Harvard University legal expert Alan Dershowitz argued that former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn's guilty plea is a "show of weakness" by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, proving that he has no case on collusion.
He also notes that now that he has pled guilty to lying, Flynn is useless to Mueller as a witness.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: The last thing any prosecutor wants to do is to have to indict his primary witness for lying. Because if you indict your witness for lying, it really means he’s not useful as a witness, he has no credibility.
I'm sure the prosecutor was trying to indict him for some scheme or conspiracy that involved other people in the White House, but there is nothing there, and he had to, finally come down and indict him for lying, which makes him a useless witness.
So, this is not a show of strength by the prosecutor. It’s a show of weakness. It’s a show that they really have nothing on anybody above of Flynn and that Flynn made the terrible mistake about lying about something he could have told truth about. Because the two things he lied about were perfectly lawful and perfectly proper for somebody to do during the transition. And so, I think it really reflects a weakness, not a strength in Mueller’s prosecution.
PETE HEGSETH, FOX NEWS: Professor, your perspective is different from almost everything else we're hearing, which is if he cut such a deal, he must have the goods. He must be dishing on the Trump white house. Actually what has happened here is a demonstration that there probably is not much there.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Well I've been saying different things from the rest of the commentators since the beginning, and I think I've been proven right over time.
If they had anything more serious, they would have indicted him for it. But they couldn't indict him under the Logan Act because the Logan Act no longer exists. It is the act that says you can't negotiate with a foreign power if you're not in office. He would be guilty of that if the Logan Act was in effect, but it hasn't been used for over 200 years. And they couldn't get a conspiracy because there is no conspiracy. Collusion is not a crime, making a deal with a foreign power is not a crime. They may be political sins, but they are not crimes.
They had to satisfy themselves, only with lying to the FBI, which is the worst thing a prosecutor would bring against someone he wants to use as a witness.
Now, they still may be able to use him to lead to other witnesses or to get documentary evidence or to give them leads, but he’s no good as witness. Because he’s obviously sold himself to protect his own son, and he's prepared not only to sing, but perhaps even to compose and (to exaggerate) if he thinks that will get him a better deal from the prosecutor. So, if I'm a defense lawyer, I have no trouble destroying his credibility on the witness stand...
[Mueller is] going on the domino theory, one domino at the time. You go for the lowest-hanging fruit. You indict people for lying to the FBI, failing to fill out the proper forms. These are forms of essentially political jaywalking, then you squeeze them and you hope that maybe they’ll give you information that would lead to somebody higher up. But in the end, it’s hope over reality. So, I would not say this is a day for celebrating for the prosecution in the Mueller office."