“General Flynn, do you believe in the peaceful transition of power in the United States of America?”
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.