“General Flynn, do you believe in the peaceful transition of power in the United States of America?”
“The Fifth”
Note that he took the Fifth, exercising his right to avoid self-incrimination, in response to a yes or no question. There are only two possible answers, and a “yes” answer would not incriminate him, so …
While his invocation of the fifth is not legally equivalent to a “no,” and can’t be used against him in a criminal proceeding, invoking the fifth and a “no” answer are exactly identical outside of courtroom formalities. Since he would not be incriminating himself with a “yes” answer, the only possible logical conclusion is that he does not believe in the peaceful transfer of power.
Also, I think his invocation of the Fifth in this instance might be used against him in a civil proceeding. In some civil cases, judges may advise jurors that they can draw an “adverse inference” against a witness who claims the Fifth in this kind of questioning. Of course that isn’t always true. Many times a witness will invoke the Fifth in response to a very broad, open question, and no logical inference can be drawn. He may be avoiding self-incrimination on a wholly different matter, for example, from the matter considered in that trial.
In this case, however, Flynn was asked a yes or no question, and only a no answer was self-incriminating, so … infer away.
