The Flynn charges are likely to box in Trump

The news that Michael Flynn pleaded guilty Friday to Russia-related offenses is striking. The lies he told the FBI were about asking the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, for political favors during the presidential transition, some of which the ambassador granted. The lies happened when Mr. Flynn was national security adviser and Donald Trump was president. The fact that Mr. Flynn lied about contacts with Russia seems particularly suspicious.

The content of the Flynn-Kislyak conversations deepens the narrative that special counsel Robert Mueller has been building: Earlier guiltypleas revealed Russian efforts to connect with the Trump campaign; this one reveals official contacts between the Trump team and Russia after the election — contact significant enough for Mr. Flynn to lie to the FBI about it.

Thefact that the lies concern Russia makes it politically harder for Mr. Trump to fire Mr. Mueller or to pardon Mr. Flynn than if the charge had involved Mr. Flynn’s failure to reporthis lobbying for Turkey.

Prosecutors could have chosen any criminal act on Mr. Flynn’s part for his initial plea. In negotiations with someone who has been caught committing felonies, federal prosecutors have most of the power. The point of the guilty plea is to put Mr. Flynn on the hook and require him to continue to cooperate going forward. Now that he’s admitting to a crime, they can seek a harsher penalty if he doesn’t cooperate and a lesser one if he does. What’s more, if the prosecutors want to add more charges later, they can.

All this means that the Mueller team chose the specific charge. And that it fits into the narrative his team is creating. And because Mr. Trump has let it be known that he is considering firing the special counsel, Mr. Mueller must do more than simply prosecute if he doesn’t want to be fired. He must shape public perception of his investigation to reduce the probability so that his firing would itself be seen as an act of obstruction of justice by the president. Mr. Flynn’s two lies to the FBI listed in the single criminal count are revelatory. They both were told Jan. 24, four days after Mr. Trump was inaugurated and Mr. Flynn took office as national security adviser. And they both involve conversations with the Russian ambassador that took place in late December,during the transition.

On Dec. 29, 2016, we now know, Mr. Flynn asked Mr. Kislyak to “refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions” that the United States had imposed on Russia that day. What’s more, Mr. Kislyak agreed, telling Mr. Flynn that “Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions at his request.”

Mr. Flynn lied to the FBI about both aspects of this conversation: his request and Mr. Kislyak’s response.

It is striking that Mr. Flynn was directly carrying out foreign policy before the Trump team took office. It’s even more striking that he was at least implicitly working against the policy of the sitting president, Barack Obama. The same day sanctions were being imposed, Mr. Flynn was asking Russia not to respond aggressively. The clear implication is that Mr. Flynn either told Mr. Kislyak or hinted that the Trump administration would try to reverse those sanctions.

The other lie occurred a few days earlier, on Dec. 22. Mr. Flynn asked Mr. Kislyak to delay or block a pending U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israel’s building of settlements in Palestinian territory.

Notably, the Obama administration had decided not to veto the resolution. Mr. Kislyak responded that Russia would not vote against the resolution. Again, Mr. Flynn lied about both his request and Mr. Kislyak’s answer.

The really interesting issue here is that Mr. Flynn bothered to lie at all about these contacts with Mr. Kislyak. And the $64,000 question is, why did he lie? It seems unlikely that he was worried about the Logan Act, which bars private citizens from engaging in international diplomacy.

One possibility is that Mr. Flynn lied because he was trying to hide a longer course of contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia. An earlier guilty plea elicited by the Mueller team showed that Russia was trying to make contact with the campaign. The more contacts Mr. Mueller can show, the closer he is to a narrative that shows conspiratorial cooperation between Russia and Mr. Trump.

Mr. Flynn’s specific plea makes it harder for Mr. Trump to fire Mr. Mueller or pardon Mr. Flynn. The more Russia information emerges, the more any act of firing or pardon would look like obstruction of justice by the president.

For now, Mr. Mueller’s investigation seems very likely to continue.