Abbreviated pundit roundup: Flynn's quest for immunity, Trump's chaotic presidency and more

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.