Ok... i'll answer. People lie when they got something to hide. There's no other reason.

Flynn lies to FBI ---> Donald Trump ask Comey for his loyalty ----> Trump fires Comey ----> Flynn Resigns ----> Flynn caught lying, gets a guilty plea ----> Trump tweeted saying that he knew Flynn lied to FBI ---> Trump personal lawyer says he wrote that tweet..

ROFLMFAO

'To hide something' is too simplistic and vague. Hide what exactly?  This is why I complain that facts get conflated with speculation on this site too often.

Well... of course, we can only speculate. So, all we can say is that there is something serious enough to lie to the FBI.

Now what it is exactly? Who knows? But it can't be good.

I can't say for certain why Flynn lied, but there are a few guesses are to why he might have.

One has to do with the possibility that he violated the Logan Act, something that in theory prohibits unauthorized private citizens from negotiating with countries that have a dispute with the U.S., but there are a lot of uncertainties to that. The Logan Act is actually a really OLD law, and I don't believe it's ever successfully convicted anyone, in part because this kind of thing doesn't happen very often. It's also rather vague, from a legal perspective, as it was written hundreds of years ago and hasn't gotten much of an update since. Because of that, it's uncertain whether Trump- who at the time wouldn't have actually been President, as it doesn't 'kick in' until his inauguration- would have even had the ability to authorize Flynn in the first place back in December.

A somewhat more likely reason could have had to do with public perception, and what was discussed. The flip side to the whole 'Russians helped flip the election in Trump's favor' thing was a concern that, once Trump took office, he would seek to lessen or even completely lift the various sanctions placed on them. Trump, it should be noted, has obviously opposed imposing sanctions on Russia in the first place, and delayed implementing the newest set of them for as long as he could manage before finally having to sign them in. The bill that implemented these sanctions even went to the added step of limiting Trump's executive authority over them, meaning if Trump wants to change the extent of sanctions on Russia at some point in the future, he needs Congress' approval to do so. This is a matter that is ironically bipartisan, as the bill had broad support from the Republicans as well as Democrats.

So when the question arose of whether Flynn discussed sanctions with Kislyak, saying 'no' could have been meant to try and assuage the concerns of both the public and the Republicans that Trump had any plans to loosen them. (Which has obviously backfired.) Admitting that they went to the Russians to reassure them when the Obama administration added new sanctions would have also served to lend the appearance that Trump was undermining what was, at the time, still the active administration before he had even taken office.

What is there to speculate? Nem summarizes it perfectly - whatever the hell he's hiding isn't gonna be pretty. It's common sense at this point. No more running to blaming Obama or the liberal media. Some shady people have done shady things, and this looks like Watergate 2.0 . Target the smaller fish until you're able to take out the shark - expect all of this to snowball sooner or later.

That's probably overblowing it. I'll wait to find out why he lied. Like Zanten said, it could have been a public perception issue.

Seems like wishful thinking on the part of yourself, CNN and other MSM sites that this will end Trump's presidency.

I appreciate that you're holding out for more detail before making a decision. I'd point out to you though that during many of these kinds of investigations, they redact certain details that they know, because revealing it might impede the case down the road. I'm sure that's common knowledge, but I think it's important in this case. There's a common argument that, "If they knew about Russia collusion, where's the proof?" But what that argument ignores is the sheer amount of time and manpower enlisted by organizations like the FBI to conduct thorough investigations. I'm not saying they're saints or that they don't waste time, but there is a lot that they hide in order to get to the bottom of criminal activity like this. 

And it's not necessarily Flynn's charges, or why he lied that should be the focus. Rather, his admission of guilt is what lends credence to the idea that Mueller has information that isn't public knowledge. If it were as simple as lying about the events mentioned in the filings, that would be something you could possibly withstand in court. But Mueller had other worse charges that he gave up in exchange for information Flynn could provide on other criminal activities. 

That's the most important part. You don't enter a guilty plea because you lied a couple of times about the Russian contacts we've heard so far. You enter 'not guilty' and defend yourself in court, because they can be explained away if you try hard enough. The fact that he and Papadopoulos didn't do that suggests Mueller has far more information than we know. 

Further proof of that is when Mueller frequently requests email correspondences from different members of the Trump White House. Mueller already has the emails of consequence, but if the WH hands over "all" their emails and conveniently "lose" certain ones, it gives Mueller opportunities to lay new charges. 

Keep an open mind but also remember how the process works! :)

The question is what else Flynn has offered apart from his plea deal.

Wow, sneaking in another diss at the end  - nice.

As an American I'm interested in the truth. Since day 1 I said I'd support Trump if he proved to be a decent president. Guess what? He isn't.

This case will either sizzle out or explode very quickly. Similar to what you are doing, I'm gonna wait for all the information to release. However, I still find it likely that it's not gonna be pretty.

Hillary had her field day with the media for what she did, and now it's Trump's turn I suppose.