Judge Andrew Napolitano has suggested that Michael Flynn’s (late of the Trump administration and a retired general officer) guilty plea for Special Counselor Robert Mueller could lead to a Constitutional crisis by threatening criminal charges against President Donald trump.  Douglas Schoen has suggested that Flynn’s guilty plea should be cause for worry by the Trump administration.

However.

Flynn faced a multiplicity of charges that, if convicted on them, would have put him in jail for decades.  He pleaded guilty, instead, to a simple charge of lying to the FBI, and he faces months in jail from that (even less if he’s well-behaved in jail).

So: Flynn is a confessed liar (and with that he has badly stained the Army’s uniform that he had previously worn with such distinction).  He has sold his testimony (if not his soul) to the highest bidder.

Based on either of those huge failures alone, much less on the two taken together, how would it be possible for any judge or jury to take anything Flynn might say seriously?  How, even, could charges made that are based on anything Flynn might say from now on not be tossed out of hand?  How, even, could probable cause be shown for any warrants, if the claims are based on anything Flynn might say?

Flynn has less than zero credibility.