Kelner said. “Out of respect for the Committees, we will not comment right now on the details of discussions between counsel for General Flynn and the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, other than to confirm that those discussions have taken place.” [...]
But immunity deals can carry their own whiff of misconduct, which can be seized upon by opportunistic political opponents, as Flynn himself told NBC’s Meet the Press last September when discussing the Clinton campaign’s legal woes. “When you are given immunity, that means you have probably committed a crime,” he insisted.
Peter Weber at The Week looks at what this means for President Trump:
Flynn does appear to be vulnerable to prosecution on fronts other than Russian election meddling, as T. R. Ramachandran argues in a curated series of tweets. But Harvard national security expert Juliette Kayyem — who created a stir last week when she suggested Flynn was about to start cooperating with the FBI — says it really isn't clear what Flynn is willing to proffer..."The idea that this goes directly to the Oval Office, we're not there yet — these cases take a long time," Kayyem said. "But certainly, this is basically horrible news for the White House at this stage."
Elliot Hannon at Slate:
Flynn, like just about everyone on Team Trump, has a long, strange affinity for all things Russia. During the transition, Flynn surreptitiously reassured Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak that the Trump administration would soon reverse Obama-imposed sanctions enacted as retaliation for Russian election meddling. Was there more contact? More deals and assurances? Possibly. Flynn’s retroactive registration as a foreign agent with the DOJ for his paid work with Turkey and the fact he was paid tens of thousands of dollars in speaking fees by several Russian companies just before joining the Trump campaign certainly indicates that the Flynn's role in the Russian inquiry is far from over. But does he have the goods, explicitly linking the White House and Trump to the Russians in some form?
It's important to remember that Flynn has, on the face of it, already committed a crime—and may have committed others that don't necessarily incriminate the Trump campaign. Days after the inauguration, Flynn lied to the FBI about the nature of his contact with the Russian ambassador, denying that they had discussed the sanctions. Lying to the FBI is a felony offense. [….]
Who knows what federal forms Flynn may have fudged. That would be embarrassing to the administration, but perhaps not fatal. The fact that investigators have so far refused to offer immunity in return for Flynn’s testimony appears to mean either they don’t think he has valuable enough information on Trump’s Russia ties or that they’ve already got him dead to rights. Or both. But it’s also still early days and the myriad of investigations may not yet know exactly where Flynn fits in the larger puzzle of Trump’s connections to Russia. This could simply be Flynn’s opening legal gambit, knowing where things are likely headed later.
Turning to North Carolina’s new bathroom law, The New York Times calls it a “bait-and-switch”:
Facing a deadline to do away with a law that turned North Carolina into a national pariah by denying the right of transgender people to use public restrooms of their choice, state lawmakers rashly settled on a terrible compromise.
On Thursday, they repealed the law in name but not in substance, hoping to assuage organizations and employers that have boycotted the state to protest its discriminatory law. The National Collegiate Athletic Association had given state politicians until Thursday to get rid of the law before it would resume holding championship games in the state.
All those who have taken a principled stance against the law, known as H.B. 2, should stand firm. The law’s revision would deprive North Carolinians of protection from discrimination for years, and retains the odious notion that transgender people are inherently dangerous.
Steven Petrow, writing at The Washington Post:
You can vote to “repeal” H.B. 2 all the way to kingdom come, but it makes no difference if the discriminatory provisions remain essentially the same, which is the case. As Democratic state Rep. Susan Fisher said during the debate, “This is an accountability moment for all of us. We don’t compromise on civil rights.” Well, yes we did.
Here’s a piece by Michael Bloomberg on climate change:
President Trump’s unfortunate and misguided rollback of environmental protections has led to a depressing and widespread belief that the United States can no longer meet its commitment under the Paris climate change agreement. But here’s the good news: It’s wrong.
No matter what roadblocks the White House and Congress throw up, the United States can — and I’m confident, will — meet the commitment it made in Paris in 2015 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the planet. Let me explain why, and why correcting the false perception is so important.
Those who believe that the Trump administration will end American leadership on climate change are making the same mistake as those who believe that it will put coal miners back to work: overestimating Washington’s ability to influence energy markets, and underestimating the role that cities, states, businesses and consumers are playing in driving down emissions on their own.
Turning now to the civil war in the GOP, Michael Gerson summarizes the GOP’s state:
So a party at the peak of its political fortunes is utterly paralyzed. A caucus in control of everything is itself uncontrollable.
Heading into last year’s election, Republicans knew that this problem — the tea party predicament, the Freedom Caucus conundrum, the Boehner bog — had to be dealt with. The GOP needed a large and capable leader who could either unite the whole party (at least temporarily) with a bold, unifying conservative vision, or peel off some centrist Democratic support with innovative policy. They needed an above-average president.
What they got is unimaginably distant from any of these goals. They got a leader who is empty — devoid of even moderately detailed preferences and incapable of using policy details in the course of political persuasion.
And, on a final note, Eugene Robinson also has a piece up on the GOP chaos:
Will anyone be left standing when the Republican circular firing squad runs out of ammunition? Or will everybody just reload and keep blasting away, leaving Democrats to clean up the bloody mess?
The political moment we’re living through is truly remarkable, but not in a good way. Republicans control the White House and both chambers of Congress, so we’re basically in their hands. But they have nothing approaching consensus on what they should be doing — and they have failed to show basic competence at doing much of anything. [...]
It’s probably going to take Democratic votes to keep the government funded past April 28 and avoid a shutdown. Trump’s only path forward on health care, a problem he now owns, may indeed be working with the Democrats. When I saw her at the Capitol this week, Pelosi was in a surprisingly good mood.