Opinion: Michael Flynn’s immunity request is hypocritical but not an admission of guilt

Irony abounds in former national security advisor Michael Flynn’s request that he be offered immunity from prosecution in exchange for testifying before the House and Senate intelligence committees, which are investigating possible collusion between Russia and the Trump election campaign.

This is the same Michael Flynn who said this last year on “Meet the Press” about aides to Hillary Clinton who had received immunity during the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s private email server:

“I mean, five people around her have had, have been given immunity to include her chief of staff. When you are given immunity, that means you have probably committed a crime.”

Flynn definitely deserves all the scorn he’s receiving for inconsistency. So does President Trump, who tweeted his support for the immunity idea Friday morning.

”Mike Flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch hunt (excuse for big election loss), by media & Dems, of historic proportion!”) The problem is that in October 2016 Trump tweeted: “ATTN: @HillaryClinton - Why did five of your staffers need FBI IMMUNITY?!”

Hypocrisy aside, is there anything wrong with Flynn trying to protect himself from possible legal exposure? Does taking such precautions create a presumption of guilt? I don’t think so — any more than invoking one’s 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination does.

Of course, whether Flynn has a right to ask for immunity is a different question from whether his request should be honored. Also, Flynn’s lawyer is exaggerating the unfairness of environment in which Flynn would testify. The lawyer, Robert Kelner, referred to “a highly politicized, witch hunt environment” and the possibility of an “unfair prosecution.” Trump, of course, also alleged a witch hunt in supporting Flynn’s immunity request.

“Witch hunt” is way over the top; but clearly there is a growing perception that the Trump campaign was too close to Russia, and it has been abetted by the administration’s evasions and misstatements. Even if you don’t believe that such a climate would influence the Justice Department — or a potential special counsel — to launch an otherwise meritless prosecution of Flynn, his lawyer would be remiss not to ponder that possibility.

For example, might a special counsel conclude that Flynn’s conversations with Russia’s ambassador’s during the transition between administrations violated the Logan Act, a 1799 law that prohibits private citizens from interfering with diplomatic relations between the U.S. foreign governments. The law is generally regarded as a dead letter, but perhaps an imaginative prosecutor might take a chance.

Flynn’s request for immunity has inspired some intricate speculation about exactly how his lawyer thinks it would help him. (This analysis by Philip Bump in the Washington Post draws a parallel to the case of Oliver North, the key figure in the Iran-Contra scandal.)

But the overriding reason for the request seems simple: Flynn’s lawyer wants to protect the interests of his client in an unpredictable legal and political environment. That some people — including Flynn and Trump — have interpreted similar actions as evidence of guilt doesn’t make them illegitimate.

The man who led Hillary-hating Republican convention delegates in a chorus of “Lock her up” is an unsympathetic figure. But as a potential target of federal prosecutors — a role his lawyer has assigned to him — he’s entitled to zealous legal representation.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook