With his denial that he engaged in any of the "treason" or other "outrageous acts" he has been accused of, General Flynn is specifically denying any involvement with Russian Collusion. Such a strong statement would clearly suggest that he was neither personally involved or personally aware of any said activities (or he would be guilty by association).
At this point Flynn (like Manafort) is denying that they had anything to do with any Russian Collusion. He is claiming responsibility for what he did in regards to lying to the FBI, and denying everything else. Certainly, Mueller would not allow such a statement to be made, if Flynn really had been involved with said collusion, had turned, and was about to be the star witness against others.
_______
UPDATE:
Reuters, Fox, and others are reporting that Flynn is willing to testify that the phones calls (that he lied to the FBI about) were at the prompting of a "senior Trump official" in Trump's Transition team, and that he had ongoing communications and relayed information back to that official. However, Brian Ross at ABC is suggesting that Flynn is going to testify that he was asked "during the campaign" to reach out to Russians. The former report seems more legitimate than the latter in both the details of the reporting and underlying logic of the facts.
Either way, at best such testimony would only provide fodder for more "false statement" charges against the "Senior Trump official" assuming that that official made denials regarding this... But if all Mueller comes out of this would be a slew of false statement charges, I would bet on the President writing some pardons.
_______
UPDATE II:
This piece by Andrew McCarthy provides some legal guidance.
While initial reporting is portraying Flynn’s guilty plea as a major breakthrough in Mueller’s investigation of potential Trump-campaign collusion with the Russian regime, I suspect the opposite is true.
As I explained in connection with George Papadopoulos (who also pled guilty in Mueller’s investigation for lying to the FBI), when a prosecutor has a cooperator who was an accomplice in a major criminal scheme, the cooperator is made to plead guilty to the scheme. This is critical because it proves the existence of the scheme. In his guilty-plea allocution (the part of a plea proceeding in which the defendant admits what he did that makes him guilty), the accomplice explains the scheme and the actions taken by himself and his co-conspirators to carry it out. This goes a long way toward proving the case against all of the subjects of the investigation. That is not happening in Flynn’s situation. Instead, like Papadopoulos, he is being permitted to plead guilty to a mere process crime.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454269/michael-flynn-plea-no-breakthrough-russia-investigation
_______
Occam's Razor suggests that this plea and the subsequent statements can be taken at their collective meanings. We are generally no closer to collusion than we were before.
